HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/01/25 Post-Meeting Agenda Package
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
**POST AGENDA**
Date:January 25, 2022, 5:00 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
View the Meeting Live in English & Spanish: chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings
AT&T U-verse ch. 99 (San Diego County) & Cox ch. 24 (Chula Vista) in English only
Welcome to your City Council Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comments may be submitted to the City Council in the following ways:
In-Person. The community is welcome to make public comments at this City Council meeting, but
because of the surge in COVID cases, public seating and capacity will be limited. Comments via
eComment (instructions below) are encouraged.
•
Submit an eComment: Visit www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings, locate the meeting and click the
comment bubble icon. Select the item and click "Leave Comment." eComments can be submitted
until the conclusion of public comments for the item and are viewable online upon submittal. If you
have difficulty submitting eComments, email comments to: cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov
•
HOW TO WATCH: Live stream is available at www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings. To switch the video to
Spanish, please click on "ES" in the bottom right hand corner. Meetings are available anytime on the City's
website (English and Spanish).
ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities or special needs are invited to request modifications or
accommodations to access and/or participate in a City meeting by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at
cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or (619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired
by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.
SPEAKER TIME LIMITS: The time allotted for speakers may be adjusted by the Mayor.
- Five minutes* for specific items listed on the agenda
- Three minutes* for items NOT on the agenda (called to speak during Public Comments)
- A group of individuals may select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf on an agenda item, waiving
their option to speak individually on the same item. Generally, five minutes are allotted per person, up to
a limit of 30 minutes, although the limits may be adjusted. Members of the group must be present.
*Individuals who use a translator will be allotted twice the amount of time.
GETTING TO KNOW YOUR AGENDA
Agenda Sections:
CONSENT CALENDAR items are routine items that are not expected to prompt discussion. All items are
considered for approval at the same time with one vote. Councilmembers and staff may request items be
removed and members of the public may submit a speaker slip if they wish to comment on an item. Items
removed from the Consent Calendar are discussed after the vote on the remaining Consent Calendar items.
PUBLIC COMMENT provides the public with an opportunity to address the Council on any matter not listed on
the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Council. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot
take action on matters not listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held on matters specifically required by law. The Mayor opens the public hearing and
asks for presentations from staff and from the proponent or applicant involved (if applicable) in the matter
under discussion. Following questions from the Councilmembers, the Mayor opens the public hearing and
asks for public comments. The hearing is closed, and the City Council may discuss and take action.
ACTION ITEMS are items that are expected to cause discussion and/or action by the Council but do not
legally require a Public Hearing. Staff may make a presentation and Councilmembers may ask questions of
staff and the involved parties before the Mayor invites the public to provide input.
CLOSED SESSION may only be attended by members of the Council, support staff, and/or legal counsel. The
most common purpose of a Closed Session is to avoid revealing confidential information that may prejudice
the legal or negotiating position of the City or compromise the privacy interests of employees. Closed
sessions may be held only as specifically authorized by law.
Council Actions:
RESOLUTIONS are formal expressions of opinion or intention of the Council and are usually effective
immediately.
ORDINANCES are laws adopted by the Council. Ordinances usually amend, repeal or supplement the
Municipal Code; provide zoning specifications; or appropriate money for specific purposes. Most ordinances
require two hearings: an introductory hearing, generally followed by a second hearing at the next regular
meeting. Most ordinances go into effect 30 days after the final approval.
PROCLAMATIONS are issued by the City to honor significant achievements by community members,
highlight an event, promote awareness of community issues, and recognize City employees.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 2 of 1221
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
4.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
4.1.Oaths of Office
Candice Custodio-Tan - Human Relations Commission
Lynne Pine - Veterans Advisory Commission
Vikki Robinson Opeodu - Housing Advisory Commission
4.2.Presentation of a Proclamation to Southwestern College Student Xiomara
Villarreal-Gerardo for Award-Winning Journalism
5.CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.8)
All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one
motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council approve the recommended action on the below consent calendar items; 5.1 - 5.4
and 5.6 to 5.8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council approve the recommended action on the below consent calendar item 5.5.
5.1.Approval of Meeting Minutes 9
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the minutes dated: June 1, 2021
5.2.Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all
resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.
5.3.Consideration of Request for Excused Absences
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider requests for excused absences as appropriate.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 3 of 1221
5.4.Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee: Amend the Municipal Code to Change
the Number of Committee Members from 16 to 9
15
Report Number: 21-0199
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: City Manager
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt an ordinance amending Municipal Code chapter 2.61 regarding the
Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee to change the number of committee
members from 16 to 9. (Second Reading and Adoption)
5.5.Sunbow II Land Use Amendments: Rezoning an Existing Vacant Parcel from
Industrial to Residential Use Resulting in 718 New Units and Approving an
Associated Development Agreement
25
Location: Sunbow, Southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic
Parkway
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002) has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt ordinances A) approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project to rezone from
limited industrial to residential uses allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-
density dwelling units and 184 multi-family high density residential dwelling units
on six parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site, on-site streets, open
space and MSCP Preserve Open Space (Second Reading and Adoption); and B)
approving a Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and ACI
Sunbow, LLC (MPA21-0014) for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project. (Second
Reading and Adoption)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 4 of 1221
5.6.Contract Amendment and Appropriation: Approve an Amendment to the
Agreement with Fehr & Peers to Provide Professional Services Related to
Transportation Project Cost Estimating and the Implementation of Senate Bill
(SB) 743 and Appropriate Funds
87
Report Number: 22-0030
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution waiving the competitive bid process pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 2.56.070B.3 approving the contract amendment, and
appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
5.7.Agreement: Approve an Agreement Between the City, Otay Land Company, and
Dudek for Technical and Environmental Consulting Services for the Development
of the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
98
Report Number: 22-0018
Location: Village 9, Village 10, and the University Innovation District
Department: City Manager
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution approving a three-party agreement between the City, Otay
Land Company, LLC, and Dudek for technical and environmental consulting
services in preparing the University and Innovation District overlay zone to
facilitate the development and appropriate funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote
Required)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 5 of 1221
5.8.Funding Application: Approval to Authorize Submittal of Applications to
CalRecycle's Recycling Payment Program
145
Report Number: 22-0054
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Economic Development
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager or designee to submit
applications to receive funding from CalRecycle’s Recycling Payment Program.
6.PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public may address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council
but not on the agenda.
*6.1.Public Comments Received for 1/25/2022.168
7.PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law.
7.1.Consideration of Protests Against an Adjustment on Collection Rates to Comply
with Organic Waste Regulations
181
Location: Citywide
Department: Economic Development
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue the item to 2/22/2022.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 6 of 1221
Time Certain 6:00 p.m.:
*7.2.Planning Commission Appeal: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for a
120-Bed Acute Psychiatric Hospital in the Eastlake II Planned Community, known
as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
182
Report Number: 22-0010
Location: 830 and 831 Showroom Place
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Brad
Davis and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use
Permit CUP19-0010 and Design Review Permit DR19-0012 to construct a one-
story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric
hospital on a 10.5 acre site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the
urbanized northeast portion of the city known as Eastlake Business Center II.
8.ACTION ITEMS
The following item(s) will be considered individually and are expected to elicit discussion
and deliberation.
8.1.Employee Compensation and Positions: Approval of: (1) Amended Position
Counts in Various Departments; (2) Salary Adjustments for Certain Unclassified,
Hourly Positions; (3) Revised Compensation Schedule; and (4) Budget
Amendments
1126
Report Number: 22-0026
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Human Resources
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolutions (A) amending the authorized position count in various
departments and salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly positions; (B)
approving the revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule effective
January 28, 2022 to reflect the salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly
positions and the adjusted salaries for Mayor, Councilmember and City Attorney
effective July 1, 2021 and its inclusion in the revised Compensation Schedules
effective July 2, 2021; August 13, 2021; September 10, 2021; November 5, 2021;
November 19, 2021; December 17, 2021 and December 31, 2021, as required by
the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (C) making various
amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget for appropriating funds for that
purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 7 of 1221
9.CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
10.MAYOR’S REPORTS
10.1.Discussion and Guidance Regarding the Future Role of the Human Relations
Commission with Regard to the Automated License Plate Reader Program
1209
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To
10.2.SR-125 Toll Road: Requesting that the San Diego Association of Governments
Exercise Option to Pay Off Toll Road Debt in 2027 and Take Action to Revert
Control of the SR-125 to the Calif Department of Transportation in 2027 for
Operation as a Freeway
1211
11.COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
12.CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
13.ADJOURNMENT
to the regular City Council meeting on February 1, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Materials provided to the City Council related to an open session item on this agenda are
available for public review, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at
cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov
or (619) 691-5041.
Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council
agendas are published online.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 8 of 1221
Page 1
City of Chula Vista
Regular Meeting of the City Council
Meeting Minutes
June 1, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Present: Councilmember Cardenas, Councilmember Galvez, Deputy Mayor
McCann, Councilmember Padilla, Mayor Casillas Salas
Also Present: City Manager Kachadoorian, City Attorney Googins, City Clerk
Bigelow, Assistant City Clerk Turner
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda.
Agenda items may be taken out of order during the meeting.
The agenda items were considered in the order presented.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at
5:05 p.m. via teleconference and in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Bigelow called the roll.
Councilmember Padilla arrived at 5:18 p.m.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Casillas Salas led the Pledge of Allegiance and called for a moment of silence in
honor of recent gun violence victims in San Jose and the firefighters in the Station 81
shooting in Santa Clarita, CA.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
4.1 Oath of Office
City Clerk Bigelow administered the oath of office to Commissioner Conser.
Councilmember Cardenas presented her with the certificate of appointment.
4.2 Proclamation: Proclaiming June 2021 as Monarch Butterfly Month in the City
of Chula Vista
Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember Galvez presented
it to Deputy City Manager Broughton.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 9 of 1221
2021/06/01 Minutes – City Council
Page 2
4.3 Proclamation: Proclaiming June 4, 2021 as National Gun Violence Awareness
Day in the City of Chula Vista
Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember McCann
presented it to Therese Hymer and Sarah Kesty, representing San Diegans for
Violence Prevention.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.6)
Moved by Mayor Casillas Salas
Seconded by Councilmember Galvez
To approve the recommended action appearing below each of the following consent
calendar items. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes (5): Councilmember Cardenas, Councilmember Galvez, Councilmember McCann,
Councilmember Padilla, and Mayor Casillas Salas
Result, Carried (5 to 0)
5.1 Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances
Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all
resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.
5.2 Municipal Code Amendment to Add and Remove Certain Unclassified
Position Titles
Adopt the ordinance amending Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 to
add the unclassified position titles of Director of Animal Services, Emergency
Services Manager and Special Projects Manager and deleting the position title of
Animal Care Facility Administrator (Second Reading and Adoption) (4/5 Vote
Required)
ORDINANCE NO. 3502 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 ADDING THE UNCLASSIFIED
POSITION TITLES OF DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL SERVICES, EMERGENCY
SERVICES MANAGER AND SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER AND DELETING
THE POSITION TITLE OF ANIMAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR
5.3 Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code Amendments for Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Adopt ordinance to amend various chapters of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
relating to construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units (Second Reading and Adoption)
ORDINANCE NO. 3503 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS 19.58.022
(ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT) AND 19.58.023 (JUNIOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS); AND CHAPTERS 19.22 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE);
19.24 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE); 19.26 (ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ZONE); 19.28 (APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE); 19.30
(ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE); 19.36 (CENTRAL
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 10 of 1221
2021/06/01 Minutes – City Council
Page 3
COMMERCIAL ZONE); 19.48 (PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE); AND 19.84
(BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN-LAND USE ZONES)
5.4 Contract Award: Waive the Competitive Bidding Requirement and Approve a
Consultant Services Agreement with Dr. Dorothy Davidson-York, DVM,
MPVM for Relief Veterinary Services and Spay/Neuter Surgery Services
Adopt a resolution waiving the competitive bidding requirement and approving a
consultant services agreement with Dr. Dorothy Davidson-York, DVM, MPVM for
relief veterinary services and spay/neuter surgery services with no net fiscal impact
to Fiscal Year 2021/22.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-102 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT AND
APPROVING A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DR. DOROTHY
DAVIDSON-YORK, DVM, MPVM FOR RELIEF VETERINARY SERVICES AND
SPAY/NEUTER SURGERY SERVICES
5.5 Amendment to Emergency Order 002-D-2020
Adopt a resolution ratifying and confirming Emergency Order 002-D-2020 as
amended on May 20, 2021, to specify how City Council, board, commission, and
committee meetings may be conducted, expand hours and uses at City parks and
trails, and update face covering and gathering regulations to follow State
standards.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-103 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING EMERGENCY ORDER 002-D-2020
(EFFECTIVE MAY 21, 2021) OF THE CHULA VISTA DIRECTOR OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES SPECIFYING HOW CITY COUNCIL, BOARD,
COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS MAY BE CONDUCT ED,
EXPANDING OPEN HOURS AND USES AT CITY PARKS AND TRAILS, AND
UPDATING FACE COVERING AND GATHERING REGULATIONS TO
CONFORM WITH STATE STANDARDS
5.6 List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2021/22 Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017 (RMRA)
Adopt a resolution adopting lists of projects for Fiscal Year 2021/22 funded by SB 1
(RMRA).
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-104 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 FUNDED
BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Juanita L. expressed concern regarding campaign contributions.
7. ACTION ITEMS
7.1 Chula Vista Climate Equity Index Report
Conservation Specialist Downs and Fabiola Lao, representing Center for
Sustainable Energy, gave a presentation on the item. Conservation Specialist
Downs responded to questions of the Council.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 11 of 1221
2021/06/01 Minutes – City Council
Page 4
Rita Clement, Chula Vista resident, submitted comments in support of staff's
recommendation.
Carolyn Scofield, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of staff's recommendation.
Moved by Councilmember Padilla
Seconded by Councilmember Cardenas
To accept the Climate Equity Index Report. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Yes (5): Councilmember Cardenas, Councilmember Galvez, Councilmember
McCann, Councilmember Padilla, and Mayor Casillas Salas
Result, Carried (5 to 0)
8. CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
There were none.
9. MAYOR’S REPORTS
Mayor Casillas Salas spoke regarding Memorial Day and announced that the City would
light up City Hall in rainbow colors and fly the Pride flag in honor of Pride Month. She
reported on the following recent events: a migrant shelter tour at the San Diego
Convention Center, League of California Cities Mayor's Institute, and Fort Rosecrans
Memorial Day wreath event.
9.1 City Council Policy: Consideration of Adopting a City Council Policy on City
Council Member Communications, Limiting Certain Communications to City
Council Districts
Mayor Casillas Salas spoke regarding the item.
Roberto submitted written comments in opposition to the item.
The item was continued to the June 15, 2021 meeting.
10. COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
Councilmember Galvez spoke regarding Pride Month and inquired about the Juneteenth
flag flying.
Councilmember McCann thanked the Fleet Reserve Association, Veterans of Foreign
Wars, and the American Legion for hosting a Memorial Day ceremony.
Councilmember Cardenas wished everyone a happy Pride Month and spoke regarding
her attendance at a migrant shelter tour at the San Diego Convention Center.
Councilmember Padilla extended holiday greetings, thanked South Bay Community
Services for its efforts related to the migrant shelters at the San Diego Convention
Center and spoke regarding Pride Month.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 12 of 1221
2021/06/01 Minutes – City Council
Page 5
11. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
11.1 Delays to Redistricting Due to Late Receipt of Census Data and Request for
Direction on Possible Modifications to City's Campaign Contribution
Ordinance to Address Same
City Attorney Googins and City Clerk Bigelow gave a presentation on the item and
responded to questions of the Council.
Council discussion ensued.
There was consensus of a majority of the Council to allow candidates a reasonable
opportunity to carry over campaign funds in the event their district changed as a
result of redistricting. City Attorney Googins stated an item would be placed on a
future agenda to that effect.
12. CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346-03, Official Minutes and
records of action taken during Closed Sessions are maintained by the City Attorney.
City Attorney Googins announced that the Council would convene in closed session to
discuss the items listed below.
Mayor Casillas Salas recessed the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The Council convened in
Closed Session at 7:45 p.m., with all members present.
12.1 Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of case:
A) Kimone Nunis, as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent Oral Nunis, et al. v. City of
Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00045571-CU-WM-
CTL; and
ACTION: No reportable action
B) Estate of Oral W. Nunis, Sr., et al. v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior
Court, Case. No. 37-2020-00043271-CU-CR-CTL
ACTION: No reportable action
C) Kimone Nunis, et al. v Chula Vista, et al., United States District Court, Case No.
20cv2423-CAB-JLB
ACTION: No reportable action
D) Chula Vista v. Orr Builders, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-
0004719
ACTION: No reportable action
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 13 of 1221
2021/06/01 Minutes – City Council
Page 6
12.2 Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of case: City of Chula Vista v. Keely Bosler, et al.; Sacramento Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2019-80003123-CU-WM-GDS
ACTION: Authorization to appeal trial court ruling
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Tyshar Turner, Assistant City Clerk
_________________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 14 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee: Amend the Municipal Code to Change the Number of Committee
Members from 16 to 9
Report Number: 21-0199
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: City Manager
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no
environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Recommended Action
Adopt an ordinance amending Municipal Code chapter 2.61 regarding the Measure P Citizens Oversight
Committee to change the number of committee members from 16 to 9. (Second Reading and Adoption)
SUMMARY
This proposed ordinance amends provisions of CVMC Chapter 2.61 to reduce the size and composition of the
Committee per City Council referral.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and it has been determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the
state CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity
is not subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Thus, no environmental
review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 15 of 1221
P a g e | 2
DISCUSSION
On August 10, 2021, City Council made a referral to staff to consider a reduction in the number of
representatives to the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee.
Existing COC
The current committee is made up of 16 members from the following groups:
One Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce representative
One San Diego County Taxpayers Association representative
One Chula Vista Youth Sports Council representative
One Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission representative
One Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission representative
One Sustainability Commission representative
One Chula Vista Director of Public Works representative
One San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council representative
One Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, San Diego branch representative
One Chula Vista Fire Chief representative
One Chula Vista Police Chief representative
One at large member may be a resident of any one of the four Council districts
Four at large members – one resident from each Council district
The committee currently has 8 vacancies from the following:
At Large Member
District 4 Representative (vacant)
Designated Members
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce (vacant)
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (vacant)
Chula Vista Youth Sports Council (vacant)
Sustainability Commission (vacant)
Chula Vista Director of Public Works (vacant)
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council (vacant)
Chula Vista Fire Chief (vacant)
Chula Vista Police Chief (vacant)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 16 of 1221
P a g e | 3
Staff Recommendation
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 3.33.140 authorizes the City Council to amend CVMC Chapter
3.33 (Chula Vista Temporary $0.005 Sales Tax) to make changes that do not involve increasing the tax rate,
calculating the tax, imposing the tax on new transactions, or extending the term of the tax. Staff recommends
that the City Council approve such an authorized amendment to Chapter 3.33 to reduce the Measure P
Oversight Committee representatives from 16 to 9, with 5 members consisting of one at large member from
any one of the four Council districts and 4 at large members from each Council district. The remaining 4
designated members would be selected as vacancies occur from nominations submitted from the remaining
public groups outlined in CVMC Section 2.61.050(C) in accordance with the designated member appointment
process specified in CVMC Section 2.61.050(D). The staff designated members (Public Works Director, Police
Chief, and Fire Chief) would be deleted from the code leaving the following 8 groups eligible to submit
nominations for vacancies that occur in the 4 designated member representatives in the future.
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Chula Vista Youth Sports Council
Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission
Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission
Sustainability Commission
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, San Diego branch
By making this suggested change, if all groups submitted a nomination to fill a vacancy, more candidates than
the available vacant positions could occur. This would allow the City, through the appointment process
specified in CVMC Section 2.61.050(D), the ability to select a candidate to fill a vacancy based upon their
background and experience with public works and considering the current backgrounds and experience
makeup of the existing Measure P members.
Attached is a draft ordinance amendment to CVMC Chapter 2.61 “Measure P” Citizens’ Oversight Committee
for City Council’s consideration.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and
consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real
property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Councilmember of any other fact that
may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The subject amendments to CVMC Chapter 2.61 result in no current year fiscal impact to the City.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 17 of 1221
P a g e | 4
The subject amendments to CVMC Chapter 2.61 do not impact ongoing costs of administration of the Measure
P Oversight Committee.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Staff Contact: Kelly Broughton
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 18 of 1221
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (CVMC) CHAPTER 2.61
TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF “MEASURE P” CITIZENS’
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM 16 TO 9
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the City of Chula Vista submitted to the voters a
measure to approve an ordinance enacting a one-half cent sales tax, for 10 years, including
provisions for citizens' oversight, separate accounting, and independent audits ("Measure P”); and
WHEREAS, the voters approved the passage of Measure P, thereby adopting Ordinance
No. 3371 ("Ordinance 3371"), which enacted the sales tax and required the implementation of the
oversight, accounting, and audit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 3371 specifically required the establishment of a Citizens'
Oversight Committee ("COC"), by ordinance, no later than December 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 3371 provided that the COC would function to review and report
on City compliance with the terms of Ordinance 3371 as follows: (i) public review and comment
on each year's Finance Department Report, Measure P Spending Plan, and Auditor Report;(ii)
preparation of an annual report regarding same for presentation to the City Council at a public
meeting; and (iii) working with City staff to identify and apply "best practices" for tracking and
reporting on Measure P revenues and expenditures relative to other City revenues and
expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 3371 also set forth the following requirements for the COC
members: (i) current elected City officials and employees are disqualified from membership; (ii)
the members are to be appointed by the City Council in accordance with existing City policies and
will include individuals with a range of expertise, including accounting, finance, and engineering;
and (iii) they shall conduct the meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Measure P and Ordinance 3371 (codified as Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 3.33), City Council adopted Ordinance 3394 adding Chapter
2.61 to the CVMC, establishing rules and procedures for the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to consider a proposal to reduce the number of
COC representatives to help streamline the committee, improve the ability to secure committee
nominations, and to maintain qualified public participants; and
WHEREAS, CVMC Section 3.33.140 authorizes the City Council to amend CVMC
Chapter 3.33 (Chula Vista Temporary $0.005 Sales Tax) to make changes that do not involve
increasing the tax rate, calculating the tax, imposing the tax on new transactions, or extending the
term of the tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section I. That Chapter 2.61, Section 2.61.050 is hereby amended to read as follows:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 19 of 1221
Ordinance
Page 2
2.61.050 Composition – Qualifications – Nomination.
A. Members. The COC shall be comprised of 9 members, each with equal rights and standing to
act and vote on COC matters.
B. Qualifications Applicable to All Members. Per Charter Section 602(d), all COC members
must be qualified electors of the City. A “qualified elector” of the City is a City resident that is
qualified and registered to vote as a City resident. COC members must be qualified electors at
the time they apply and must maintain such status throughout their tenure. No COC member may
be a current City employee or current elected City official per the requirements of Measure P
(CVMC 3.33.160(D)).
C. Designated Members. Four of the total 9 COC members shall be nominated, apply, and serve
as “Designated Members.” Designated Members shall be nominated, one each, by the following
nominating authorities (each a “Nominating Authority”, collectively the “Nominating
Authorities”), subject to the additional membership qualifications, if any, specified for each:
1. Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce; nominee(s) must have expertise and experience in
at least one of the following areas: accounting, finance, engineering, or a related discipline
(including construction);
2. San Diego County Taxpayers Association; nominee(s) must have expertise and
experience in at least one of the following areas: accounting, finance, engineering, or a
related discipline (including construction);
3. Chula Vista Youth Sports Council; nominee(s) must be a Youth Sports Council Board
Member;
4. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission; nominee(s) must be from this
Commission;
5. Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission; nominee(s) must be from this
Commission;
6. Sustainability Commission (formerly known as the Resource Conservation
Commission); nominee(s) must be from this Commission;
7. San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council;
8. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, San Diego branch;
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 20 of 1221
Ordinance
Page 3
D. Designated Member Appointment Process. Designated members shall be appointed in
accordance with the designated member appointment process identified below.
1. When a vacancy occurs, Designated Members shall be selected for nomination by the
Nominating Authorities specified in CVMC section 2.61.050.C that do not have a Designated
Member appointed to the COC (each an “Unrepresented Nominating Authority”; collectively
the “Unrepresented Nominating Authorities”) at the time the vacancy occurs. If any of the
Unrepresented Nominating Authorities decline to exercise their nominating authority in a
timely fashion, or if any ceases to function or exist, that party’s nominating authority may pass
to a substantially similar organization if approved by the City Council.
2. Unrepresented Nominating Authorities shall submit the name and contact information for
their nominee (“Designated Nominee”) to the City Clerk on a form prescribed by
the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall provide each Designated Nominee with instructions to
complete and submit the application to the City Clerk within a specified time period.
Completed applications timely received by the City Clerk shall be forwarded to the Mayor.
3. The Mayor shall interview all Designated Nominees who timely complete applications,
and thereafter may make nominations for appointment as provided in CVMC 2.61.050.D.4,
subject to the City Council’s approval.
4. After completing interviews in accordance with CVMC 2.61.050.D.3, the Mayor may
make a nomination to the City Council or may reject the proposed nomination. If the Mayor
rejects a proposed nomination, the Mayor may request additional submittal for a Designated
Nominee. Once rejected, a Designated Nominee may not be resubmitted for the term at issue,
but may be submitted for consideration for future terms.
E. At-Large Members. Five of the total 9 COC members shall apply and serve as
representatives of the City “at-large.” Expertise and experience in accounting, finance,
engineering, or a related discipline (including construction) is desirable but is not required. At-
large members shall be comprised of the following:
1. One member may be a resident of any one of the four districts and shall be nominated
and appointed in accordance with the general appointment process specified in CVMC
2.25.052(A).
2. The four remaining members shall be nominated by a particular Council district seat and
appointed in accordance with the district-based appointment process specified in CVMC
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 21 of 1221
Ordinance
Page 4
2.25.052(C). Members must be a resident of the corresponding Council district and must
maintain their district residency throughout their tenure.
Section II. Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any
reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction,
that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ord inance, or its
application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or
phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by Approved as to form by
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins
Deputy City Manager City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 22 of 1221
Redline/Strikeout
2.61.050 Composition – Qualifications – Nomination.
A. Members. The COC shall be comprised of 16 9 members, each with equal rights and standing to act and
vote on COC matters.
B. Qualifications Applicable to All Members. Per Charter Section 602(d), all COC members must be qualified
electors of the City. A “qualified elector” of the City is a City resident that is qualified and registered to vote as
a City resident. COC members must be qualified electors at the time they apply and must maintain such status
throughout their tenure. No COC member may be a current City employee or current elected City official per
the requirements of Measure P (CVMC 3.33.160(D)).
C. Designated Members. Eleven Four of the total 16 9 COC members shall be nominated, apply, and serve as
“Ddesignated Mmembers.” Designated Mmembers shall be nominated, one each, by the following nominating
authorities (each a “Nnominating Aauthority,”, collectively the “Nnominating Aauthorities”), subject to the
additional membership qualifications, if any, specified for each:
1. Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce; nominee(s) must have expertise and experience in at least one of
the following areas: accounting, finance, engineering, or a related discipline (including construction);
2. San Diego County Taxpayers Association; nominee(s) must have expertise and experience in at least
one of the following areas: accounting, finance, engineering, or a related discipline (including
construction);
3. Chula Vista Youth Sports Council; nominee(s) must be a Youth Sports Council Board Member;
4. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission; nominee(s) must be from this Commission;
5. Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission; nominee(s) must be from this Commission;
6. Sustainability Commission (formerly known as the Resource Conservation Commission); nominee(s)
must be from this Commission;
7. Chula Vista Director of Public Works; nominee(s) must have expertise and experience in engineering
or a related discipline (including construction);
87. San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council;
98. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, San Diego branch;
10. Chula Vista Fire Chief; and
11. Chula Vista Police Chief.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 23 of 1221
D. Designated Member Appointment Process. Designated members shall be appointed in accordance with the
designated member appointment process specified in CVMC 2.25.052(D).identified below.
1. When a vacancy occurs, Designated Members shall be selected for nomination by the Nominating
Authorities specified in CVMC section 2.61.050.C that do not have a Designated Member appointed to the
COC (each an “Unrepresented Nominating Authority”; collectively the “Unrepresented Nominating
Authorities”) at the time the vacancy occurs. If any of the Unrepresented Nominating Authorities decline
to exercise their nominating authority in a timely fashion, or if any ceases to function or exist, that party’s
nominating authority may pass to a substantially similar organization if approved by the City Council.
2. Unrepresented Nominating Authorities shall submit the name and contact information for their nominee
(“Designated Nominee”) to the City Clerk on a form prescribed by the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall
provide each Designated Nominee with instructions to complete and submit the application to the City Clerk
within a specified time period. Completed applications timely received by the City Clerk shall be forwarded
to the Mayor.
3. The Mayor shall interview all Designated Nominees who timely complete applications, and thereafter
may make nominations for appointment as provided in CVMC 2.61.050.D.4, subject to the City Council’s
approval.
4. After completing interviews in accordance with CVMC 2.61.050.D.3, the Mayor may make a
nomination to the City Council or may reject the proposed nomination. If the Mayor rejects a proposed
nomination, the Mayor may request additional submittal for a Designated Nominee. Once rejected, a
Designated Nominee may not be resubmitted for the term at issue, but may be submitted for consideration
for future terms.
ED. At-Large Members. Five of the total 16 9 COC members shall apply and serve as representatives of the
City “at-large.” Expertise and experience in accounting, finance, engineering, or a related discipline (including
construction) is desirable but is not required. At-large members shall be comprised of the following:
1. One member may be a resident of any one of the four districts and shall be nominated and appointed
in accordance with the general appointment process specified in CVMC 2.25.052(A).
2. The four remaining members shall be nominated by a particular Council district seat and appointed in
accordance with the district-based appointment process specified in CVMC 2.25.052(C). Members must
be a resident of the corresponding Council district and must maintain their district residency throughout
their tenure. (Ord. 3490 § 1, 2020; Ord. 3394 § 1, 2016).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 24 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Sunbow II Land Use Amendments: Rezoning an Existing Vacant Parcel from Industrial to Residential Use
Resulting in 718 New Units and Approving an Associated Development Agreement
Report Number: 22-0050
Location: Sunbow, Southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002) has been prepared.
Recommended Action
Adopt ordinances A) approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project to rezone from limited industrial to
residential uses allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density dwelling units and 184 multi-
family high density residential dwelling units on six parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility
site, on-site streets, open space and MSCP Preserve Open Space (Second Reading and Adoption);
and B) approving a Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC
(MPA21-0014) for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project. (Second Reading and Adoption)
SUMMARY
In January 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved a Community Benefit Agreement (the “CBA”) to allow
ACI Sunbow, LLC, the owner of an undeveloped site in the Sunbow master planned community, to process
entitlements to consider changing the land use from limited industrial to residential. This site was formally
marketed as the “Sunbow Business Park” and is generally located southeast of the intersection of
Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway. Subsequently, in February 2020, an application was submitted
requesting land use amendments to allow up to 718 multi-family residential units within a 135.7-acre area.
In addition to the residential units, the land is proposed for Multiple Species Conservation Program Preserve
land, a Community Purpose Facility site, manufactured slopes and basins, Poggi Creek Conservation
Easement areas, a wetland resource preservation area and associated infrastructure.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 25 of 1221
P a g e | 2
whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director of
Development Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002 and
associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On July 28, 2021, the Planning Commission voted 6-0, with one Commissioner absent, to recommend the City
Council deny the Project (Attachment 10, Planning Commission Minutes Resolution). Letters of opposition
received by the Commission are also included in Attachment 10. The Planning Commission cited the
following reasons for their recommendation:
Maintaining the industrial land uses on the Project Site as identified in the General Plan is important
to achieving a jobs/housing balance and economic vitality within the City of Chula Vista.
The financial and other benefits negotiated in the proposed Development Agreement do not
outweigh the lost value of the industrial land designation.
The Project, as presented, is not in the best overall interests of the City considering the proposed
close proximity of residential land uses to the landfill and the lack of commercial/industrial
development opportunities.
The Project as proposed is one hundred percent residential and they are interested to see further
evaluation as to whether a mix of uses could work on the site.
DISCUSSION
In 1990, the City of Chula Vista authorized development of the 604.8-acre Sunbow II Sectional Plan Area (the
“SPA”). The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan established the land use districts, special uses and conditions,
comprehensive sign regulations, off-street parking requirements and administrative procedures for
development and implementation of the Sunbow community (Attachment 1, Summary of Prior Approvals).
Since that time, all land has been developed except for the subject vacant parcel, which is referred to as
Sunbow II, Phase 3. The parcel was identified as a 46.0-acre Industrial Park, Planning Area 23 (“PA23”), in
the adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan.
Site History & Necessity of Amendments
ACI Sunbow, LLC (the “Applicant” or “Owner”) has been marketing the PA23 property for industrial uses
since the early 2000s. Due to the topography of the land, the entire site must be graded at the same time.
According to the Owner, this has been challenging as most industrial users have expressed interest in a 5-
10-acre site, however it is difficult to find an end user or developer willing to purchase all developable acres
in PA23 and undertake the site preparations necessary for an end user. The Owner initiated similar efforts
to rezone the property in 2004 in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update and subsequently in 2009,
however neither effort was brought forward for discretionary action.
On January 7, 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved the CBA between the City of Chula Vista and the
Owner to allow initiation of the entitlement process to consider the conversion of the PA23 land to residential
uses (approved via Resolution No. 2020-003) [Attachment 2, Community Benefit Agreement (ACI Sunbow,
LLC 1-7-20)]. Per the CBA, the Owner would provide $8.0 million in funding (the “Job Enhancement Funds”)
that can be used by the City to direct the construction of either:
1. Class “A” office building(s) that would facilitate high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125
corridor on City or non-profit owned land.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 26 of 1221
P a g e | 3
2. Commercial/academic building(s) that can facilitate either academic or private-sector market-rate
project(s) to advance the vision of the University Innovation District (such as enabling the
development of an Institute for International Studies).
3. Some other notable project at the City’s discretion.
In order to receive the Job Enhancement Funds, the CBA requires City approval of all stated entitlements for
development of the Project Site (as defined below), including a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”), General
Development Plan (“GDP”), SPA amendment, Development Agreement, and vesting tentative map. As part of
the CBA, the City reserved its right to exercise discretion as to all matters tha t the City is by law entitled or
required to exercise its discretion with respect to the entitlements, including, but not limited to CEQA and
other similar laws. This includes reserving the full discretionary authority of the Planning Commission and
the City Council to consider the proposed entitlements at a future public hearing, with the benefit of
environmental review, plans, technical studies, and full staff analysis.
Proposed Amendments
On February 26, 2020, the Applicant submitted an application requesting amendments to the area generally
located southeast of the intersection of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway (Attachment 3, Locator
Map). Based upon more precise engineering currently available, the Sunbow II, Phase 3 development area
acreage has been refined and encompasses 67.5 acres, with the remaining 68.2 acres designated as Multiple
Species Conservation Program (“MSCP”) Preserve land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a
conserved wetland resource area (the “Project Site”), and as proposed would include:
Development Area (67.5 acres)
44.2 acres of residential (718 units on 6 parcels)
0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (“CPF”) site
5.9 acres of public streets
16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and basins
Open Space Land (68.2 acres)
4.3 acres of proposed Poggi Canyon Easement areas
0.3-acre conserved wetland resource area
63.6 acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve areas
The application includes a proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, which would modify the limits of the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 development area and increase the MSCP Preserve area by approximately 0.09 acres. The
Applicant is proposing to rezone the developable PA23 land from limited industrial to residential uses,
allowing up to 534 multifamily medium-high-density and 184 multifamily high-density residential dwelling
units (718 total units) on six parcels (the “Project”).
Compliance with Council Policy No. 400-02 (Public Participation)
A virtual Community Meeting was held by the Applicant on March 24, 2021 via the platform, Zoom. The
City’s project manager attended the meeting along with over 30 members of the public. The Applicant
provided a project briefing and community members asked various questions and voiced concern related to
vehicular traffic, traffic noise, on-site wildlife movement, schools, and water seepage issues from the
Robinhood Point Homeowners Association. Residents/property owners within 500-feet and Homeowners
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 27 of 1221
P a g e | 4
Associations within 1,500-feet of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project Site were notified of the Community Meeting.
Community members attending the meeting primarily indicated opposition to the project.
Project Analysis
FEIR 20-0002
CEQA Section 21002 requires that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) identify the significant effects of
a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects.
EIR20-0002, was prepared and assigned a State Clearinghouse identification number (SCH No. 2020110148)
to analyze such impacts of the Project (Attachment 4, Environmental Impact Report EIR 20-0002). As
required, the following public review periods were provided:
Notice of Preparation pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines (November 9, 2020 –
December 9, 2020)
Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (March 15, 2021 – April 28, 2021).
Pursuant to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21081 (b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) and
(b), the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining
whether to approve a project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (14 CCR 15093[a]).
EIR20-0002 and associated Mitigation Measures and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) were prepared for the
Project and concluded that the Project could result in significant effects on the environment regarding:
biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous
materials; public services; recreation; and wildfire (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix M:
MMRP). The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the
proposed project would reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less-than-significant levels. Those impacts
that are not reduced to less-than-significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific benefits of
the project (Attachment 5, EIR20-0002 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration). These
impacts include the following items in Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
During the public review period, five comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections
15088 and 15204, the Applicant has evaluated the comments and prepared written responses describing the
disposition of any significant environmental issues raised (Attachment 4, Environmental Impact Report EIR
20-0002 – Section 1.1, Preface Response to Comments). On June 16, after the close of the public comment
period, Caltrans sent the City a comment letter raising the following issues regarding the I-805 interchange
and off ramp intersections:
Recommendation that the Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (“ATSC”) be a project mitigation instead
of a fair share contribution.
Alternative improvements should the ATSC not be implemented.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 28 of 1221
P a g e | 5
Request for additional information on existing storage, queue length and impacts at the I-805 off
ramps in the Transportation Impact Analysis (“TIS”).
Suggested additional improvements to enhance pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
The Applicant prepared a response and City staff has met with Caltrans and believes the concerns have been
adequately addressed and will not result in any changes to the EIR or MMRP (Attachment 4b – Caltrans Letter
and Applicant Response).
While the CEQA analysis concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts exist in the Health
Risk Assessment related to the Otay Mesa Class III landfill located south and southeast of the site (the
“Landfill”), this site in part was originally approved for industrial use due to its proximity to it. Pursuant to
the Agreement Between the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Regarding Jurisdiction Over and
Operation of Otay Landfill, entered into as of May 15, 1996, and in order to maintain the public health and
safety of potential residents surrounding the Landfill, the City established a 1,000-foot buffer around the
Landfill in the General Plan (the “Landfill Buffer”).
The Amended and Restated Otay Landfill Expansion Agreement, effective August 12, 2014, (the “A&R
Expansion Agreement”) further refined the concept of the Landfill Buffer. Per the A&R Expansion Agreement,
“To the maximum extent allowed by law, and consistent with City land use policies, City shall not allow the
construction of residential units on properties within 1,000 feet of the active area [emphasis added] of the
Otay Landfill…however, the southern boundary edge for this area may shift over time in [a northerly
direction]. Similarly, Otay agrees that it shall keep the active area of the Landfill at least 1,000 feet away from
any constructed residential units.” The “active area” concept has been employed in the proposed approvals
for the Project (see Tentative Map discussion beginning on page 9 of this report).
As part of the EIR process the Project was reviewed under the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and
the Health Risk Assessment in the EIR MMRP. The project site was further analyzed under a limited soils
vapor investigation performed by Geosyntec in January 2020 to address potential environmental concerns
related to the operation of the Landfill. The soil vapor investigation conducted on January 24 and 27, 2020
documented methane was not detected in the samples, indicating that the landfill gas control system (LFGCS)
is effectively controlling the migration of methane from the Landfill. In addition, the Landfill is equipped with
a landfill gas control system (LFGCS) and a perimeter probe monitoring network which is routinely
monitored under the direction of the County of San Diego Local Enforcement Agency. Current estimates
indicate that the Landfill will be decommissioned in 2030.
Chula Vista General Plan (MPA20-0012)
The Chula Vista GP identifies Sunbow as being an efficient self-contained village. The Applicant’s proposed
amendments will remain consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use & Transportation, Economic
Development, Housing, Public Facilities & Services, Environmental and Growth Management objectives and
policies (Attachment 6, Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification Report).
In order to analyze the impact of industrial land use conversion on other uses within the City, the City
contracted with HR&A Advisors, Inc. to provide an analysis of industrial uses [Attachment 6, Chula Vista
General Plan Amendment Justification Report - Attachment B: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Market and Financial
Analysis of Industrial Use (HR&A 2021)]. The study summarizes the existing land available for industrial
uses and provides an overview of the South Bay region market, future demand for such uses and resulting
anticipated surplus or deficit within Chula Vista. This effort included an extensive examination at a parcel
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 29 of 1221
P a g e | 6
level of the existing land uses within the City that could potentially be developed for industrial use based on
current zoning, as well as environmental and developable land considerations. A summary of the key findings
includes:
Analysis of Industrial land:
o Approximately 428 acres of Chula Vista’s land with industrial zoning is developable. Given a
range of floor-area-ratios from 0.25 to 0.40, this land could accommodate 4.7 to 7.5 million
square feet (SF) of development.
o Chula Vista currently has enough developable land to accommodate projected growth in
industrial employment through 2050. The City could see an increase in industrial employment
of 1,475 to 3,125 new jobs, demanding 118 to 239 acres of industrial land through 2050. If
that amount of land were developed, the City would still have 190 to 311 acres of surplus
vacant developable industrial land.
o Industrial entitlements do not guarantee either industrial uses or job-intensive uses. For
example, the Eastlake cluster of industrial zoned land currently contains 69 acres of non-
industrial uses, including some such as gyms that have low employment densities.
The Project as currently approved for industrial land:
o Represents 10 percent of Chula Vista’s remaining developable industrial land. The site contains
approximately 42.5 developable acres, compared to 428 across the entire City.
o Has both strengths and weaknesses with respect to marketability for industrial development.
Easy freeway access via Olympic Parkway to I-805 could be attractive to an industrial
developer, although other vacant industrial properties have similar proximity to a freeway
(e.g., Eastlake’s access to SR 125). Compared with other properties, the Site is relatively
distant from existing industrial clusters, with the nearest cluster—Main Street East—being a
3-mile drive from the Site.
o Size would be an advantage for an industrial developer. The approximate 42.5 developable
acres could accommodate large floorplates and truck maneuverability and support
economies of scale.
o Topographical variation on the site is a barrier to industrial development due to the expense
and time associated with grading and associated site development preparation. The estimated
cost for grading and infrastructure is approximately $27 million.
o Industrial development on the Site is unlikely to be financially feasible. A land sale price above
$20.48 per SF may be sufficient to earn the landowner a reasonable return; however, of the
five comparable land sales in the past 2 years, with a range from approximately $11.50 to
$18.00 per square foot, none met this threshold. Additionally, more than two decades of
marketing the Site for industrial use has not yielded any development.
Sunbow II General Plan Development Plan Amendments (MPA20-0013)
Amendments to the Sunbow II GDP update the land use summary for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area and
eliminate various sections in the original report as development standards are included in the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (Attachment 7, Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment Report).
SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-0006)
The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan, approved in 1990, established the vision for Sunbow and defined the land
use character and mix of uses, design criteria, circulation system, and public infrastructure requirements for
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 30 of 1221
P a g e | 7
the Project. This Project updates Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, to describe and define the amended land uses for
Sunbow II, Phase 3 and incorporate the development regulations and design guidelines specific to this
Project (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix B: Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment). The
Project also includes revisions to planning documents associated with the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan as well
as additional plans and studies currently required by the City of Chula Vista. Updated or new information
supersedes the corresponding sections in the 1990 Sunbow SPA Plan.
Some Project specific items of note in the proposed SPA include:
Community Purpose Facilities (“CPF”) – In accordance with Chapter 19.48 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (“CVMC”) the Project generates the requirement for 3.2-acres of CPF land. The Project
will provide a community recreation facility on 0.9-acres, with amenities in compliance with CVMC
Section 19.48.040(B)(6), generally in the center of the development. The remaining 2.3-acre CPF
requirement will be waived as defined in the Development Agreement, in order for the City to accept
a “Community Purpose Facilities Benefit Funds” payment of $1.7 million to be utilized by the City to
fund a community serving facility on land in the City’s western territories that would not otherwise
have been available for such community service use. Payment shall be made prior to the issuance of
the building permit for the 240th unit.
Parkland Acquisition and Development Fees/Quimby Fees (the “PAD Fees”) – In-lieu of PAD Fees due
per CVMC Chapter 17.10, the Owner shall pay the City a “Park Benefit Fee” equal to the PAD Fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chapter 17.10, using the PAD fee rates in effect as of the
Effective Date of the Development Agreement. The Park Benefit Fees may be used to acquire or
develop parkland within the City of Chula Vista, as the City deems appropriate and in the best interest
of the City.
Design Review Approval – The Project shall be subject to the City of Chula Vista Design Review
Process as set forth in CVMC Section 19.14.581 through 19.14.600, except that the Zoning
Administrator shall have the authority for review and approval of any application/parcel with 200
or fewer multi-family residential units, as outlined in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment.
The following appendices to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA have also been prepared for the Project:
Plant Palette
The SPA provides a list of acceptable plants that may be used in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 landscape.
Provided as Appendix A to the SPA Plan, the Plant Palette was prepared with a focus on the landscape
transitioning to a naturalized palette at the project perimeter to blend with the existing native
character of the existing slopes and MSCP Preserve area located along the northern edge of the site.
The plant palette is composed of durable and low water use/drought tolerant plants which are easily
maintained (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix B: Sectional Planning Area Plan
Amendment).
Public Facilities Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis
The original Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (“PFFP”) was adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 15525 on January 24, 1990. The preparation of the Supplemental PFFP is required in
conjunction with the preparation of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment for the Project to
ensure that the phased development of the Project is still consistent with the overall goals and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 31 of 1221
P a g e | 8
policies of the GP, the City’s Growth Management Program, and the Sunbow II GDP to ensure that the
development of the Project will not adversely impact the City’s Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (“FIA”) was also updated in January 2021. The results
generated from the fiscal model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that the
proposed project will generate a fiscal surplus in all years as further described below in “Fiscal
Analysis.”
The Supplemental PFFP and updated FIA prepared for the Project meets the growth management
policy objectives (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix B: Sectional Planning Area Plan
Amendment).
Air Quality Improvement Plan
Since approval of the Sunbow SPA Plan, the City has adopted changes to the Air Quality Improvement
Plan (“AQIP”) guidelines consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program. The revised AQIP
reflects changes in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan and changes in Building and Energy Codes.
Applicable action measures contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan that apply to the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment are addressed (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix B: Sectional
Planning Area Plan Amendment).
Fire Protection Plan
The Fire Protection Plan (“FPP”) prepared for the Project meets applicable Fire and Building Code
requirements or offers alternative materials and methods for complying with the codes. The Project’s
overall on-site fire potential would be lower than its current condition due to conversion of areas of
wildland fuels to managed landscapes, managed fuel modification areas, improved accessibility to
firefighting personnel and equipment, and new structures built to the latest ignition resistant codes
(Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices – Appendix H3: Fire Protection Plan).
Water Conservation Plan
The Water Conservation Plan (“WCP”) addresses the City’s Growth Management Ordinance (CVMC
19.09.050C) and Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC 20.12) by reviewing available
technology and practices to conserve water in residential settings (Attachment 4a, EIR Appendices –
Appendix L3: Water Conservation Plan).
Tentative Map for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (PCS20-0002)
The subject Tentative Map (the “TM”) identifies lot numbers, gross acreage, land use, and allocates
residential units for each parcel. The TM also provide notes for condominiums, fuel modification zones,
waivers, etc. Street sections and street layouts ensure construction of the street and pedestrian connections
envisioned in the SPA Plan. The TM includes twenty-two (22) lots for the development of 718 residential
units (6 lots), a community purpose facility (1 lot), Poggi Creek Conservation Easement (3 lots), open space
(9 lots), and open space preserve (3 lots) on the Project Site (Attachment 8, CVT20-0002 Tentative Map).
In order to stabilize development at the southwestern corner of the proposed development and allow
additional units to be built, a buttress is proposed. The buttress would encroach upon an approximate 15-
foot by 470-foot (or approximately 7,200-square foot) area of City property that is designated for future park
use. The City found that allowing the buttress on City-owned land would not significantly impact the future
park design. Therefore, the City and Applicant agreed that in order to ensure the buttress is constructed and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 32 of 1221
P a g e | 9
maintained by the Applicant, the Applicant will pursue the purchase of the property impacted by the buttress
from the City, as more fully described in the Development Agreement.
TM Condition Nos. 7 and 8 address Landfill proximity concerns. Condition No. 7 requires the recordation of
a nuisance easement against the Property addressing noise, odor, and visual impacts from the Landfill (the
“Nuisance Easement”). The Nuisance Easement will cover the entirety of the Project Site and will name the
City and the County of San Diego as express beneficiaries. The Nuisance Easement must be recorded prior to
issuance of the first residential building permit for the Project.
While the southeastern portion of the Project Site encroaches into the 1,000-foot Landfill Buffer area, if
measured from the shared property line, Condition No. 8 ensures that no residential units will be constructed
within 1,000 feet of the Landfill’s active waste disposal area. This is similar to the approach employed for
development of residential units in Otay Ranch Village 3 to the south of the Landfill, in which an active
disposal area was defined via the A&R Expansion Agreement. Condition No. 8 provides that the City can
temporarily withhold issuance of residential building permits for homes that would be located within 1,000
feet of the Landfill’s permitted limits of waste (the “Permitted Limit of Waste”), as reflected in the Landfill’s
operating permit with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Condition No. 8
establishes an outside date by which all residential units may be permitted of December 31, 2026. This is a
firm outside date and is not subject to extension. Otay Landfill, Inc., (the “Landfill Operator”) has indicated to
the City that they will have permanently ceased all waste disposal activities within 1,000 feet of the of the
Permitted Limit of Waste by this date.
In order to secure residential building permits sooner than December 31, 2026, the Developer has the option
to enter into an agreement with the Landfill Operator to permanently cease waste disposal activities within
1,000 feet of the Permitted Limit of Waste (the “Landfill Agreement”). Should the Developer pursue a Landfill
Agreement, it must include a waiver of claims by the Landfill Operator against the City and the City must be
designated as a third-party beneficiary, with the right, but not the obligation, to enforce each party’s
performance obligations. The final form of the Landfill Agreement would be subject to approval by the
Director of Development Services and the City Attorney. The Developer is not obligated to pursue a Landfill
Agreement.
As a final alternative, if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director Development
Services that the proposed homes are not within 1,000 feet of the current or future active waste disposal
area of the Landfill, residential permits may be issued prior to December 31, 2026 without a Landfill
Agreement.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Development Agreement (MPA21-0014)
The amendments cause the need to enter into a Development Agreement with the Owner to ensure all
required fees and ordinance requirements are being satisfied, inclusive and in replacement of the items set
forth in the Community Benefits Agreement. California Government Code section 65864 et seq. authorizes
cities to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real
property for the development of the property. A development agreement is a contract negotiated between
the project proponent and the public agency that specifies certain mutual benefits negotiated for a particular
project and vests, subject to certain conditions in the agreement, the rights of the project applicant to develop
the property under current land use regulations for a specified term.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 33 of 1221
P a g e | 10
Through City Resolution No. 11933 (adopted in 1985), the City Council has determined that development of
large projects within the City create unique and complex development considerations and that, in addition
to the minimum requirements for development agreements contained in the Government Code, additional
procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements shall be contained within
each individual agreement. The Development Agreement presented here includes the requirements for
development agreements contained in the Government Code, as well as additional procedures and
requirements designed to address the unique and complex development considerations presented by the
Project.
The following discussion summarizes significant deal terms proposed in the Development Agreement
[Attachment 9, Development Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC)] and describes the fundamental terms of the
agreement.
Significant Deal Terms
Jobs Enhancement Fund – City shall receive $8 million to direct construction for job enhancing uses
in eastern Chula Vista as described in the “Site History & Necessity of Amendments” section above.
Affordable Housing Obligation – Extension and increased affordability of Villa Serena Senior as
described in the “Housing Impact” section above.
Community Purpose Facilities Benefit Fund – Waiver of a portion of the 3.2-acre onsite CPF obligation
(0.9 acres provided onsite and 2.3 acres waived) and payment of $1.7 million to the City as described
in the “SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-0006)” section above.
Park Benefit Fee – Owner shall pay such fee as described in the “SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-
0006)” section above.
Purchase of Land – The Applicant shall pursue the purchase of property from the City at fair market
value to construct and maintain the buttress as described under the “Tentative Map for Sunbow II,
Phase 3 (PCS20-0002)” section above.
Other Terms of the Agreement
The Development Agreement contains the following additional major points:
The term of the Development Agreement will be fifteen (15) years, with two additional ten (10)
year terms, at Owner’s sole option.
For the Term of the Development Agreement, the Owner shall have the vested right to develop the
property pursuant to the Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and existing land use laws,
regulations and policies.
The Development Agreement shall run with the land and benefit and bind future owners should the
Owner sell or transfer ownership.
Conclusion
The General Development Plan for the 604.8-acre Sunbow Planning Community was adopted by the City
Council in 1989. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Industrial Park property is the last remaining undeveloped portion
of the original Sunbow SPA Plan, which also includes a neighborhood commercial center, 1,977 residential
dwelling units (1,128 single family and 849 multifamily), parks, and the City’s Fire Station No. 3. In 2004, the
Applicant submitted a formal GPA request for the Project Site to change the land use designation to
residential. That application was held in abeyance pending the City Council approval of the General Plan
Update. The City Council approved the General Plan Update in 2005 and the land use designation remained
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 34 of 1221
P a g e | 11
Limited Industrial (IL). In 2009, the Applicant pursued the 2004 GPA application, and on May 13, 2009, the
Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the proposed amendment. The GPA was
scheduled for City Council on June 2, 2009, but the application was withdrawn by the Applicant on the day
of the public hearing.
In April 2019, after approximately 30 years of what the Applicant describes as no interest from the market
in investing in the public improvements and grading necessary to develop the Project Site for industrial uses,
the Applicant submitted a request to initiate a GPA and rezone to develop approximately 700 multifamily
dwelling units and an 8-acre commercial office development on the Project Site. As part of the review of the
2019 initiation request, staff questioned the economic viability and benefit to the City of an isolated office
land use along with residential land uses. In response to these issues the Applicant prepared and submitted
an Employment Projection Analysis and a Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Employment Projection Analysis
concluded that commercial office uses in general produce a higher number of jobs than light industrial land
uses. The fiscal analysis identified that a modest amount of commercial use would offset the fiscal impacts of
a market rate housing development.
In order to encourage development of viable employment lands in eastern Chula Vista that will also serve as
a catalyst for development of a university campus, City staff asked the Applicant for alternative solutions to
achieve the City’s goals and address the continued contention that the industrial development market cannot
overcome the necessary site construction costs of the Sunbow industrial site. The result was the previously
described CBA, which provides for the developer to contribute $8.0 million in Job Enhancement Funds which
can be used by the City to direct the construction of either 1) a class “A” office building(s) that would facilitate
high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor on City or non-profit owned land; 2)
Commercial/academic building(s) that can facilitate either academic or private-sector market-rate
project(s) to advance the vision of the University Innovation District (such as enabling the development of
an Institute for International Studies); or 3) some other notable project at the City’s discretion.
Development of the Project Site for industrial uses is consistent with the General Plan and the City’s economic
development goals. And, while the site is relatively distant from existing industrial clusters, the thought has
been that its easy freeway access and size should make it an appealing site for industrial users. Further, the
Project Site was originally designated as Limited Industrial largely because of its proximity to the active Otay
Landfill. The greatest challenge to developing the site for industrial uses is the topographical variation of the
site and the significant time and expense associated with grading and associated site development (estimated
to total approximately $27 million). As described in the Industrial Lands Analysis, the City is currently
projected to have sufficient developable land to accommodate projected growth in industrial employment
through 2050, even with approval of this rezone. If a rezone is not approved, it is likely the site would remain
undeveloped until market conditions move sufficiently to make development of the site for industrial uses
economically feasible.
On July 28, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the Project, with one
commissioner absent, citing the following findings and concerns: 1) maintaining the industrial land uses on
the site as identified in the General Plan is important to achieving a jobs/housing balance and economic
vitality within the City; 2) the financial and other benefits negotiated in the proposed Development
Agreement do not outweigh the lost value of the industrial land; and 3) the Project, as presented, is not in the
best overall interests of the City in light of the close proximity of residential land uses to the Landfill and the
lack of commercial/industrial development opportunities. The Planning Commission also no ted their
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 35 of 1221
P a g e | 12
interest in exploring the feasibility of a mix of land uses on the Project Site, as opposed to the all residential
development proposed.
Since the City Council’s approval of the CBA in 2020, several relevant issues have evolved. In 2020, it had
been 5 years since a significant rezoning of non-residential to residential was considered by the Planning
Commission or the City Council (Freeway Commercial, approved in 2015). In 2020 and 2021, the rezone of
both the 676 Moss Street Project and the Village 3 industrial site have been considered, and ultimately
approved. In each circumstance, the Planning Commission voiced concerns related to the City’s jobs/housing
balance and achieving our economic development goals. These were each also significantly sma ller parcels
than the rezone proposed with this action. Over this same period, demand for industrial land has increased
and vacancy rates are declining. In addition, the City’s understanding of the challenges of residential
development proximate to an active Landfill has grown, as we receive complaints from residents regarding
odors, seagulls, and dust. Finally, the CBA was recommended with the understanding that the Applicant
would meet all other regulatory requirements. The Applicant has instead negotiated additional waivers and
considerations through the proposed Development Agreement, as previously described. While an argument
can be made for each variance requested, the granting of such additional waivers and considerations was not
contemplated with the CBA.
In summary, there are reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of the Project and reasonable
arguments that can be made against the Project. Arguments in favor of the Project include: (1) historical
challenges in developing the Project Site for industrial uses and the likelihood that the Project Site could
remained undeveloped for some time until industrial development is economically feasible; (2) the
conclusion that the City has adequate industrial land to meet our reasonably foreseeable needs through at
least 2050; and (3) $8.0 million in Job Enhancement Funds to construct a Class “A” office building or other
desirable use within the University Innovation District Master Plan area or within the SR-125 corridor.
Arguments against the Project include: (1) the significant loss of industrial acres and associated employment,
further exacerbating the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance; (2) no new affordable housing units; (3) and
the proximity of residential units to the Landfill.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings
within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item
does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of
Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code
§87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact
that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
All application fees and processing costs are borne by the Applicant, resulting in no net impact to the
General Fund or the Development Services Fund in the current fiscal year.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the adjusted Fiscal Model, the proposed project is estimated to generate between approximately
$46,461 and $270,928 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first 20 years of operation and a
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 36 of 1221
P a g e | 13
cumulative total net revenue of approximately $3.3 million over the same period, as summarized in the table
below [Attachment 6, Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification Report - Attachment C: Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (DPFG 2021)].
Projected
General Fund Impact Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Annual Revenues $ 278,400 $ 1,245,606 $ 1,430,915 $ 1,635,064 $ 1,928,194
Annual Expenditures (231,939) (1,108,535) (1,277,366) (1,451,182) (1,657,266)
Annual Net Impact $ 46,461 $ 137,071 $ 153,549 $ 183,882 $ 270,928
Cumulative Net Impact $ 46,461 $ 499,639 $ 1,118,882 $2,017,747 $ 3,281,323
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC)
2. Ordinance A - MPA20-0006 Rezoning the Sunbow II, PA23 Project Area
3. Ordinance B - MPA21-0014 Development Agreement with ACI Sunbow
4. Written Communications
Staff Contact: Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services
Stacey Kurz, Project Manager, Development Services Department
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 37 of 1221
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT TO REZONE FROM
LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWING
UP TO 534 MULTI-FAMILY MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 184 MULTI-FAMILY
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON SIX
PARCELS, A 0.9-ACRE COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY
SITE, ON-SITE STREETS, OPEN SPACE AND MSCP
PRESERVE OPEN SPACE
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and is commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and
Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-
high-density residential dwelling units and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling
units (718 total units) on six parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site, on-site streets,
open space, to rezone 6.5-acres from light industrial to Open Space Preserve, to rezone 6.4-acres
Open Space Preserve to residential uses, and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a
conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project); and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 38 of 1221
Ordinance No. _____
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there
is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a General Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment (MPA20-0013)
and Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0006) approved by the City Council
immediately prior to this action; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a Planning
Commission public hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, before the Plannin g
Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the hearing on the Project, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated
into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 0-6 recommending the City Council deny the
approval of the Project, citing that further analysis related to the Jobs Enhancement Fund and a
mix of land uses on the site be considered; and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista
for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said Project at the time and place as advertised in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as
follows:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 39 of 1221
Ordinance No.______
Page 3
Section I. Action
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Rezone,
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, finding that it is consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Sunbow II General Development Plan and all other
applicable Plans.
Section II. Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any
reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction,
that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its
application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or
phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
____________________________ ______________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
Exhibits A & B to be inserted later
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 40 of 1221
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO.______________
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND ACI SUNBOW, LLC (MPA21-0014) FOR
THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and is
commonly known as Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description
consists of 135.7-acres within the Sunbow II Planned Community generally located
at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway (Project Site);
and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No.
15524), inclusive of a 46.0-acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as
Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have
been built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
a Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow,
LLC (Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the
conversion of the PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would
provide funding that can be used by the City to direct the construction of a job
enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista
General Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013),
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative
Map (PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the
City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the
Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family
medium-high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units
(718 total units) on six parcels and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 41 of 1221
Ordinance No. __________
Page 2
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project); and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council certified the EIR
(FEIR20-0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-_A___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved a General
Plan Amendment (MPA20-0012) and a Sunbow II General Development Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0013), pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-_B___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0006), pursuant to Resolution
No. 2022-_C___ and rezone pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-__D___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved the
Tentative Map (PCS20-0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-_E___; and
WHEREAS, due to waivers in Development Standards or fees related to, but not
limited to, a Jobs Enhancement Fund, Park Benefit Fee, Community Purpose
Facilities Benefit Fund, Affordable Housing obligations and purchase of City
owned land, a Development Agreement between the City and Applicant was
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Development Agreement serves as the final step in
Project approval; and
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director
of Development Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified and hereby finds that the FEIR has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 42 of 1221
Ordinance No. __________
Page 3
public hearing on the Project, and notice of the public hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of
the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing and voted
0-6 recommending the City Council deny the approval of the Project, citing that
further analysis related to the Jobs Enhancement Fund and a mix of land uses on
the site be considered; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project and the Minutes and Resolution
resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a public hearing on the Project
and notices of said hearing, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly noticed and called public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center,
276 Fourth Avenue, to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
II. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The City Council finds that the proposed amendment to the Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan and related documents are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General
Plan. The General Plan envisioned Sunbow II as an efficient self-contained village.
B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City
of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC as represented in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 43 of 1221
Ordinance No. __________
Page 4
III. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
______________________ _______________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
Exhibit A and B to be inserted later.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 44 of 1221
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Above Space for Recorder’s Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between
the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a chartered California municipal corporation ("City") and ACI
SUNBOW LLC, a limited liability corporation (“Owner”). City and Owner whenever referenced
herein collectively shall be referred to as “Parties” and whenever referenced hereinafter
individually may be referred to as “Party.” The Parties agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. City’s Authority to Enter into Development Agreement. City is authorized under
California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. to enter into binding development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purposes of assuring, among
other things, (i) certainty as to permitted land uses in the development of such property,
(ii) provides for the construction of adequate public facilities to service such property, and (iii)
ensures the successful completion of the Sunbow General Development Plan, a 604.8 acre master
planned community (“Sunbow Master Plan”).
B. The Property: Owner’s Interest. Owner has a legal or equitable interest or both in
the approximately 135.7-acre site more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the
“Property”). The Property is the subject of this Agreement and is located within Sunbow II Phase
3 of the Sunbow Master Plan. Owner intends that its successors in interest and all other persons
holding legal or equitable interest or both in the Property benefit from and be bound by this
Agreement, as more particularly described herein. The owner intends to develop, improve, build
on, sell or lease the Property or portions thereof to various builders (as hereinafter defined) who
may acquire portions of the Property and the benefits and burdens under this Agreement.
C. The Project. The Property is being planned as a community with a range of
residential uses, open space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities (the
“Project”). More particularly, the Project is located south of Olympic Parkway, east of Brandywine
Avenue, and north and northwest of the Otay Landfill. The Project will provide 534 multi-family
medium-high-density residential dwelling units and 184 multi-family high-density residential
dwelling units for a total of 718 units on the site. The Project will also include various passive and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 45 of 1221
2
Sunbow DA 2022
active recreational open space areas distributed throughout the residential areas to provide
recreational opportunities within walking distance of the proposed residential uses.
D. Approval of Community Benefit Agreement. The Owner and City entered into that
certain Community Benefit Agreement (approved by Resolution No. 2020-003, January 7, 2020)
wherein the Owner would provide eight million dollars that can be used by the City to direct the
construction of a project in furtherance of the goals set forth in the University Innovation District
Master Plan, on a site located within the University Innovation District Master Plan or within the
SR-125 corridor that is owned by the City or under the control or ownership of a non-profit entity
that has been established to effectuate the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan
(the “Job Enhancement Funds”). By way of example only, such project could involve : (i) the
construction of a Class “A” office building or an academic, commercial or innovation facility or
building that will attract job enhancing uses into the SR-125 corridor or the University Innovate
District Master Plan; (ii) such other uses that would enable the development of an Institute for
International Studies; or (iii) some other notable project at the City’s discretion consistent with
the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan.
E. Project Approvals. On _____________, the City approved a General Plan
Amendment (by Resolution No. XX), an amendment to the Sunbow General Development Plan,
an amendment to Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, (by Resolution No. XX), rezone
(by Ordinance No. XX), a Development Agreement (by Ordinance No. XX), Tentative Map 20-
0002 (by Resolution No. XX), and other related entitlements for the Project.
E. Certification of EIR. Prior to the City’s adoption of the Existing Project Approvals
(as hereinafter defined) described above, the City Council (i) independently reviewed and
considered the significant environmental impacts of the Project and several alternatives to the
Project as described in that certain Final Environmental Impact Report (“Project EIR”) and (ii)
adopted Resolution No. XXXX on XXX certifying the Project EIR as adequate and complete,
making Findings concerning Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”)
all in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)
F. City and Owner Acknowledge. City and Owner acknowledge this Agreement will
provide the following mutual benefits:
1. Facilitate the efficient development of the Project that will ensure the City’s
timely receipt of the Job Enhancement Funds; and
2. Establish mechanisms that will help provide for the financing and
construction of facilities necessary to provide for anticipated levels of service to residents
of the Project; and
3. Provide Owner with assurances regarding the Existing Project Approvals
and regulations that will be applicable to the development of the Project consistent with
the existing land use regulations and the Existing Project Approvals; and.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 46 of 1221
3
Sunbow DA 2022
4. Assure that the Project does not cause any conflict with City's growth
management goals and objectives by, for example, ensuring the provision of adequate
public facilities at the time of Development, proper timing and sequencing of
Development, effective capital improvement programming, and appropriate Development
incentives; and
5. Allow for the development of the Property, that has remained undeveloped
for the last thirty (30) years, with 718 multifamily units, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose
Facility site, 16 acres of open space, and 64 acres of MSCP Preserve open space land.
G. The Parties agree that the covenants, promises and other material requirements of
this Agreement constitute adequate consideration that is fair, just, mutual, equitable and
reasonable. In particular, Owner would not enter into this Agreement, nor agree to provide and
furnish funds for the public and private Development and infrastructure described in this
Agreement, if not for the promise of City that the Property can be developed pursuant to the
Existing Project Approvals and Applicable Laws. Similarly, City would not enter into this
Agreement if not for the promise of Owner to provide the public facilities, public infrastructure
and other public benefits provided for in this Agreement.
H. Owner acknowledges and confirms that the timing and terms for City’s approval,
as more particularly described in the Existing Project Approvals, satisfy the requirements to trigger
Owner’s obligation to pay the Job Enhancement Funds described in Recital D.
I. Planning Commission. On________, City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on this Agreement and at the conclusion of the hearing recommended
approval of this Agreement.
J. City Council Approval. On ________, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on this Agreement, at the conclusion of which the Council introduced and conducted the
first reading of the ordinance approving the Agreement, and subsequently, on _____, adopted
Ordinance No. _______approving the Agreement. As part of its initial hearing, the City Council
considered and approved the environmental documentation for this Agreement as being in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Owner hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall mean:
“Applicable Law” means laws, rules, regulations and official policies of City (including
General Plan policies, Administrative codes, ordinances, resolutions and other local laws,
regulations, and policies of City) in force and effect on the Effective Date.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 47 of 1221
4
Sunbow DA 2022
“City Council” means the Chula Vista City Council.
“City Laws” means any new rules, laws, regulations, policies, ordinances, resolutions and
standards adopted by the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement that can be applied to
decisions on Future Project Approvals or amendments to Existing Project Approvals as provided
for herein.
“Builder” means the entity, person or persons to whom Owner will sell, lease or convey
or has sold, leased or conveyed the Property or portions thereof, for purposes of its improvement
for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code sections 21000, et seq and State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, section 15000 et seq.
“City” means the City of Chula Vista, in the State of California.
"CFD" means a Community Facilities District formed pursuant to the provisions of the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act, California Government Code Section 53311, et
seq.
"Development" means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation, maintenance or enlargement of any structure; any mining, excavation, grading, landfill,
or land disturbance; the construction of roadways, water and sewer infrastructure and other
infrastructure improvements directly related to the Project whether located within or outside the
Property; the installation of landscaping and other facilities and improvements necessary or
appropriate for the Project; and any use or extension of the use of land.
“Development Impact Fee” or “DIF” means assessment, fee, charge or dedication
imposed upon development within the City pursuant to a Development Impact Fee Program or
equivalent program, adopted in accordance with the requirements of State law.
“Effective Date” means the first date on which all of the following are true: (a) the Owner
has signed the Agreement and returned the signed Agreement to the City; (b) the City Council has
adopted Ordinance No._______, approving the Agreement.
“Existing Project Approvals” means the entitlements for the Project described in Recitals
above, and in particular the following: (i) amendment to the General Plan, (ii) amendment to the
Sunbow General Development Plan (iii) an amendment to Sunbow SPA II, (iv) the rezone of the
Property, (v) Tentative Map NO. 20-0002, (vi) all associated documents that have been attached
and made a part thereof, such as the PFFP, and (vii) the Project EIR, all as may be amended from
time to time consistent with this Agreement.
“Final Map(s)” means any final subdivision map for all or any portion of the Property
upon which the Project is located.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 48 of 1221
5
Sunbow DA 2022
“Future Project Approvals” means all discretionary and ministerial permits and
approvals requested by the Owner and approved by the City after the Effective Date of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to: (i) grading permits; (ii) site plan reviews; (iii) design
guidelines review; (iv) subdivisions of the Property, or re-subdivisions of the Property; (v)
conditional use permits; (vi) variances; (vii) encroachment permits; (viii) rezoning’s; and (ix) all
other reviews, permits, and approvals of any type which may be required from time to time to
authorize public or private on- or off-site development which is a part of the Project.
“Growth Management Ordinance” means Chapter 19.09 of City’s Municipal Code, as it
exists on the date the Development Agreement is adopted.
“Job Enhancement Funds” means the sum of eight million dollars to be paid by Owner
in three payments as provided herein and as further defined in Recital D.
“Owner” means the person, persons, or entity having a legal or equitable interest in the
Property, or parts thereof, and includes Owner’s successors-in-interest and “Builder” as defined
herein.
“PFFPs” means the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Project, adopted as a part of
the Project.
“Planning Commission” means the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista.
“Project” means the Development of the Project and all related private and public
improvements on and off the Property as provided for in the Existing Project Approvals and as
may be authorized by the City in Future Project Approvals.
“Project Improvements and Infrastructure” means public and private improvements
and facilities (located on and off the Property) constructed to serve the Project as described in the
Existing Project Approvals or as may be imposed, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, as part
of Future Project Approvals.
“Property” means the real property described in Exhibit “A.”
“Term” of this Agreement means the period defined in Article 2, below.
ARTICLE 2
TERM
2.1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as to the Property upon the Effective
Date and shall continue for fifteen (15) years (“Term”) thereafter. The Term may be extended at
the Owner’s sole option for two additional ten (10) year terms. In addition to the extensions herein
provided, the Owner may request that the term of the Agreement be extended beyond the two
additional extensions, which will be processed in the same manner as an amendment to this
Agreement. In the event of litigation challenging this Agreement or the Project, the Term is
automatically suspended for the duration of such litigation and resumes upon final disposition of
such challenge and any appeal thereof upholding the validity of this Agreement or the Project. In
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 49 of 1221
6
Sunbow DA 2022
the event that a referendum petition concerning this Agreement or Project is duly filed in such a
manner that the ordinance approving this Agreement or the Project is suspended, then the Term is
deemed to commence upon City Council’s certification of the results of the referendum election
affirming this Agreement or the Project as the case may be.
2.2 Extension. The Term shall be extended for any period of time during which
processing of applications for the Project, Future Project Approvals or issuance of building permits
to Owner is suspended for any reason other than due to the actions or the default of the Owner,
and for such period of time equal to the period of time during which any action by the City or court
action limits the processing of such Project applications, Future Project Approvals, issuance of
building permits or any other development of the Property consistent with this Agreement.
2.3. Covenants Running with the Land. As of the Effective Date, the terms and
provisions of this Agreement are enforceable by the parties as equitable servitudes affecting the
Property, constituting covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including,
without limitation, Civil Code § 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is for
the benefit of or a burden upon the Property, run with the Property, and are binding upon Owner
and the successors and assigns of Owner during their respective ownership of the Property.
2.4. Execution and Recordation. The City shall promptly execute this Agreement
within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date following City Council approval. The City may
execute the Agreement in counterparts as set forth in Section 15.5 herein. Within 10 days after the
Agreement has been executed by the City, the City Clerk shall notify the Owner of such execution
and provide Owner the Agreement for recordation. The Owner shall cause the recordation of such
Agreement and provide the City with a confirmed copy within ten (10) business days following its
recordation.
2.5 Public Benefits. The Parties agree that the covenants, promises and other material
requirements as set forth herein constitute adequate consideration that is fair, just, mutual,
equitable and reasonable. The Owner would not enter into this Agreement, nor agree to provide
and furnish funds for the public and private Development and infrastructure described in this
Agreement, if not for the promise of City that the Property can be developed pursuant to the
Existing Approvals and Applicable Laws. Similarly, City would not enter into this Agreement if
not for the promise of Owner to provide the public facilities, public infrastructure and other public
benefits provided for in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
VESTED RIGHTS
3.1. Vested Rights. In consideration of the benefits to City, as set forth herein, Owner
is vested with the right to develop and maintain the Property to the land uses, densities and
intensities of use, and the reservations and dedication of land for public purposes as provided in
the Existing Project Approvals, as such approvals may be amended from time to time, and subject
to Applicable Laws and as further provided in Section 3.4 below. If Future Project Approvals are
obtained by Owner, they shall be vested to the same extent as the Existing Project Approvals.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 50 of 1221
7
Sunbow DA 2022
3.2. Maximum Height and Size of Structures. The maximum height and size of
structures to be constructed on the Project will be governed by the Existing Project Approvals.
3.3. Applicable Law. As provided by this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official
policies (including General Plan policies, Administrative codes, ordinances, resolutions and other
local laws, regulations and policies of City) governing the permitted uses, the density and intensity
of use, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications of any
improvements and the mitigation of impacts of the Project, shall be those in full force and effect
on the Effective Date (“Applicable Law”). Applicable Law includes the Existing Project
Approvals, as they may be issued or amended from time to time, in a manner consistent with both
the terms and provisions of this Agreement. The City shall retain its discretionary authority as to
amendments to Existing Project Approvals and to Future Project Approvals, provided however,
such decisions shall be regulated by the Applicable Laws and as further provided in Section 3.4
below.
3.3.1. Amendments. By way of example, the following illustrate the application of
amendments that would hinder, impede or cause an unreasonable delay of the Project as
authorized by the Existing Project Approvals and would be considered in conflict with the
Applicable Laws.
(i) Prevent all or a portion of the Project or the Property from being developed,
used, operated or maintained in accordance with the terms and provisions of this
Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Laws;
(ii) Limit or reduce the overall density, intensity or unit count of the Project, or
any part thereof, to a density, intensity or unit count that is lower than that specified
in this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals or Applicable laws;
(iii) Modify any land use designation or conditional use of the Property in a
manner inconsistent with this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or
Applicable Laws;
(iv) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval,
development, construction or occupancy of all or any portion of the Project or
Property except as specifically permitted by this Agreement;
(v) Impose any condition, dedication or exaction that would conflict with this
Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Law;
(vi) Require the issuance of discretionary permits or nondiscretionary permits,
to the extent such permits impose new or different substantive requirements on
Owner or the Project that are not otherwise required by Applicable Laws, Existing
Project Approvals, or this Agreement;
(vii) Apply to the Project any provision, condition or restriction that would be
inconsistent with this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Law;
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 51 of 1221
8
Sunbow DA 2022
(viii) Apply to the Project any rent control or price control provisions or uniform
or prevailing wage requirements except to the extent required under state law,
unless otherwise permitted by this Agreement;
(ix) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other
improvements of the Project or the Property in a manner that is inconsistent with
or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement, Existing Project
Approvals, or Applicable Laws;
(x) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services or facilities or
any privileges or rights to public utilities, services or facilities in a manner other
than as specifically set forth in this Agreement or Applicable Law (for example,
water rights, water connections or wastewater treatment capacity rights, sewer
connections, etc.) for the Project or the Property;
(xi) Apply to the Project or the Property any City Law allowed by this
Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to other development
projects and properties;
(xii) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project any fees,
Development Impact Fees, assessments, liens or other monetary obligations other
than (i) those specifically permitted by this Agreement, and (ii) City-wide taxes and
assessments (provided such City-wide taxes or assessments are not
disproportionately applied to the Property); or
(xi) Limit the processing or issuance of amendments to Existing Project
Approvals or Future Project Approvals other than as specifically set forth in this
Agreement or Applicable Law.
3.4. Development Impact Fees. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, only
those Development Impact Fee in effect as of the Effective Date and as described on attached
Exhibit B may be applied to the Project or the Property. All Project Development Impact Fees
will be paid at the time the City issues certificates of occupancy unless otherwise noted in this
Agreement. Any increase in a Development Impact Fee can be challenged by Owner, pursuant to
City ordinance and state law. The Parties acknowledge that the provisions contained in this
paragraph 3.4, and as set forth in Exhibit B, are intended to implement the intent of the Parties that
Developer has the right to develop the Project pursuant to specified and known criteria and rules,
and that the City receive the benefits which will be conferred as a result of such Development
without abridging the right of the City to act in accordance with its powers, duties and obligations,
except as specifically provided in this Agreement.
3.5. Reserved Authority. The City may apply changes in City Laws, regulations,
ordinances, standards or policies specifically mandated by changes in state or federal law in
compliance with Article 12 herein. If City amends its Growth Management Ordinance, the
amended Growth Management Ordinance shall apply to the Project upon Owner’s written
acceptance, which acceptance shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement. This provision
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 52 of 1221
9
Sunbow DA 2022
shall not affect any mitigation measures required of Owner under the environmental document
certified for the Project.
3.6. Owner’s Option to Apply New Rules. Owner may elect, with the City Manager, or
their designee, consent to have applied to the Project any rules, regulations, policies, ordinances
or standards enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement. The City Administrative Officer
shall not unreasonably withhold said consent.
3.7. Modifications to Existing Project Approvals. It is contemplated by the Parties to
this Agreement that the Owner may seek modifications to the Existing Project Approvals from
time to time. These modifications are contemplated as within the scope of this Agreement and
shall, if approved by the City, be incorporated into and constitute for all purposes an Existing
Project Approval. Owner and City agree that any such modifications to Existing Project Approvals
will not constitute an amendment to this Agreement nor require an amendment to the Agreement.
The City shall process and act on such applications in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Applicable Law.
3.8. Moratorium and other Limitations. This Project is exempt from any moratorium
or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development)
affecting subdivision maps, building permits, certificates of occupancy or other land use
entitlements that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City. To the
maximum extent permitted by law, City must prevent any City Law from invalidating or prevailing
over all or any part of this Agreement, and City must cooperate with Owner and undertake such
actions as needed to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. If City applies to the
Project a City Law that Owner believes to conflict with Applicable Laws or this Agreement, Owner
may take such action as may be permitted under Section 15.16 and Article 10 herein. City must
not support, adopt or enact any City Law, or take any other action, which would violate the express
provisions of this Agreement or the Existing Project Approvals. Owner may also challenge in court
any City Law that would conflict with Applicable Laws or this Agreement or reduce the
development rights provided by this Agreement, in accordance with the dispute resolution
provisions of Section 15.19 below.
3.9. State and Federal Law. As provided in Government Code § 65869.5, in the event
that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date (“Changes in the Law”)
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions
of the Agreement will be, by operation of law, modified or suspended, or performance thereof
delayed, as and to the extent that may be necessary to comply with such Changes in the Law. In
the event any state or federal resources agency (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board/State Water Resources Control Board), in connection with its final issuance of a permit or
certification for all or a portion of the Project, imposes requirements (“Permitting Requirements”)
that require modifications to the Project, then the parties will work t ogether in good faith to
incorporate such changes into the Project; provided, however, that if Owner appeals or challenges
any such Permit Requirements, then the Parties may defer such changes until the completion of
such appeal or challenge. As set forth in Section 3.6 herein, such modifications are contemplated
to be within the scope of this Agreement and shall, upon written acceptance by the Parties,
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 53 of 1221
10
Sunbow DA 2022
constitute for all purposes the Existing Project Approval and will not require an amendment to the
Agreement.
3.10. Further Assurances. To the extent permitted by law, City must take all actions
needed to ensure that the vested rights provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by Owner
including, without limitation, any actions needed to ensure the availability of public services and
facilities to serve the Project or the Property as development occurs. Should any initiative,
referendum, or other measure be enacted that would affect the Project or the rights provided by
this Agreement, Owner agrees to fully defend the City against such a challenge in a manner
consistent with Section 15.18 below. The City must not take any actions relative to the Property
whether or not covered by this Agreement that would impede, hinder or frustrate Owner’s ability
to develop or use the Property in a manner consistent with this Agreement.
3.11. Time for Construction and Completion of Project. Development of the Project
shall be subject to all timing and phasing requirements established by the Existing Project
Approvals. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of
Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties to provide for the timing of
development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail
over such parties’ agreement, it is the intention of the City and Owner to cure that deficiency by
specifically acknowledging that timing and phasing of development is completely and exclusively
governed by the Existing Project Approvals, and that Owner has the right to develop the Project
at such time as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to require Owner to proceed with the development of
any portion of the Project or make any financial commitment associated with any such
development if, in Owner’s sole and absolute discretion, Owner determines that it is not in Owner’s
best financial or other interest to do so. The City and Owner agree that the Project and related
infrastructure is expected to be built in phases in response to existing market conditions over the
term of this Agreement, there is no requirement that Owner initiate or complete development of
the Project or any particular phase of the Project within any particular period of time, and City will
not impose such a requirement on any Project Approval. The Parties acknowledge that Owner
cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which or the order in which phases will be developed.
Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of the Owner, such
as market demand, interest rates, competition and other factors. The provisions of the foregoing
sentence do not, however, limit any obligation of Owner under this Agreement with respect to any
development activities that are chosen by Owner to be undertaken hereunder.
ARTICLE 4
PROCESSING PROJECT
4.1. Processing of Future Project Approvals. City will accept for processing
development applications and requests for Future Project Approvals, or other entitlements with
respect to the development and use of the Property and will consider such matters in accordance
with the appropriate process set forth in the Applicable Laws. The City will diligently work
towards the timely issuance of such entitlements, including grading plans, improvement plans, and
other plans or permits, as needed to issue building permits such efforts will include the City’s
expedited processing of grading plans, improvement plans, and other plans or permits, as needed
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 54 of 1221
11
Sunbow DA 2022
to issue a building permit. City shall treat the Project as a priority and shall make best efforts to
dedicate sufficient attention and resources to the Project to facilitate the expeditious development
thereof, as contemplated by this Agreement. The costs for processing work related to the Project,
including hiring of additional City personnel to dedicate to the Project and/or the retaining of
professional consultants, will be reimbursed to City by Owner in a manner consistent with the City
Laws and applicable State law. City shall retain its discretionary authority to act on Future Project
Approvals and apply City Laws to such matters, provided the City Laws do not conflict with
Applicable Laws or the rights provided by this Agreement. By way of example, the application of
City Laws that would prevent the uses, densities or intensities of development specified herein or
as authorized by the Existing Project Approvals or would unreasonably delay development of the
Project would be considered in conflict with the rules, regulations and official policies in effect as
of the Effective Date of this Agreement and to the intent of the Parties. In addition, the City may
also apply changes in City Laws, regulations, ordinances, standards or policies specifically
mandated by changes in state or federal law in compliance with Article 12 herein.
4.2 Length of Validity of Tentative Subdivision Maps. Government Code section
66452.6 provides that tentative subdivision map(s) may remain valid for a length up to the term of
a Development Agreement. The City agrees that all tentative subdivision maps (vesting or
otherwise) for the Project, shall be for a term coterminous with the length of this Agreement.
4.3 Pre-Final Map Development. If Owner desires to do certain work on the Property
(for example, grading) after approval of a tentative map, but prior to the recordation of a final map,
it may do so by obtaining a grading and/or other required approvals from the City prior to
recordation of a final map. The permit or approval may be approved or denied by the City in
accordance with the requirements of the Applicable Laws and other City regulations or policies as
may be applicable; provided the Owner is in compliance with this Agreement and with the terms
of all Existing Project Approvals and Future Project Approvals. In addition, the Owner shall be
required to post a bond or other reasonably adequate security required by City in an amount
reasonably determined by the City to assure the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final
map does not record.
4.4 Transfer of Rights and Obligations of Development. Whenever Owner conveys a
portion of the Property, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall transfer in accordance
with Article 7 herein.
4.5. Cooperation with respect to Project Improvements and Infrastructure. City shall
cooperate with Owner to take all actions necessary and appropriate to facilitate the timely
development of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. Such cooperation includes, without
limitation, the following actions as may be applicable to the City in the exercise of its legislative
discretion: (i) the diligent and timely commencement of the City’s exercise of its power of eminent
domain authority in a manner consistent with the laws of the State of California (and subject to the
City’s exercise of its discretion, the making of all necessary findings and determinations required
to exercise such power), to acquire any rights of way or other real property interests identified by
Owner to be necessary or appropriate for the Project Facilities and Infrastructure; and (ii) City’s
diligent efforts to work with other landowners and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies
to ensure the timely approval and construction of such Project Facilities and Infrastructure. Owner
must notify City as to when a right of way will be required to meet Owner’s construction schedule.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 55 of 1221
12
Sunbow DA 2022
Upon Owner’s notice and as provided for by law, City agrees to use its best efforts to take such
actions in a timely manner as needed to consider the acquisition of any and all necessary right of
ways, provided however, the City shall not be obligated under this Section to exercise its power
of eminent domain with respect to any real property.
4.6. City’s Acceptance of Dedications. City agrees to accept the easements to be
provided by the Owner for conservation of portions of the Poggi Creek channel within ninety (90)
calendar days of such offer by Owner. All other Owner offers of dedication required by this
Agreement or the Existing Project Approvals must be accepted by City within a reasonable time,
provided that the applicable improvements are completed consistent with Applicable Law.
4.7. Affordable Housing Obligation. Because of the special benefits provided by the
Project as described in this Agreement, the City has provided the Project with a variance from its
affordable housing obligations as permitted by the Balanced Communities Policy and Guidelines.
The Project shall hereafter satisfy its affordable housing obligations by the following two
requirements:
(i) Prior to the issuance of the two hundredth (200th) building permit for the Project, the
Owner shall execute an amendment to the covenants and restrictions ("Affordability
Covenant") set forth in that certain Regulatory Agreement dated June 1, 2000 between the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Serena Sunbow, L.P. (recorded as
Document No. 20000-0641390 in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office, Nov. 27, 2000)
to be extended for sixty-seven (67) low-income housing units in the Villa Serena
residential housing project to June 1, 2055. The extended Affordability Covenant for the
sixty-seven (67) units shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant in the official records of
the County of San Diego.
(ii) The Owner shall implement an outreach program, including advertising and marketing,
that would encourage buyers of all majority and minority groups, regardless of sex,
handicap, and familial status.
4.8. Community Purpose Facilities. Owner is required to provide approximately 3.2
acres of land of CPF land for community purpose facilities ("CPF") based upon a ratio of 1.39
acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with Section 19.48.025 of the City’s Municipal Code. The
City has agreed that the CPF on-site obligation will be reduced to require Owner to provide a 0.9-
acre parcel, including private recreational facilities, designated for CPF land uses in perpetuity as
a part of the SPA. The City Council hereby waives the remaining CPF obligation of 2.3 acres
because of the extraordinary public benefit provided by the payment from the Owner to the City
of one million seven hundred fifty-nine thousand, one hundred thirty-four dollars ($1,759,134.00)
based upon the evaluation described on Exhibit “B” attached hereto (the “CPF Benefit Funds”).
The CPF Benefit Funds shall be due and payable before the issuance of the building permit for the
240th unit. The CPF Benefit Funds satisfies the goals of CPF requirement by providing a
community serving facility on land in the City’s western territories that would not otherwise have
been available for such community service use. The CPF Benefit Funds may be utilized by the
City at its discretion for CPF uses in perpetuity. Therefore, the City hereby determines that the
Owner is in compliance with the CPF requirements of Chapter 19.48. of the Municipal Code.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 56 of 1221
13
Sunbow DA 2022
4.9. Park Facilities. The City shall waive the Parkland Acquisition and Development
Fees/Quimby Fees (“PAD Fees”) set forth in Chapter 17.10 and in- lieu thereof, the Owner shall
pay the City a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that would have otherwise been due
pursuant to Chapter 17.10, using the PAD fee rates in effect as of the Effective Date. The Park
Benefit Fee shall be paid by Owner no later than final inspection for each unit. Park Benefit Fees
may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate and
in the best interest of the City.
4.10. TDIF Obligations. The Transportation Development Impact Fee (“TDIF”) credits
for each development neighborhood within the Sunbow master plan was calculated as of February
1, 2003. The City acknowledges and agrees that the Owner is entitled to $455,330.67 in cash
credits and 109.41 EDU (“Equivalent Dwelling Units”) credits resulting from construction of
improvements, such as East Palomar Street phases l B and 1 C, which may be used for the Project.
4.11. Job Enhancement Funds. The Owner shall provide the Job Enhancement Funds to
the City in three payments. The first payment of up to one million dollars will be made upon the
City’s issuance of the first (1st) building permit based upon the City’s sole determination that such
amount is needed to provide start-up funding for a first phase of a University Innovation District
opportunity. The second payment of one million dollars will be made upon the issuance of the one-
hundredth (100th) building permit. The third payment of six million dollars plus any amount not
requested by the City in the first payment will be made upon the issuance of the two-hundredth
(200th) building permit for the Project. The Job Enhancement Funds shall be held by the City in a
separate account to be used pursuant to the terms set forth in this paragraph. Should Job
Enhancement Funds still be owed to the City by January 1, 2024 and such delay is not the result
of the City’s failure to expedite the approvals described in paragraph 4.11.1 below, said amount
will be increased based on the annual index change from the prior year (January 2023) of the
Engineering News-Record, Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Los Angeles Area; or, in the event
that such index is no longer published or otherwise available, the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the
San Diego – Carlsbad, California region. Each January thereafter, the remaining amount of the Job
Enhancement Funds due to the City shall be increased based upon the annual index change from
the prior year as herein described. The adjustments shall be automatic and shall not require further
action by the City Council. The provisions described in this paragraph shall supersede the
provisions of the Community Benefit Agreement (approved by Resolution No. 2020-003, January
7, 2020).
4.11.1. Diligently process permits. The Parties agree to diligently work towards the timely
issuance of the first building permit, the one-hundredth (100th) building permit and the two hundred
(200th) building permits needed to trigger the Owner’s obligation to deposit the Job Enhancement
Funds with the City, such efforts will include the City’s expedited processing of grading plans,
improvement plans, and other plans or permits, as needed to issue a building permit as described
in paragraph 4.1 above.
4.11.2. Investment of Funds. The City will invest the Job Enhancement Funds into the
construction of a project in furtherance of the goals set forth in the University Innovation District
Master Plan, on a site located within the University Innovation District Master Plan or within the
SR-125 corridor that is owned by the City or under the control or ownership of a non-profit entity
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 57 of 1221
14
Sunbow DA 2022
that has been established to effectuate the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan.
The Parties understand that the Owner shall not be required to provide any other additional funds
or investments into such project identified by the City and as described herein. By way of example
only, such projects could involve: (i) the construction of a class “A” office building, or an
academic, commercial or innovation facility or building that will attract job enhancing uses into
the SR-125 corridor or the University Innovation District Master Plan; (ii) such other building or
facility that would enable the development of the Institute for International Studies; or (iii) some
other notable project at the City’s discretion consistent with the goals of the University Innovation
District Master Plan.
ARTICLE 5
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS
5.1. Initiation of a CFD. Owner may, at its option, submit a written request to City on
City's standard application form requesting that City establish a Community Facilities District to
finance the Development Impact Fees described on Exhibit “C” to this Agreement, or the
acquisition and construction of public facilities. To the extent the City determines it cannot meet
the requirements under federal tax code to allow any Development Impact Fees to qualify under
tax-exempt bonds, the City shall permit the issuance of taxable bonds to fund such fees (or portion
thereof).
5.2. Establishment of CFD. City shall use reasonable good efforts to: (a) initiate and
diligently pursue proceedings to establish such a Community Facilities District in accordance
with the goals and policies in effect as of the Effective Date as set forth in Council Policy 505,
April 4, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” (“Goals and Policies”), and (b) if the establishment
of such Community Facilities District is approved by the City Council and the levy of special taxes
and the issuance of bonds for or by such a District are approved by the qualified electors of such
District, to thereafter levy and collect special taxes and issue bonds of such District in accordance
with the Goals and Policies. The bonds of the CFD shall be sized based upon the estimated annual
special tax revenues from the CFD at build-out being equal to one-hundred ten percent (110%) of
(i) the projected annual gross debt service on any bonds of the CFD, plus (ii) priority annual
administrative expenses. Priority annual administrative expenses to be funded from special taxes
shall not exceed $75,000.
5.3. Failure to complete. If City fails to complete the CFD proceedings and record the
notice of special tax lien within two hundred ten (210) days following Owner’s submittal of a
complete application, other than due to delays caused by Owner’s failure to provide necessary
information or inaction by Owner or by other circumstances outside the control of City, or if City
establishes the CFD in a manner, structure or subject to conditions that are expressly inconsistent
with the Goals and Policies or this Agreement, then (a) City and Owner shall meet and confer and
reasonably consider the creation of another financing mechanism to finance the Development
Impact Fees or such public facilities, including, but not limited to, reasonable efforts to consider
assisting Owner to establish an alternative financing mechanism.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 58 of 1221
15
Sunbow DA 2022
ARTICLE 6
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
6.1. Construction of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. The City may require
Owner to construct or fund the construction of any Project Improvements, and Infrastructure
pursuant to the conditions of the Existing Project Approvals provided any off-site improvements
are based upon the Project’s fair share obligation and are needed to serve the Project. To the extent
Owner may be required to provide appropriate improvement security pursuant to the requirements
of the Existing Project Approvals or as required by Applicable Laws, City agrees to use its best
efforts to ensure the release of any improvement security provided by Owner upon the performance
of the secured act or the City’s good faith acceptance of the secured improvement. Owner may
submit a request to reduce the amount of improvement securities every six (6) months subject to
the City’s review and approval. Project Improvements or Infrastructure, such as street
improvements, shall be designed and constructed, in accordance with the provisions and standards
set forth in the Existing Project Approvals as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Project shall not be conditioned to fund or construct any public infrastructure including, without
limitation, streets, sewer, storm drain, basins, water connections, park, open space, landscaping,
and dry utility facilities, that may be needed to serve the site upon which the class “A” building or
such other project will be constructed within the University Innovation District Master Plan,
6.2. Pioneering of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. City shall use its
reasonable best efforts to ensure that the Owner is not required to finance or construct any Project
Improvements and Infrastructure in excess of its fair share costs as established by Applicable Law,
including, without limitation, the legal requirements of “essential nexus” and “rough
proportionality” (“Fair Share”). To the extent Owner is required to construct, install, or otherwise
provide financing (i.e., “Pioneers”) for any Project Improvement and Infrastructure that is
oversized so as to benefit an area larger than the Project, the City shall take one of the following
actions: (1) City will use its best good faith efforts to secure funding from other landowners or
developers for that portion of the cost of such oversized improvements that is attributable to
projects or areas owned, developed or proposed for development by such other landowners or
developers by requiring such landowners or developers to enter into reimbursement agreements
directly with Owner; (2) establish a Reimbursement District that includes the other landowners or
developers that are benefited from the oversized facilities so that the Owner may be reimbursed
for the pro-rata share of benefits conferred to the other landowners or developers by the oversized
facility; or (3) include said improvements in a Development Impact Fee Program adopted by the
City and provide Owner with reimbursement from the amounts collected from said fee, equal to
the pro-rata share of the benefits conferred to the other landowners or developers. If the Project
Improvements and Infrastructure is covered by a future Development Impact Fee Program adopted
by the City, Owner shall be reimbursed from the amounts received from such fee program, subject
to the City’s Director of Public Works reasonable determination that such costs are allowable
under the applicable Fee Program. The fact that such improvements may be financed by an
assessment district, Community Facility District or other financing district shall not prevent said
reimbursement to the Owner.
6.3. Reasonable Relationship between Project and Requirement. The cost of providing
Project Improvements and Infrastructure to the Project or the Property shall be consistent with the
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 59 of 1221
16
Sunbow DA 2022
following principles: (i) there shall be a reasonable relationship between the Project and any Public
Improvement or Infrastructure required to by constructed by the Project; (ii) there shall be a
reasonable relationship between the services and the Project; (iii) the costs that are to be borne for
such services by the Project shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such
services; (iv) the level of municipal services provided to the Project, including the level of
operation and maintenance of Project Improvements and Infrastructure, shall be equal to the level
of service provided within the City limits; and (v) there shall be a reasonable relationship between
any fee required to finance Project Improvements or Infrastructure or municipal services and the
cost of such improvements or services funded by such fee. For purposes of this paragraph
"reasonable relationship" between the Project and any requirement imposed thereon, shall mean
an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the Project and such requirement in
accordance with State law.
ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION UPON SALE TO PUBLIC
7.1. Termination of Agreement with Respect to Lots to Public. The provisions of
Article 7 shall not apply to the sale, or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which
has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of
the public or other ultimate user who intends to occupy the parcel. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot
shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation
of any further document upon satisfaction by Owner of both of the following conditions:
(i) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually or in bulk sold, or leased (for
a period equal to or longer than one year) to a homebuilder, or to a member of the public
or other ultimate user; and
(ii) All benefits set forth under Section 2.5 of this Agreement required at that point in
time have been provided by Owner.
7.2 Partial Termination. The Owner has the right to request that the City approve a
partial termination of this Agreement, to release a portion(s) of the Property from the Agreement’s
obligations and benefits. A partial termination shall be approved by the City if Owner
demonstrates to City that the portion(s) of the Property to be released from the Agreement's
obligations is/are not needed to satisfy any of the obligations established in this Agreement. If
City makes such a determination, such released property shall not be subject to any of the
obligations created in this Agreement, and, similarly, shall not receive any of the benefits granted
in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8
ANNUAL REVIEW
8.1. City and Owner Responsibilities. The City will, at least every twelve (12) months
during the Term of this Agreement, pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1,
review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1, as amended, Owner shall have the duty
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 60 of 1221
17
Sunbow DA 2022
to demonstrate by substantial evidence its good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement
at the periodic review. Either City or Owner may address any requirement of the Agreement
during the review.
8.2. Review Letter. If Owner is found to be in compliance with this Agreement after
the annual review, City shall, within forty-five (45) days after Owner’s written request, issue a
review letter in recordable form to Owner (“Letter”) stating that based upon information known or
made known to the City Council, the City Planning Commission and/or the City Administrative
Officer, this Agreement remains in effect and Owner is not in default. The owner may record the
Letter in the Official Records of the City of Chula Vista.
8.3. Failure of Periodic Review. City’s failure to review at least annually Owner’s
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute, or be asserted by
City or Owner as, a default by Owner or City with respect to the Agreement.
ARTICLE 9
ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY
9.1. Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner in any
manner at Owner’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property, or any portion of the Property,
or any improvement on the Property, by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device
securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvement.
9.2. Mortgagee Rights and Obligations. The mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of
a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns
shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive from City written notification of any
default by Owner of the performance of Owner’s obligations under the Agreement which has not
been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of default. If there are no such defaults by
Owner, the City Administrative Officer shall notify the requesting Party of that fact in writing.
9.3. Releases. City agrees that upon written request of Owner and provided that all
payments and the requirements and conditions required by this Agreement have been performed,
City may execute and deliver to Owner appropriate release(s) of obligations imposed by this
Agreement in form and substance acceptable to the City Recorder and title insurance company, if
any, or as may otherwise be necessary to effect the release of a portion of the Property to an
individual home buyer or parcel of property that has been built out and sold to an ultimate
consumer. City Administrator Officer shall not unreasonably withhold approval of such release(s).
9.4. Subordination. Owner agrees to enter into subordination agreements with all
lenders having a lien on the Property to ensure that the provisions of this Agreement bind such
lienholders should they take title to all or part of the Property through a quitclaim deed, sale,
foreclosure or any other means of transfer of property. As a condition precedent to obtaining the
benefits that accrue to the Owner or the Property under this Agreement, this Agreement by and
through said subordination agreements shall be prior and superior to such liens on said Property.
The owner shall deliver to the City the fully executed subordination agreements for the Property
in a form acceptable to the City Council and suitable for recording, prior to the second reading of
the ordinance adopting the Agreement.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 61 of 1221
18
Sunbow DA 2022
ARTICLE 10
DEFAULT
10.1. Events of Default. A default under this Agreement shall be deemed to have
occurred upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(i) A warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to City is false
or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made.
(ii) A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the
procedure provided for in California Government Code section 65865.1 that upon the basis of
substantial evidence Owner has not substantially complied with one or more of the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
(iii) City does not accept, timely review, or consider requested development permits or
entitlements submitted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
(iv) Owner does not make a Job Enhancement Fund payment when due pursuant to
paragraph 4.11 of this Agreement.
(v) If either Party defaults under this Agreement, the Party alleging such default will
give the breaching Party not less than thirty (30) days’ notice of default in writing. The notice of
default will specify the nature of the alleged default, and, where appropriate, the manner and period
of time in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any period of cure, the Party
charged will not be considered in default for the purposes of termination or institution of legal
proceedings. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the noticing Party will take no
further action.
10.2. Option to Set Matter for Hearing or Institute Legal Proceedings. After proper
notice and the expiration of the cure period, the noticing Party to this Agreement, at its option,
may (i) institute legal proceedings or (ii) schedule hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council for a determination as to whether this Agreement should be modified, suspended,
or terminated as a result of such default.
10.3. Waiver. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver by Owner or
City of any right or privilege held by Owner or City pursuant to federal or state law, except as
specifically provided herein. Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or
remedies as to any default by the other Party will not operate as a waiver of any default or of any
such rights or remedies or deprive such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or
proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies.
10.4. Remedies upon Default. In the event of a default by either Party to this Agreement,
the Parties shall have the remedies of specific performance, mandamus, injunction and other
equitable remedies. In the event of a default pursuant to 10.1 (iv), City shall have the additional
remedy of withholding issuance of additional building permits and the inspection of previously
issued permits. Neither Party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the other;
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 62 of 1221
19
Sunbow DA 2022
provided, however, that the specific performance of payment of Job Enhancement Funds due
pursuant to this Agreement and the award of costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees shall not
constitute monetary damages.
10.5. Remedies for Breach. All remedies at law or in equity which are consistent with
the provisions of this Agreement are available to City and Owner to pursue in the event there is a
breach provided, however, neither Party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the
other except for an award of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees as provided for by this Agreement.
ARTICLE 11
MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION
11.1. Modification to Agreement by Mutual Consent. Except as specifically provided
for herein, this Agreement may be modified, from time to time, by the mutual consent of the Parties
only in the same manner as its adoption by an ordinance as set forth in California Government
Code sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868. The term, “Agreement” as used herein, will include
any such modification properly approved and executed.
11.2. Minor Modifications. The Parties to this Agreement contemplate that there may be
periodic clarifications and minor modifications to this Agreement. Such minor clarifications or
modifications when agreed upon by the Parties hereto are anticipated and shall not constitute an
amendment to this Agreement or a modification pursuant to this Article 11 but shall automatically
be incorporated herein upon execution in writing by the Parties.
11.3. Unforeseen Health or Safety Circumstances. If, as a result of facts, events, or
circumstances City finds that failure to suspend or modify this Agreement would pose an
immediate threat to the health or safety of the City’s residents or the City, the following shall
occur:
(a) Notification of Unforeseen Circumstances. Notify Owner of (i) City’s
determination; and (ii) the reasons for City’s determination, and all facts upon which such reasons
are based; and
(b) Notice of Hearing. Notify Owner in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the
date, of the date, time and place of the hearing and forward to Owner a minimum of ten (10) days
prior to the hearings described in paragraph 12.3(c) below, all documents related to such
determination and reasons therefor; and
(c) Hearing. Hold a hearing on the determination, at which hearing Owner will have
the right to address the City Council. At the conclusion of said hearing, City may take action to
suspend this Agreement as provided herein. The City may suspend this Agreement if, at the
conclusion of said hearing, based upon the evidence presented by the Parties, the City finds failure
to suspend would pose an immediate threat to the health or safety of the City’s residents or the
City.
ARTICLE 12
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 63 of 1221
20
Sunbow DA 2022
CHANGE IN STATE OR FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS
12.1. State or Federal Law or Regulation. If any state or federal law or regulation enacted
during the Term of this Agreement, or the action or inaction of any other affected governmental
jurisdiction, precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, or requires
changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by City, the Parties will act pursuant to paragraphs
12.1(a) and 12.1(b), below.
(a) Notice; Meeting. The Party first becoming aware of such enactment or action or
inaction will provide the other Party (ies) with written notice of such state or federal law or
regulation and provide a copy of such law or regulation and a statement regarding its conflict with
the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties will promptly meet and confer in a good faith and
reasonable attempt to modify or suspend this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law
or regulation.
(b) Hearing. If an agreed-upon modification or suspension would not require an
amendment to this Agreement, no hearing shall be held. Otherwise, the matter of such federal or
state law or regulation will be scheduled for hearing before the City Council. Fifteen (15) days’
written notice of such hearing shall be provided to Owner, and the City Council, at such hearing,
will determine and issue findings on the modification or suspension which is required by such
federal or state law or regulation. The owner, at the hearing, shall have the right to offer testimony
and other evidence. Any modification or suspension shall be taken by the affirmative vote of not
less than a majority of the authorized voting members of the City Council. If the Parties fail to
agree after said hearing, the matter may be submitted to nonbinding mediation pursuant to
subsection 15.19, prior to the filing of any legal action by any Party. Any suspension or
modification may be subject to judicial review in conformance with this Agreement.
ARTICLE 13
ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
13.1. Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Owner may transfer all or any
portion of its interest in, and rights and obligations under, this Agreement to any person acquiring
an interest or estate in all or any portion of the Property (any such portion, a “Transfer Property”),
including, without limitation, purchasers or ground lessees of such Transfer Property (a
“Transferee”) without any act or concurrence by City. Any such transfer must, as and to the extent
set forth below, relieve the transferring party (a “Transferor”) of any and all rights and obligations
under this Agreement insofar as they pertain to the Transfer Property. No sale, transfer or
assignment shall require the amendment of this Agreement.
13.2. Transfers to Third Persons in General. In connection with any transfer by a
Transferor of all or any portion of the Property, the Transferor and the Transferee may enter into
a written agreement regarding the respective rights and obligations of the Transferor and the
Transferee in and under this Agreement (a “Transfer Agreement”). Any such Transfer Agreement
may contain provisions (i) releasing the Transferor from any rights and obligations under this
Agreement that relate to the Transfer Property, provided the Transferee expressly assumes all such
rights and obligations, (ii) transferring to the Transferee a vested right to improve and use that
portion of the Property being transferred and any other rights or obligations of the Transferor
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 64 of 1221
21
Sunbow DA 2022
arising under this Agreement, and (iii) addressing any other matter deemed necessary or
appropriate in connection with the Transfer of the Transfer Property.
13.3. Release Provisions. A Transferor has the right, but not the obligation, to seek
City’s consent to those provisions of any Transfer Agreement purporting to release such Transferor
from any obligations arising under this Agreement (the “Release Provisions”). If a Transferor fails
to seek City’s consent or City fails to consent to any of such Release Provisions, then such
Transferor may nevertheless transfer to the Transferee any and all rights and obligations of such
Transferor arising under this Agreement.
13.4. City Consent. City will review and consider promptly and in good faith any request
by a Transferor for City’s consent to any Release Provisions. City’s consent to any such Release
Provisions may be withheld only if, in light of the proposed Transferee’s reputation and financial
resources, such Transferee would not in City’s reasonable opinion be able to perform the
obligations proposed to be assumed by such Transferee. In no event will City’s consent to any
Release Provisions be unreasonably be withheld.
13.5. Non-Assuming Transferees. Except as otherwise required by Owner in Owner’s
sole discretion, the burdens, obligations and duties of Owner under this Agreement terminate with
respect to, and neither a Transfer Agreement nor City’s consent is required in connection with, (i)
any individual single-family residence (and its associated lot) that has received a certificate of
occupancy and been conveyed to a third party, (ii) any property that has been established as a
separate legal parcel for other nonresidential uses. The transferee in such a transaction and its
successors (“Non-Assuming Transferees”) are deemed to have no obligations under this
Agreement but continue to benefit from the vested rights provided by this Agreement for the
duration of the Term. Nothing in this section exempts any property transferred to a Non-Assuming
Transferee from payment of applicable fees and assessments or compliance with applicable
conditions of approval.
ARTICLE 14
DISPOSAL OF LAND
14.1. Disposal of Land. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ______, attached hereto
as Exhibit “X”, the City determined that certain real property consisting of approximately 7,000
square feet of slope area, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit “X” (“Land”), falls
within the definition of “surplus land” pursuant to Government Code section 54221 and is not
necessary for the City’s use. As such, the City is considering the disposal of the Land in accordance
with the process and requirements set forth in the California Surplus Land Act, Government Code
sections 54220 et seq. (“SLA”). The City intends to send a written notice of availability of the
Land by electronic mail or by certified mail to the all of the entities identified in Government Code
section 54222 within two (2) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. At the conclusion of
the process set forth in the SLA if no qualified entities/agencies desire to purchase or lease the
Land, the City shall begin good faith negotiations with the Owner, to purchase the Land; provided
however, nothing herein shall be construed to bind the Parties to either the purchase or sell of the
Land. The total purchase price (“Purchase Price”) for the Land shall be based on the fair market
value of comparably designated land located in the City of Chula Vista as determined by an
appraisal conducted by an appraiser contracted by the City and paid for by the Owner. The Owner
may provide information to the appraiser to assist in obtaining an appraisal that reflects fair market
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 65 of 1221
22
Sunbow DA 2022
value of the Land. If the Land is transferred to an entity other than the Owner, the City shall
reimburse the Owner for the cost of the appraisal within ten (10) days of the execution of the sales
agreement with the other entity. The appraisal process will allow the City to sell or lease the Land
at fair market value and is not considered negotiations with respect to the sell or lease of the Land.
Should the Owner agree to the Purchase Price, the City shall convey to Owner a grant deed
transferring fee simple title to the Land in recordable form, duly executed by the City, free and
clear of all recorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes; except those
which are reasonably approved by the Owner. Should the Parties ultimately agree to a transfer of
the Land, other terms to be negotiated shall include but not be limited to: (a) transfer of the Land
in “as-is” condition; (b) the opportunity for Owner to conduct due diligence with respect to the
legal and physical condition of the Land and to accept or reject the same; (c) the establishm ent of
an escrow to coordinate the transfer; and (d) other standard and appropriate terms for transactions
of this nature.
14.2. The City hereby grants Owner, and its employees, contractors, consultants and agents
(each an “Owner Party”; collectively, the “Owner Parties”), at Owner’s sole cost and risk,
permission to access to the Land prior to the conclusion of the SLA process for disposal of the
Land, to perform clearing, grading, and geotechnical mitigation measures on the Land provided
however no buttress construction work shall be allowed (collectively, the “Early Access
Activities”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Owner agrees to make any changes as necessary,
to the Entitlements for the City’s approval or denial prior to the issuance of any building permit if
construction of the slope buttress on the Land is necessary for conformance with the Entitlements
and the purchase of the Land or the transfer of the Land to Owner does not occur or is rendered
impossible for any reason. The Owner further agrees to be responsible for any and all costs
associated with or related to early access to the Land, including but not limited to: (i) any and all
Early Access Activities, (ii) implementing all further construction and work necessary to restore
the Land to a condition that existed prior to Owner’s access to the Land, if needed, (iii)
implementing all necessary modifications to the Project Entitlements and other Project
requirements, and (iv) compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and all other applicable laws and
regulations. The permission hereby granted by the City will be considered as Permission to Access
the Land for purposes of applying for a separate grading permit for the Project, including for the
Land. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner understands that a grading permit is needed prior to
performing any clearing, grading and geotechnical mitigation measures on the Land.
14.3 Owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City from and against any and
all claims, actions, causes of action, loss, damage, injury, liability, cost or expense, including
without limitation, attorneys' fees, arising from, connected with, or in any way related to: (i) City’s
grant of access to the Land; (ii) Owner’s access to or possession of the Land; (iii) any Early Access
Activities; (iv) the performance, condition, or existence of any work or improvements performed
by the Owner on the Land; (v) the maintenance or lack of maintenance of the Land resulting for
the Early Access Activities; or (vi) any Owner Parties’ use of the Land, excepting, however, that
City shall not be indemnified, saved, defended or kept free and harmless from any loss or liability
resulting from City’s own sole negligence or the sole negligence of the City’s contractors,
employees or agents.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 66 of 1221
23
Sunbow DA 2022
ARTICLE 15
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
15.1. Relationship of City and Owner. The contractual relationship between City and
Owner arising out of this Agreement is not of agency. This Agreement does not create any third-
party beneficiary rights.
15.2. Notices. All notices, demands, and correspondence required or permitted by this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, or mailed by first-class or certified mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to City, to City
Attention: City Administrative Officer
If to Owner,
City or Owner may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other. Thereafter, notices,
demands, and correspondence shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notice shall
be deemed given upon personal delivery, or, if mailed, two (2) business days following deposit in
the United States mail.
15.3. Rules of Construction. In this Agreement, the use of the singular includes the plural;
the masculine gender includes the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive.
15.4. Entire Agreement, Waivers, and Recorded Statement. This Agreement constitutes
the entire understanding and agreement of City and Owner with respect to the matters set forth in
this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between City
and Owner respecting this Agreement. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be
in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and Owner. Upon the completion of
performance of this Agreement, or its revocation or termination, a statement evidencing
completion, revocation, or termination signed by the City Administrative Officer shall be recorded
in the Official Records of the City. Unless otherwise specifically stated, nothing herein shall be
construed to supersede, modify or amend other existing agreements between the Parties.
15.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to the original and all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
15.6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth in this Agreement are incorporated
herein to this Agreement.
15.7. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only
and shall not define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the interpretation,
construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 67 of 1221
24
Sunbow DA 2022
15.8. Consent. Where the consent or approval of City or Owner is required or necessary
under this Agreement, the consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or
conditioned.
15.9. Covenant of Cooperation. City and Owner shall cooperate and deal with each other
in good faith, and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement.
15.10 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded
with the Office of the City Recorder of the City, within ten (10) days following the Effective Date.
15.11 Delay, Extension of Time for Performance (Force Majeure). In addition to any
specific provision of this Agreement, performance by either City or Owner of its obligations
hereunder shall be excused during any period of delay caused at any time by reason of any event
beyond the control of City or Owner which prevents or delays and impacts City’s or Owner’s
ability to perform obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the following:
acts of God, enactment of new conflicting federal, state or local laws or regulations (such as:
listing of a species as threatened or endangered), judicial actions (such as the issuance of
restraining orders and injunctions), or riots, strikes, pandemics, or damage to work in process by
reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other such casualties. In addition, any delay in Owner’s
performance herein may be excused if such delay is caused by City’s failure to process any
required plans, documents or approvals, provided, however, City’s delay is not caused by Owner’s
failure to submit such plans or documents in a timely manner or is due to Owner’s changes or
amendments to said documents. If City or Owner seeks excuse from performance, it shall provide
written notice of such delay to the other Party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of
such delay. If the delay or default is beyond the control of City or Owner, and is excused, an
extension of time for such cause will be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or
longer as may be mutually agreed upon.
15.12. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings. No Party shall do anything which shall
have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Parties to receive the benefits of this
Agreement; each Party shall refrain from doing anything which would render its performance
under this Agreement impossible; and each Party shall do everything which this Agreement
contemplates that such Party shall do in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this
Agreement.
15.13 Time of Essence Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement as to which time is an element.
15.14. Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be canceled by the mutual
consent of City and Owner only in the same manner as its adoption, by an ordinance as set forth
in California Government Code section 65868 and shall be in a form suitable for recording in the
Official Records of the City. The term “Agreement” shall include any such amendment properly
approved and executed.
15.15. Estoppel Certificate. Within thirty (30) calendar days following a written request
by any of the Parties, the other Parties to this Agreement shall execute and deliver to the requesting
Party a statement certifying that (i) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 68 of 1221
25
Sunbow DA 2022
there have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified
and stating the date and nature of such modifications; (ii) there are no known current uncured
defaults under this Agreement, or specifying the dates and nature of any such default; and (iii) any
other reasonable information requested. The failure to deliver such a statement within such time
shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the Party which fails to deliver such statement
that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification, except as may be represented
by the requesting Party, and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting
Party, except as may be represented by the requesting Party.
15.16 Institution of Legal Proceeding. In addition to any other rights or remedies, any
Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants
or agreements herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof; to recover
damages for any default as allowed by this Agreement or to obtain any remedies consistent with
the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the
County of San Diego, State of California.
15.17. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. If any Party commences litigation or other proceedings
(including, without limitation, arbitration) for the interpretation, reformation, enforcement, or
rescission of this Agreement, the prevailing Party, as determined by the court, will be entitled to
its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
15.18. Hold Harmless. In addition to any defense, indemnity, and hold harmless
obligations of Owner, whether at contract or at law, Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its
officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for
damage for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from
the direct or indirect operations of Owner or those of its contractors, subcontractors, agents,
employees or other persons acting on Owner’s behalf, on the Project. Owner agrees to and shall
defend City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damage caused
or alleged to have been caused by reason of Owner’s activities on the Project. Owner agrees to
indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any legal action filed in
a court of competent jurisdiction by a third Party challenging the validity of this Agreement. The
provisions of this paragraph 15.18 shall not apply to the extent such damage, liability or claim is
caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, employees or
representatives.
15.19. Non-binding Mediation. If this Agreement requires mediation in order to resolve a
disagreement between the Parties, such mediation shall comply with the following provisions:
(a) Meet and Confer. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to
resolve their disagreement. If the Parties are not able to resolve their disagreement within thirty
(30) calendar days after their first meeting on the subject, the matter shall be submitted for non-
binding mediation in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.
(b) Non-binding Mediation. In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve their
disagreement by meeting and conferring among themselves as provided above, the Parties shall
meet to select a mediator who will attempt to resolve the disagreement. Unless otherwise agreed
by the Parties, the mediator shall have no affiliation with either of the Parties and preferably have
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 69 of 1221
26
Sunbow DA 2022
experience in municipal or resource and habitat management. In the event that the Parties are
unable to agree on a mediator within ten (10) calendar days after the expiration of the meet and
confer period, the Parties shall petition the presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the City of
Chula Vista to appoint a mediator who possesses the above-described qualifications.
(c) Mediation. The mediation shall occur at times and locations agreed upon by the
Parties. The Parties shall submit to the mediator their respective relevant documents or evidence
supporting their position that each may choose to provide. Neither Party, nor the mediator, shall
have any discovery powers in the proceeding. The mediator shall meet with the Parties and attempt
to resolve their disagreement by facilitating discussions between them. The mediator shall not
take a position on the dispute unless requested to do so by both Parties. In the event that mediation
process does not resolve the disagreement within twenty (20) days after first meeting with the
mediator, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, the mediation process shall
terminate. All discussions at the mediation shall be kept confidential, as may be allowed by state
and federal law, and shall not be discoverable in any subsequent proceedings. Each Party shall
bear their own costs in the mediation and the Parties shall share equally in any and all costs charged
by the mediator. In the event that a resolution of the disagreement at issue is not reached, each
Party reserves the right to pursue any and all remedies available at law or in equity with respect
thereto.
Dated this _____ day of _______________, 2021.
City of Chula Vista ACI Sunbow, LLC
______________________________
Mary Salas
Mayor
By: Ayres Land Company, its Manager
_____________________________________
By: Keith J. Horn
President
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 70 of 1221
From: Rochelle Rabin <rochelle.rabin15@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2021 10:02 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Support for new housing at Sunbow
Mayor Casillas Salas -
Please accept this letter of support for the new homes planned for Sunbow. I’d very much
like to be able to share these thoughts in person, but with a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old, I’m not sure
that’ll be possible.
Like you, my family has been part of this community for generations. My mom still talks about the hot
summer days my aunts and her would walk down and spend all day at the Parkway Aquatic Pool. My
sisters went to Feaster Elementary. As a kid I was lucky to be able to live next door to my great grandma,
and every week we would walk up to the Chula Vista Public Library on F St, then take the 929 bus down
to what used to be Target, and is now the Hobby Lobby. Marie Calendar's was the place for family
brunch after visiting my grandma in Fredericka Manor once my great-grandma moved to assisted living.
To now bring it all full circle and raise my two boys here. We own several properties intown and, all in
all, have been pleased with the changes we’ve seen over the years.
I was disappointed to learn of the Planning Commission’s short-sided decision on the Sunbow
amendment. They failed to look at the city holistically and didn’t consider the plans for its future. I’m
intrigued by the vision for the University and Innovation District, and believe that continued investment
and revitalization will keep the city moving forward. The kind of industrial that would come to Sunbow
wouldn’t be the likes of Apple or Google as some have opined. Should Chula Vista garner the attention
of a large tech company like that, it doesn’t take much imagination to assume it’d be encouraged to
occupy space in the University district. But I ask…where would all these people live?
I’m very lucky to have deep roots in this community that have afforded me with the opportunity to own
my own home here, and have rental properties. However, a lotof my friends are not as fortunate.
Please don’t make the same mistake as the Planning Commission. I hope that you and the other
members of the City Council vote yes when this project comes before you in the coming weeks.
Rochelle Rabin
269 Aventura Dr.
Chula Vista, CA 91914
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:rochelle.rabin15@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 71 of 1221
From: Cleo Thrower II <ctj7777777@protonmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 1:33 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Support for Sunbow
Hello –
As with any development project fear of the unknown has resulted in a lot of misconceptions floating
around about the changes in process for Sunbow. I too was nervous when I first learned about these
plans, but after doing a little research on my own, I’d like to share my support for this project. I’ve lived
about a mile or so east of this site since ’96, and I appreciate that Sunbow is saving so much open space.
I think I read something like 65% of the site will be preserved.
I also like that they are building homes for the often-forgotten middle market. My own kids are grown
now, but I love the idea of continuing to invest in the schools and parks that make Chula Vista such a
great place to raise a family.
Cleo Thrower
2165 Caminito Rinaldo #109
Chula Vista Ca 91915
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:ctj7777777@proto
nmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
https://
protonmai
l.com/
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 72 of 1221
From: Stephanie Tillman <stillman111@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: 8/10 Sunbow Support
Attention City Council:
I read about the latest Sunbow project in the paper and wanted to share my support. I
understand some of the concerns being expressed, but access to safe, affordable,
housing continues to be an important issue in our region, especially for working families,
veterans and seniors. Sunbow aims to address this problem by converting a vacant
parcel into attainable homes and recreation space. When so many developers aim to
maximize their profits by filling every square inch with homes, I like that this project
includes lots of parks and preserved open space.
I also heard that roughly 70 affordable units are set to expire, but this project will make it
possible for low-income seniors to remain in their homes and continue to age in place.
I’m not sure if this extension is possible without this project, but the thought of these
people being evicted because they’re no longer able to afford their rent on a fixed
income is just heartbreaking.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments.
Stephanie Tillman
1092 Strawberry Valley Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:stillman111@y
ahoo.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 73 of 1221
From: isaac gomez <isaacdta@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 3:57 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Vote yes on Sunbow
To whom it may concern,
Olympic Parkway was designed and constructed as a “scenic roadway” and
residential corridor to serve the Sunbow, Rancho del Rey, EastLake and Otay Ranch
communities. I’m so pleased that, with City approval, that scenic roadway will be
preserved. I like how the project is set back from the roadway so that the views
through this area for the community at-large are preserved.
I support this amendment and am hoping for some good news about its approval.
Sincerely,
Isaac Gomez
988 Maria way
Chula Vista 91911
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:isaacdta@y
ahoo.com
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 74 of 1221
From: isaac gomez <isaacdta@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 4:02 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Sunbow support.
Hello Mayor Salas and Council members,
I’m writing to share my support of the updates to Sunbow. I’ve lived in Chula
Vista for 35 years, born and raised these new homes make more sense for this site
than industrial would. I worry that bringing industrial to this location would change
the character of this area. To think that something like a large factory or storage
facility could be built here makes me especially glad that Sunbow is suggesting a
change. I hope you vote to support this project. It is much more appropriate for our
neighborhood. Sincerely,
Isaac Gomez
988 Maria Way
Chula Vista 91911
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:isaacdta@y
ahoo.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 75 of 1221
From: isaac gomez <isaacdta@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 4:07 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann
jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: 8/10 Public Comment
Dear Chula Vista City Council,
I support these new houses because having a factory or something here
would bring big trucks and heavy machinery to an otherwise residential area. Traffic
can already be a bit tough at times and slow rumbling trucks will only make this
worse. I also read that new street lights are planned and that some developer fees
can help bring improved signaling to our streets. Both of these improvements would
make Olympic Parkway much more efficient. Please vote yes on this project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Isaac Gomez
988 Maria Way
Chula Vista 91911
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:isaacdta@y
ahoo.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 76 of 1221
From: Juan Ramos <juanramos222@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: 8/10 Public Comment
I just learned about this project from my friend Isaac. I agree with the comments he’s submitted
below), and wanted to reiterate my support. I commute on Olympic Parkway and think these things
would definitely help.
Juan Ramos
1830 Unit 2 Ascella Drive
Chula Vista, 91915
From: isaac gomez <isaacdta@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:07 PM
To: msalas@chulavistaca.gov; jgalvez@chulavistaca.gov; jmccann@chulavistaca.gov; spadilla@chulavistaca.gov;
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov
Cc: cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov
Subject: 8/10 Public Comment
Dear Chula Vista City Council,
I support these new houses because having a factory or something here would bring big trucks and heavy
machinery to an otherwise residential area. Traffic can already be a bit tough at times and slow rumbling trucks
will only make this worse. I also read that new street lights are planned and that some developer fees can help
bring improved signaling to our streets. Both of these improvements would make Olympic Parkway much more
efficient. Please vote yes on this project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Isaac Gomez
988 Maria Way
Chula Vista 91911
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:juanramos222@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:isaacdta
@yahoo.com
mailto:msalas@chul
avistaca.gov
mailto:jgalvez@chul
avistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chul
avistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chul
avistaca.govmailto:acardenas@ch
ulavistaca.govmailto:cityclerk@chul
avistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 77 of 1221
From: Dion, Stacy (CCI-California) <Stacy.Dion@cox.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 7:53 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment (Sunbow)
Hello Mayor Salas and members of the City Council,
I own a townhouse here in Chula Vista and was impressed to learn about the community
benefits agreement included in upcoming Sunbow project in the UT.
I’ve heard the discussion about the need to preserve industrial land, but what we’ve seen in a lot of
instances is where this type of property isn’t going to high-paying tech jobs. It’s going to gyms and
storage facilities which isn’t providing the benefits to the city that this project would. The monies
outlined in the Community Benefits Agreement will help bring new jobs, add parkland, and invest tens
of millions of dollars more into our community than what an industrial project would bring.
I think this type of agreement is a really smart way make sure that the city is able to generate revenue
for the projects and initiatives needed most, instead of just accepting that a 30-year-old plan is still
relevant. Kudos to you and to the applicant for working together on this.
I hope you approve this project. Thank you!
Stacy Dion
2216 Huntington Point Rd #32
Chula Vista CA 91914
Stacy Dion
National Account Manager – New Build
cell) 619-994-3135
5159 Federal Blvd San Diego CA
92105
Warning:
External
Email
Item 6.3
Written Communications - Received 1/14/2022
mailto:Stacy.Dion
@cox.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 78 of 1221
From: Max Zaker <maxzaker@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:16 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Laura Black <lblack@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: SUNBOW II Development
Good afternoon:
The attached are some of the Planning Commissioners' comments at the public hearing on
7/28/201 when SUNBOW II development and application to rezone the property was heard. Kindly
include these in public comments when this item goes before the City Council tomorrow.
Thank you
Max Zaker
Chula Vista Planning Commissioner Chair
619) 952-1479
Warning:
External
Email
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
mailto:maxzaker@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 79 of 1221
1
Chula Vista Planning Commissioners Comments
This statement represents some of the comments by the Chula Vista
Planning Commissioners during the deliberation for SUNBOW II
development on 7/28/2021, which ultimately resulted in a 6-0 No vote.
• The proposed rezoning of the project site from industrial to residential
would eliminate approximately 2,800 jobs and 700,000 square feet of
leasable industrial space (as forecasted by the Sunbow General
Development Plan for Sunbow II, Phase 3). Yet, this job loss was glaringly
omitted by the HR&A Study entitled ““Market and Financial Analysis of
Industrial Use” that was commissioned by the Applicant.
• The applicant was given permits to the residential portion of the
project without ever doing the proper grading and prep work for the
commercial/industrial portion. This has caused the developer to push this
project to future planning commissions and future city councils and ask for
residential units "saying it doesn't pencil out.". The applicant consistently
asks for residential without any proper analysis of commercial, industrial
and mixed uses for the land. Only a meager evaluation that the Planning
Commission found to be incomplete and inconclusive. \
• The proposed rezoning of 54.7 acres within the project site lies in the
middle of the largest, contiguous parcel of vacant industrial land in East
Chula Vista. If the rezoning of this industrial land is approved, what is to
prevent the City from rezoning the remainder of this industrial land from
industrial to residential for future housing projects in response to the State -
required Regional Housing Needs Assessment (aka RHNA)?
• Chula Vista needs this project to be built in it's initially approved
configuration to ensure that economic opportunities happen for the city.
Unfortunately, if this is changed to residential it will cost taxpayers lots of
money, just to reward a developer that has been acting in bad faith.
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 80 of 1221
2
• The city should also look at the number of times this project has failed
at council and commission, and maintain strength against a developer who
is acting in bad faith
• The finding by City staff in their EIR companion document entitled
““Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations” that, in
fact, the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” would be a reduced
housing development of 360 residential units. This housing project was
pursued, it would allow for the reintroduction of an eight acre site for a
commercial use project that was first proposed by the Applicant in January
2020 when the City Council considered approving the Community Benefit
Agreement.
• With regard to affordable housing, of the 718 units proposed to be
included in the project site, NONE will be counted toward the City’s
affordable housing goals because the Applicant will simply convert 67 of
the existing 132 units that comprise the Villa Serena Senior Project from
moderate to low-income (to earn the Applicant certain credits). Thus,
instead of a net gain of 72 additional affordable housing units, which would
have been otherwise required, the actual net gain is ZERO towards
addressing the City’s need for affordable housing.
• The deliberate failure of the Applicant (and its hired consultants) to
submit its environmental documents for review by the County of San Diego.
Thus, no official comment was received by the County of San Diego,
Environmental Services Department, regarding the EIR as it pertains to the
Otay Landfill. Consequently, the EIR fails to properly address the historic
levels of methane gas migration within the landfill area that will be
proximate to the proposed project as well as the repeated violations by the
landfill operator cited by the County.
• The dubious contention by the Applicant that it cannot find viable
industrial-related developers for the project site when Otay Mesa (located
less than five miles away) is experiencing commercial and industrial
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 81 of 1221
3
development at a massive scale. There is a strong demand for light
industrial development within close proximity to San Diego/Tijuana Border.
• The applicant was not interested in the option of a mixed use
(Residential/Commercial/Retail) project. Instead, presented a plan for
100% rental housing, with no homeownership opportunities.
• The $11M in-lieu of fee offered by the applicant to the city posed
concerns for many reasons, most significantly, city staff was not able to
provide any specifics as to how those funds would be earmarked and
allocated. We were told funds will be used towards future commercial
development in the University (Millenia) project.
• The rezoning of this designated industrial/commerce land to
residential (ONLY rental housing) is NOT in the best interest of our city. It
will not provide any long-term jobs or create any sustainable economic
benefits to our city.
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 82 of 1221
Meeting Date Agenda Item Name Comment Position
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
II General Development
Plan, and the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area
Plan to Rezone an Existing
Vacant Parcel from
Industrial to Residential
Use Resulting in 718 New
Units Danna Wilkinson
I've lived in Chula Vista for over 10 years, just down
the way from the Sunbow Community. My mom,
who is 78, has lived in Chula Vista for 8 years. She
likes living in her community, knowing her neighbors;
seniors like herself, looking out for each other. She
feels safe. Her church is up the street, her favorite
stores are nearby. She wants to continue to live
independently but with the price of everything
increasing and living on a fixed income, she stresses
about paying her basic expenses like rent, utilities,
food etc. I've looked around for Senior Apts., hoping
to find something a little more affordable. I've come
to realize, it's almost impossible for a senior, living
on a fixed income, to live on their own in San Diego
County. This project preserves roughly 70 affordable
units for low-income seniors. Please vote yes on
Sunbow's request and continue to make affordable
housing available to Seniors, like my mom. Giving
them a little peace of mind and the opportunity to
live live independently and to stay in their
community. Support
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 83 of 1221
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
II General Development
Plan, and the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area
Plan to Rezone an Existing
Vacant Parcel from Catherine Thong
Currently living in the Irvine area and had heard
about Lennar building homes on the Sunbow
property. I think it would be great to have some
medium priced housing in the area that would be
affordable for me. Support
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 84 of 1221
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
II General Development
Plan, and the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area
Plan to Rezone an Existing
Vacant Parcel from
Industrial to Residential
Use Resulting in 718 New
Units Stacy Dion
Hello Mayor Salas and members of the City Council,
I own a townhouse here in Chula Vista and was
impressed to learn about the community benefits
agreement included in upcoming Sunbow project in
the UT.
Ive heard the discussion about the need to preserve
industrial land, but what weve seen in a lot of
instances is where this type of property isnt going to
high-paying tech jobs. Its going to gyms and storage
facilities which isnt providing the benefits to the city
that this project would. The monies outlined in the
Community Benefits Agreement will help bring new
jobs, add parkland, and invest tens of millions of
dollars more into our community than what an
industrial project would bring.
I think this type of agreement is a really smart way
make sure that the city is able to generate revenue
for the projects and initiatives needed most, instead
of just accepting that a 30-year-old plan is still
relevant. Kudos to you and to the applicant for
working together on this.
I hope you approve this project. Thank you!
Stacy Dion
2216 Huntington Point Rd #32
Chula Vista CA 91914
Support
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 85 of 1221
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
II General Development
Plan, and the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area
Plan to Rezone an Existing
Vacant Parcel from
Industrial to Residential
Use Resulting in 718 New
Units Beatriz Young Mondaca
Im writing to share my support for the new
townhomes at Brandywine and Olympic Parkway.
My kids are in their early 20s and buying a home is a
priority. Looking forward, homeownership is
becoming less and less likely for them, unless they
get help from me or have dual income households.
These new townhomes would help give options to
young people looking to break into the housing
market. If you look on Zillow, there isnt currently
anything on the market like this. Chula Vista is a
great community and I hope that were able to keep
our young people here, instead of them moving to
cheaper states.
Thank you.
Support
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
II General Development
Plan, and the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area
Concerned Sunbow
Resident
This will not increase the affordability levels at Villa
Serena as this is a senior housing project. 10% of the
new units should be available to new homeowners
per the City's Balanced Communities Policy and
Housing Element Goals and Objectives. No new
affordable housing for working families will be
available. Thank you. Oppose
1/18/2022
Sunbow II Land Use
Amendments:
Amendments to the
General Plan, the Sunbow
Concerned Sunbow
Resident
Will Lennar enter into a covenant to ensure that the
units will be sold in the $400,000 price tag as stated
in the presentation? Oppose
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 86 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Contract Amendment and Appropriation: Approve an Amendment to the Agreement with Fehr & Peers to
Provide Professional Services Related to Transportation Project Cost Estimating and the Implementation of
Senate Bill (SB) 743 and Appropriate Funds
Report Number: 22-0030
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no
environmental review is required.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution waiving the competitive bid process pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
2.56.070B.3 approving the contract amendment, and appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote
Required)
SUMMARY
Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers to Provide Professional Services
Supporting City of Chula Vista Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743 to accommodate additional
professional services for transportation project cost estimating.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under
Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed activity consists of the creation of a
governmental fiscal/funding mechanism which does not result in a physical change in the environment;
therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to
CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 87 of 1221
P a g e | 2
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
On December 10, 2019, Council adopted Resolution 2019-236, which approved a consultant services
agreement (the “Original Agreement”) between the City of Chula Vista and Fehr & Peers to provide
professional services to support the City’s implementation of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). SB 743 replaces Level
of Service with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining the significance of transportation
impacts under CEQA. The Original Agreement had a not-to-exceed budget of $515,363.00, including a
contingency of $46,851. Authorized services included the development of tools and procedures to complete
CEQA transportation impact analysis in the City of Chula Vista, development of a fee program under the
Mitigation Fee Act to minimize VMT effects, and an update to the City’s existing Transportation Development
Impact Fee (TDIF) programs.
The first phase of the services was completed in June 2020 in support of the City Council adopted Resolution
2020-140, approving the Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG). The TSG was completed prior to the July
1, 2020 implementation deadline established by the California Office of Planning and Research. The
consultant team completed this phase approximately $28,000 below the established budget and with all the
contingency intact. The TSG was the first formally adopted VMT implementation document in San Diego
County, and one of only three documents approved in the region prior to the statewide Senate Bill 743
implementation deadline of July 1, 2020.
Three contract amendments have been previously executed for the project. The first amendment (March 3,
2020) corrected an inconsistency between the Original Agreement and the staff report regarding the
allocation of the contingency budget. The second amendment removed a consultant from the Original
Agreement who subsequently determined they would not participate in the project. The third amendment
reallocated unused budget and contingencies to prepare a multi-modal master plan, including a
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle network, which is planned as a Development Impact Fee funded VMT
mitigation measure. None of the previous change orders have increased the total budget from the Original
Agreement.
The current contract amendment will fund civil engineering services to update the cost estimates for
approximately 50 uncompleted roadway and active transportation facilities that are currently included in
the Eastern TDIF and Western TDIF nexus studies, both of which were completed in 2014. The 2014 cost
estimates were prepared by various consultants over time and several of them were originally done in
previous editions of the nexus studies, with costs being escalated to 2014 using published indices. The
proposed cost estimates would be developed based on uniform methods and assumptions, including unit
costs and prevailing wage for relevant trades. The updated cost estimates will provide an accurate and
reliable basis to calculate the TDIF rates, which will be documented in the updated nexus studies.
Competitive Bid Waiver
Over the course of the project, the consultant team has developed a unique understanding of City processes,
procedures, and objectives with respect to SB 743 implementation. As such, staff believes that a competitive
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 88 of 1221
P a g e | 3
bid selection would result in additional costs and delays to select a new consultant and to bring them up to
speed before commencing the additional services. Therefore, staff proposes that the City Council waive the
competitive bidding process in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070B.3.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and
consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real
property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact
that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the resolution would have no impact on the General fund. The original contract and the proposed
amendment is entirely funded by the TDIF programs. The proposed contract amendment with Fehr & Peers
involves a budget increase of $96,310, which would increase the combined not-to-exceed authorization from
$515,363 to $611,673.
The additional services will be funded from the available balances of the Eastern and Western TDIF
funds. The cost allocation between the Eastern and Western TDIF funds is based on the remaining fee
program obligation as of the most recent nexus study for each TDIF, 86% and 14%,
respectively. Appropriations by fund are summarized in the table below.
Funding Source Appropriation
Eastern TDIF Fund $ 82,827
Western TDIF Fund $ 13,483
Total Appropriation $ 96,310
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund or the Development Services Fund with this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Competitive Bid Waiver City Council Resolution
2. Fehr & Peers Contract Amendment No. 4
Staff Contact: Scott Barker, Transportation Engineer, Development Services
Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 89 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BID
REQUIREMENT AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY AND FEHR & PEERS TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPORTING CHULA VISTA
IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 743
WHEREAS, Fehr & Peers (the “Consultant”) has been providing services to the City under
the Consultant Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers to Provide Professional Services Supporting
City of Chula Vista Implementation of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) (the “Original Agreement”) since
December 2019; and
WHEREAS, Consultant’s services thus far have been performed substantially below the
established budget, have consistently met challenging deadlines, and have produced a deliverable
that has been recognized as outstanding by a local professional organization; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has developed unique and valuable insight into City policies,
procedures, and objectives regarding SB 743 implementation and its effect on fee programs; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified additional services (the “Additional Services”)
necessary to complete SB 743 implementation and Consultant has the requisite skills and
experience to perform these Additional Services; and
WHEREAS, staff believes that soliciting a competitive bid would result in delays and
additional costs to the City; and
WHEREAS, the contract amendment involves a budget increase of $96,310, which would
increase the combined not-to-exceed authorization from $515,363 to $611,673.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
that it hereby finds that the City’s interests would be materially better served by waiving the formal
competitive bid requirement and hereby waives the formal competitive bid requirement of Chula
Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.070; approves the amendment of the Consultant Services
Agreement with Fehr & Peers to Provide Professional Services Supporting City of Chula Vista
Implementation of Senate Bill 743, between the City and Fehr & Peers, in the form presented, with
such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which
shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager
to execute the same.
Presented by: Approved as to Form by:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 90 of 1221
1
FOURTH AMENDMENT
to Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista
and
Fehr & Peers
To Provide Professional Services Supporting City of Chula Vista
Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743
This FOURTH AMENDMENT (FOURTH Amendment) is entered into effective as of
January 5, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Chula Vista (City) and Fehr &
Peers (Consultant) with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into a Consultant Services Agreement
to Provide Professional Services Supporting City of Chula Vista Implementation of Senate Bill
(SB) 743 (the “Original Agreement”) on December 10, 2019; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into a FIRST Amendment to the
Original Agreement on March 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into a SECOND Amendment to the
Original Agreement on November 20, 2020; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into a THIRD Amendment to the
Original Agreement on May 17, 2021; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to amend the Original Agreement for a fourth time
to provide additional professional services (Additional Services), as more specifically set forth
below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and the mutual obligations of
the parties set forth herein, City and Consultant agree as follows:
1. Exhibit A, Section 1 (Revised herein), Section 2 (Revised herein), Task F (Added
herein), Section 3 (Revised herein), Section 4 (Added herein), Section 5 (Revised
herein) entitled Amended Scope of Work and Payment Terms, is hereby amended,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3. Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this FOURTH
Amendment and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further
action under its governing instruments, and the parties executing this FOURTH
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 91 of 1221
2
Amendment on the behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do
so.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 92 of 1221
3
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOURTH
AMENDMENT
TO
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
CONSULTING SERVICES SUPPORTING CITY OF CHULA VISTA
IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL (SB) 743
CONSULTANT’S NAME CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:________________________________ BY: ________________________________
SARAH BRANDENBERG SARAH SCHOEN
REGIONAL PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY: __________________________
GLEN R. GOOGINS
CITY ATTORNEY
https://chulavistaca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mshirey_chulavistaca_gov/Documents/Covid-19 Work From Home/VMT/Agreements/FehrPeers-TwoParty-
Amend4-1.5.22-Final.docx
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 93 of 1221
4
EXHIBIT A
AMENDED
SCOPE OF WORK AND PAYMENT TERMS
1. Contact People for Contract Administration and Legal Notice
A. City Contract Administration:
Scott Barker
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-691-5247
SBarker@chulavistaca.gov
For Legal Notice Copy to:
City of Chula Vista
City Attorney
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-691-5037
CityAttorney@chulavistaca.gov
B. Contractor/Service Provider Contract Administration:
Fehr & Peers
555 West Beech Street, Suite 302
619-758-3001
K.Cole@fehrandpeers.com
For Legal Notice Copy to:
Katy Cole
555 West Beech Street, Suite 302
619-758-3001
K.Cole@fehrandpeers.com
2. Required Services
A. General Description:
Consultant shall prepare cost estimates for specified transportation facilities whose construction
would be funded by the City’s Development Impact Fee programs.
B. Detailed Description:
Task F – Cost Estimates
Cost Estimating Approach
Roadways and Highways, including Ramps. Consultant shall develop a detailed master
spreadsheet identifying typical costs for the construction of a ¼-mile segment of each classification
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 94 of 1221
5
of roadway, including eligible grading costs, demolition, eligible utilities, surface improvements,
construction phase and permanent storm water best management practices, street lighting,
landscaping and irrigation, signage and striping, etc. Detailed costs will be further refined based
upon eligible reimbursement costs for each classification. Where applicable, such as existing
roadways to be widened, areas of right-of-way acquisition and traffic control costs will be
estimated.
Bridges. Consultant shall develop new bridge and bridge widening costs based upon recent bridges
designed by Consultant. Underpass widening will assume they can be widened without
reconstructing the overpass bridge through such methods as tie-back walls.
Traffic Signals. Traffic signal costs for full intersections shall be based upon intersection
geometrics – i.e., number of lanes for each leg of the intersection. Modifications to existing traffic
signals shall be based upon specific signal modifications and will account for reconstruction of
pedestrian ramps, as necessary, to assure compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act
standards.
Unit Costs. Unit costs shall be based upon Consultant’s database of unit costs, Caltrans Contract
Cost Data, or other cost data requested/approved by the City.
Soft Costs. Soft costs shall be as specified in the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fee
ordinances.
Prevailing Wage. All cost estimates will incorporate prevailing wage for relevant trades.
Project Cost Summary. Each project will have its own detailed cost spreadsheet with the estimated
costs plus a 15% construction contingency.
Cost Estimating Services
Task 1 – Meetings: Consultant shall attend up to four one-hour virtual meetings with the City.
Task 2 – Data Collection: Consultant shall research unit costs for similar types of construction and
become familiar with the scope and general issues associated with each project site. Further,
Consultant shall identify the geometrics and amenities associated with each classification of
roadway and develop typical quantity sheets for each, as described above under the “Cost
Estimating Approach” section.
Task 3 – Cost Estimates and Exhibits: Upon completion of the data collection task, Consultant
shall prepare Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for each project, as described under the “Cost
Estimating Approach” section. Consultant will also prepare a single-sheet 8-1/2” x 11” location
exhibit for each project. In combination, the spreadsheet and exhibit shall be organized consistent
with cost estimates included in the 2014 nexus studies, including unit costs and soft costs, and
shall be comparable to the earlier estimates. This task assumes one round of review and revisions
for cost estimates and exhibits.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 95 of 1221
6
Task 4 – Technical Memorandum: Consultant shall prepare a technical memorandum documenting
data sources and all assumptions for the project cost estimates. This task assumes one round of
review and revisions.
Task 5 – Management and Coordination: Consultant shall provide management and peer review
services to ensure quality deliverables and schedule adherence.
3. Term: In accordance with Section 1.10 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall
begin January 5, 2022 and end on June 20, 2022 for completion of all Required Services.
4. Compensation:
A. Form of Compensation
■ Time and Materials. For performance of the Defined Services by Contractor/Service Provider
as herein required, City shall pay Contractor/Service Provider for the productive hours of time
spent by Contractor/Service Provider in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts
in Section 4.A. of the Original Agreement, with the task budgets modified as shown below:
Tasks
Current Total
Budget
Changes with
Additional
Services
Revised Total
Budget with
Additional Services
A. Research and Initial Outreach $ 22,831 $ - $ -
B. Recommendations and
Preliminary Work Products $ 111,175 $ - $ -
C. Follow up Meetings, Final Work
Products, and City Council Actions $ 17,847 $ - $ -
D. Meetings and Project
Management $ 41,353 $ - $ -
Contingency 1 $ - $ - $ -
OT* A. VMT Analysis for Fee
Programs (in General Plan) $ 9,000 $ - $ -
OT* B. Mobility Fee $ 117,086 $ - $ -
OT* C. Mitigation/In-Lieu Fees $ 120,926 $ - $ -
Contingency 2 $ 13,145 $ - $ -
E. Multi-modal Master Plan and
NEV Network $ 62,000 $ - $ -
F. Cost Estimates $ - $ 96,310 $ 96,310
Total for all Tasks $ 515,363 $ 96,310 $ 611,673
* Identified as an Optional Task in Section 2.B. of the Original Agreement. City authorized Fehr
& Peers to perform all Optional Tasks on July 15, 2020.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 96 of 1221
7
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount to be paid to the Consultant for services
performed through June 30, 2022 shall not exceed $611,673.00. If the City exercises its option to
extend the Agreement, the amount to be paid to the Consultant for services provided during the
term of that extension shall not exceed the amount mutually agreed to by the City and Consultant.
If the City exercises all additional options to extend the Agreement, the total amount to be paid to
the Consultant for services provided during the initial and optional extension periods shall not
exceed the amount mutually agreed to by the City and Consultant.
5. Special Provisions:
■ None
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 97 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Agreement: Approve an Agreement Between the City, Otay Land Company, and Dudek for Technical and
Environmental Consulting Services for the Development of the University and Innovation District Overlay
Zone
Report Number: 22-0018
Location: Village 9, Village 10, and the University Innovation District
Department: City Manager
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no
environmental review is required.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution approving a three-party agreement between the City, Otay Land Company, LLC, and
Dudek for technical and environmental consulting services in preparing the University and Innovation
District overlay zone to facilitate the development and appropriate funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote
Required)
SUMMARY
On February 25, 2020, City Council initiated amendments to the form-based codes of the sectional planning
area (SPA) plans for Otay Ranch Village 9, Village 10, and the University and Innovation District (UID). This
action facilitates the creation of a University Innovation Overlay Zone (UI Overlay Zone) to increase
opportunity to attract educational users to the City of Chula Vista.
To develop the overlay zone and complete the necessary environmental analysis, technical consultants are
required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and it has been determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 98 of 1221
P a g e | 2
state CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity
is not subject to CEQA.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On November 8, 2019 the University Subcommittee of the City Council provided guidance on the proposal
to create the UI Overlay Zone with clear direction to create an expanded regulatory tool (Overlay Zone) that
does not dictate where a University user should go, but one that leaves flexibility for that to be determined
by the University user(s).
DISCUSSION
The UI Overlay Zone would be applicable to the SPA Plan areas of Otay Ranch Village 9, Village 10, and the
University Innovation District -- an area of approximately 560 developable acres across 807.5 gross acres. It
would expand the area available for establishment of academic and innovation users, currently limited to the
UI District SPA Plan area.
This new regulatory tool would enable flexible redistribution of currently approved land uses based on
existing entitled development capacities, while meeting all open space and off-site preservation
commitments and mitigations. The increased area available for establishment of educational and innovation
uses would incentivize establishment of educational user(s) in the area by allowing development based on
user- identified preferred location and space needs anywhere within the three SPA Plan areas. The UI
Overlay Zone would promote rapid response to potential users through a partnership between the City and
HomeFed Corporation (the owners of Villages 9 and 10), and it would include a built-in review process to
enable streamlined approvals to get university users established efficiently. Development would be
consistent with the adopted vision; land use character and mix; transects; and open space an d mitigation
requirements of the underlying three SPA plans.
To develop the overlay zone and complete the necessary environmental analysis, technical consultants are
required. Dudek and their team acquired in-depth knowledge of the UID site and surrounding proposed
development through past work on SPA plans, technical studies, and environmental document preparation
for the UID and Otay Ranch University Villages. Based on this knowledge and expertise and pursuant to Chula
Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 2.56.070, staff is recommending the City Council waive the formal
bidding process and hire Dudek as a sole source.
Proposed Timeline
The timeline for the next steps:
1. Winter/Spring 2022: draft the specific UI Overlay Zone and SPA Amendments
2. Summer/Fall 2022: update technical studies and prepare the environmental document
3. Fall/Winter 2022: proposed Overlay Zone ordinance brought forward to Planning Commission for
recommendation then City Council Hearing for approval.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings
within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item
does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of
Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code
§87100, et seq.).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 99 of 1221
P a g e | 3
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The $103,475 processing cost of the UI Overlay Zone and all supporting documents will be appropriated
from funds contributed by HomeFed Village III Master, LLC and HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC per
Development Agreement approved by City Council on July 13, 2021 by Ordinance No. 3505.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of future processing of individual development projects in accordance with the UI Overlay Zone
will be paid for by project applicants.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Three Party Agreement – Dudek
Staff Contact: Kelly Broughton, Deputy City Manager
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 100 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY, OTAY LAND COMPANY, LLC, AND
DUDEK FOR TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE THE UNIVERSITY
AND INNOVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE TO
FACILITATE UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT, AND
APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE. (4/5 VOTE
REQUIRED)
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is commonly known as
the Village 9, Village 10 and University Innovation District, and for the purpose of general
description consists of three distinct properties totaling approximately 807 -acres located south of
the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway, north of the Otay River Valley, and east
of SR-125 (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA
Plan) and certified the Environmental Impact Report (the “EIR”) 10-04_(SCH No. 2010061090)
for Village 9 on June 3, 2014; previously approved the SPA Plan and certified EIR 13-01 (SCH
No. 2013071077) for Village 10 on December 2, 2014 (both together, “Applicant Property”); and
approved the SPA Plan and certified EIR14-01 (SCH No. 2014121097) for the University and
Innovation District (the “UID”) on November 18, 2020 (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, as part of the approval of the UID, the City Council established a flex overlay
zone allowing development from one SPA Plan to be transferred to another property within the
adjacent Village 9 and Village 10 SPA Plans to enhance development timing and improve the
relationship of uses between SPA plans; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to further expand the area available for establishment of
academic and innovation users, currently limited to the UID SPA Plan area by the creation of a
University Innovation Overlay Zone (the “UI Overlay Zone” and “Project”) over the Project Site
to increase opportunities to attract educational users to the City of Chula Vista. The UI Overlay
Zone would be applicable to the Project Site -- an area of approximately 560 developable acres
across 807.5 gross acres; and
WHEREAS, City Council by resolution on February 25, 2020 directed staff to amend the
form based codes/Planned Community District Regulations of the SPA plans for Otay Ranch
Village 9, Village 10, and the UID to create a UI Overlay Zone to promote the establishment of an
educational user in Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the City and the applicant see mutual benefit to the creation and success of
the UI Overlay Zone and have roughly equal development capacities in each of their respective
approved SPA plans; and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 101 of 1221
WHEREAS, because of the mutual benefit of the UI Overlay Zone the City agrees to pay
one half of the consultants cost of $206,950.00, including a contingency of $31,372.00 of which
the City’s portion shall not exceed $103,475.00 (one hundred three thousand, four hundred
seventy-five dollars).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
hereby approves a three-party agreement between the City, Otay Land Company, LLC, and Dudek
for technical and environmental consulting services to prepare the University and Innovation
District overlay zone in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or
approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk,
and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the same, and appropriate funds for that
purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins
Deputy City Manager City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 102 of 1221
Page 1
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Three-Party Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista,
Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK
For Environmental and Planning Consulting Services for the
University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Agreement is commonly known as
the Village 9, Village 10 and University Innovation District, and for the purpose of general
description consists of three distinct properties totaling approximately 807 acres located south of
the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway, north of the Otay River Valley, and east
of SR-125 (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA
Plan) and certified the Environmental Impact Report (the “EIR”) 10-04_(SCH No. 2010061090)
for Village 9 on June 3, 2014; previously approved the SPA Plan and certified EIR 13-01 (SCH
No. 2013071077) for Village 10 on December 2, 2014 (both together, “Applicant Property”); and
approved the SPA Plan and certified EIR14-01 (SCH No. 2014121097) for the University and
Innovation District (the “UID”) on November 18, 2020 (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, as part of the approval of the UID, the City Council established a flex overlay
zone allowing development from one SPA Plan to be transferred to another property within the
adjacent Village 9 and Village 10 SPA Plans to enhance development timing and improve the
relationship of uses between SPA plans; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to further expand the area available for establishment of
academic and innovation users, currently limited to the UID SPA Plan area by the creation of a
University Innovation Overlay Zone ( the “UI Overlay Zone” and “Project”) over the Project Site
to increase opportunities to attract educational users to the City of Chula Vista. The UI Overlay
Zone would be applicable to the Project Site -- an area of approximately 560 developable acres
across 807.5 gross acres; and
WHEREAS, City Council by resolution on February 25, 2020 directed staff to to amend
the form based codes/Planned Community District Regulations of the SPA plans for Otay Ranch
Village 9, Village 10, and the UID to create a UI Overlay Zone to promote the establishment of an
educational user in Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the City and the applicant see mutual benefit to the creation and success of
the UI Overlay Zone and have roughly equal development capacities in each of their respective
approved SPA plans; and
WHEREAS, because of the mutual benefit of the UI Overlay Zone the City agrees to pay
one half of the consultants cost $206,950, including a contingency of $31,372 of which the City’s
portion shall not exceed $103,475 (one hundred three thousand, four hundred seventy five dollars).
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 103 of 1221
Page 2
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
1. Parties.
This agreement (Agreement), effective this _______ day of ____________, 20_____, (the
“Effective Date”), is between the City of Chula Vista (“City”), a chartered municipal corporation
of the State of California, DUDEK (Consultant) whose business form and address are indicated on
the attached Exhibit A, and Otay Land Company, LLC (Applicant) whose business form and
address are indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following facts:
2. Warranties and Representations.
2.1. Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner of the Applicant Property.
2.2. Applicant desires to collaborate with the City to create the UI Overlay Zone on City
Property and Applicant Property. City desires to allow Applicant to manage the process, and
share equally in paying Consultant, with City reviewing and approving the UI Overlay Zone and
participating in the environmental document preparation process to the extent that the City
considers appropriate to ensure that City planning principles, standards and approach to the long
term success of the UI Overlay Zone are met.
2.3. The UI Overlay Zone will provide for an alternative to the existing, previously
permitted transects/zoning districts as established by the adopted SPA plans to better accommodate
university facilities should the property owners wish to exercise the provisions of the UI Overlay
Zone. Underlying SPA Plan approvals, and tentative maps, will remain in place should the UI
Overlay Zone not be utilized.
2.4. The UI Overlay Zone will enable a university user to have the flexibility to determine
the appropriate location, size, and configuration for their needs within a development framework
that creates an active, urban, innovation environment. This approach will increase the
attractiveness of Chula Vista as a university location by allowing the City to be responsive to user
needs and eliminating the regulatory hurdles of re-planning or re-entitlement. This regulatory
approach will allow for and facilitate:
Near-term phased installation of needed infrastructure
Ability to rapidly develop/construct buildings that can be occupied by
university/innovation users
User-determined facility location and size
Near-term completion of direct access to SR-125
Ability for university users to more fully benefit from early southward extension of
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services
3. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration it is mutually agreed to by and between
the City, Consultant, and Applicant as follows:
3.1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 104 of 1221
Page 3
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Consultant is engaged by Applicant, not by City, with equal cost and expense to be borne
by the Applicant and City, to perform for the benefit of City and Applicant, and subject to City’s
review and approval, all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled
General Nature of Consulting Services (General Services); all of the services described in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 5, entitled Detailed Scope of Work (Detailed Services); and all services reasonably
necessary to accomplish said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work. Consultant shall
deliver such documents required (the “Deliverables”) herein, all within the time frames herein set
forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, and if none are set forth, within a
reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of Consultant’s duties hereunder. Consultant
understands and agrees that time is of the essence for this Agreement.
Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed Services to and for the
benefit of the City and Applicant for the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant and
the City.
In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, Consultant shall do so with the
skill and care consistent with that level ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession
currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense
except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein promised, and shall furnish all
of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials,
machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, calculations,
and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by
the City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the
Services required of the Consultant.
3.2. Compensation of Consultant.
Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. Applicant shall pay Consultant within thirty five (35) days of receiving a properly
prepared invoice. City shall not make any payments of compensation or otherwise directly to
Consultant but Consultant shall provide a duplicate invoice to the City to allow the City to confirm
that the work to be paid for has been completed to the satisfaction of City and before the City
reimburses the Applicant for one-half of each approved Consultant invoice. City shall have five
(5) working days from receipt of each invoice to provide its objections to Applicant regarding
payment of the invoice. City may suspend its review of the UI Overlay Zone and environmental
documents should Applicant not pay Consultant.
3.2.1. Additional Work. If Applicant, with the concurrence of City, determines
that additional services (“Additional Services”) are needed from Consultant of the type Consultant
is qualified to render and which are reasonably related to the General and Detailed Services
Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide such
additional services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at the rates set forth in the
separate agreement between Applicant and Consultant. The City agrees to reimburse the Applicant
for one-half of the approved Counsultant Invoice for Additional Services.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 105 of 1221
Page 4
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
3.2.2. In the event that City determines that additional work is required to be
performed above and beyond the scope of work herein provided in order for the Deliverables to
result in a functional UI Overlay Zone, City shall consult with Applicant regarding the additional
work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional
Services, City may, at its option, suspend its review of the UI Overlay Zone and/or further
processing of any application of Applicant that is dependent on this Agreement until Applicant
agrees to pay the costs of the additional work that City determines is or may be required.
3.2.3. Reductions in Scope of Work. Applicant may independently, or upon
request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the General and/or Detailed Services to be
performed by Consultant under this Agreement. Such reductions in the scope of work are subject
to City review and approval prior to any reduction being made. City approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld for any changes that are consistent with the approved SPA plans. If upon
receipt of such a request by Consultant, or by Applicant of its own fruition, Applicant shall notify
City in writing informing City of the requested reductions in the scope of work. Applicant and
Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding
reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree, Consultant’s
compensation may be unilaterally reduced by Applicant by the amount of time and materials
budgeted by Consultant for the reduced General or Detailed Services.
4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant.
4.1 Required Insurance. Consultant must procure and maintain, during the period of
performance of Required Services under this Agreement, and for twelve months after completion
of Required Services, the policies of insurance described on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated
into the Agreement by this reference (the “Required Insurance”). The Required Insurance shall
also comply with all other terms of this Section.
4.1.1 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions relating to the Required Insurance must be disclosed to and approved by City in
advance of the commencement of work.
4.1.2 Standards for Insurers. Required Insurance must be placed with licensed
insurers admitted to transact business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating
of A V or better, or, if insurance is placed with a surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on
the State of California List of Eligible Surplus Lines Insurers (LESLI) with a current A.M. Best’s
rating of no less than A X. For Workers’ Compensation Insurance, insurance issued by the State
Compensation Fund is also acceptable.
4.1.3 Subcontractors. Consultant must include all sub-consultants/sub-
contractors as insureds under its policies and/or furnish separate certificates and endorsements
demonstrating separate coverage for those not under its policies. Any separate coverage for sub-
consultants must also comply with the terms of this Agreement.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 106 of 1221
Page 5
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
4.1.4 Additional Insureds. City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and
volunteers must be named as additional insureds with respect to any policy of general liability,
automobile, or pollution insurance specified as required in Exhibit A or as may otherwise be
specified by City’s Risk Manager.. The general liability additional insured coverage must be
provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85)
or its equivalent; such endorsement must not exclude Products/Completed Operations coverage.
4.1.5 General Liability Coverage to be “Primary.” Consultant’s general liability
coverage must be primary insurance as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees,
agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees, or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance provided by Consultant
and in no way relieves Consultant from its responsibility to provide insurance.
4.1.6 No Cancellation. No Required Insurance policy may be canceled by either
Party during the required insured period under this Agreement, except after thirty days’ prior
written notice to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. Prior to the effective date of
any such cancellation Consultant must procure and put into effect equivalent coverage(s).
4.1.7 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant’s insurer(s) will provide a Waiver of
Subrogation in favor of the City for each Required Insurance policy under this Agreement. In
addition, Consultant waives any right it may have or may obtain to subrogation for a claim against
City.
4.1.8 Verification of Coverage. Prior to commencement of any work, Consultant
shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and any amendatory endorsements
necessary to demonstrate to City that Consultant has obtained the Required Insurance in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The words “will endeavor” and “but failure to mail
such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or
representatives” or any similar language must be deleted from all certificates. The required
certificates and endorsements should otherwise be on industry standard forms. The City reserves
the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these specifications.
4.1.9 Claims Made Policy Requirements. If General Liability, Pollution and/or
Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverage are required and are provided on
a claims-made form, the following requirements also apply:
a. The “Retro Date” must be shown, and must be before the date of
this Agreement or the beginning of the work required by this Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be
provided, for at least five (5) years after completion of the work required by this Agreement.
c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with
another claims-made policy form with a “Retro Date” prior to the effective date of this Agreement,
the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after
completion of the work required by this Agreement.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 107 of 1221
Page 6
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
d. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to
the City for review.
4.1.10 Not a Limitation of Other Obligations. Insurance provisions under this
section shall not be construed to limit the Consultant’s obligations under this Agreement, including
Indemnity.
4.1.11 Additional Coverage. To the extent that insurance coverage provided by
Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums appearing in Exhibit A, City requires and
shall be entitled to coverage for higher limits maintained.
4.2. Public Statements.
All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the responsibility of City and
Applicant. Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or present lectures on the
Project, either during the course of the study or after its completion, except on written concurrence
of City and Applicant.
4.3. Communication to City on Scope of Work.
Consultant shall communicate directly on all scope of work questions and clarifications to
City in the presence of Applicant (presence meaning: physical presence, conference calls or
meetings via electronic media), or by writing an exact copy of the communication which is
simultaneously provided to Applicant, except with the express consent of Applicant. Consultant
may request such meetings with City to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant.
5. Non-Compensation Duties of the Applicant.
5.1. Documents Access.
Applicant shall provide to Consultant and City, for use by Consultant and City such
documents, or copies of such documents requested by Consultant or City, within the possession of
Applicant reasonably useful to Consultant and City in perfoming the services herein required of
Consultant, including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A. City shall provide to
Consultant, through Applicant, for the use by Consultant and Applicant, such documents, or copies
of such documents requested by Consultant or Applicant, within the possession of City reasonably
useful to Consultant and Applicant in performing the services herein required of Consultant,
including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.
5.2. Property Access.
Applicant hereby grants permission to City and Consultant to enter and access Applicant’s
Property, to take any borings, make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary to
perform the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of Applicant which shall not be
unreasonably witheld. Consultant shall promptly repair any property damage occasioned by such
entry and shall indemnify, defend, and hold City and Applicant, and their agents, and employees
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 108 of 1221
Page 7
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
harmless from all loss, cost, damage, expenses, claims, liens, and liabilities in connection with or
arising from any such entry and access.
5.3. Communication to Consultant.
City shall communicate directly to Consultant in the presence of Applicant (“presence”
meaning: physical presence, conference calls or meetings via electronic media), or by writing an
exact copy of the communication which is simultaneously provided to Applicant, except with the
express consent of Applicant. City may request such meetings with Applicant and Consultant as it
deems necessary to ensure adequacy of services performed by Consultant.
6. Administrative Representatives.
Each party designates the individuals (“Administrators”) indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph
9, as said party’s contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent it in the routine
administration of this Agreement.
7. Conflicts of Interest.
7.1. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an “FPPC Filer,” Consultant is
deemed to be a “Consultant” for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report its economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
7.2. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant’s position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and
represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant’s
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices
Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant’s knowledge,
have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant’s duties under this Agreement.
7.4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 109 of 1221
Page 8
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by
the Fair Political Practices Act.
7.5. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney if Consultant
learns of an economic interest of Consultant’s which may result in a conflict of interest for the
purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
7.6. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant’s immediate
family members, nor Consultant’s employees or agents (Consultant Associates) presently have
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the Property (Prohibited Interest).
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of Consultant’s performance
of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made
during the term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest
within the term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for
any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant’s responsibilities under this Agreement.
8. Default of the Consultant for Breach.
This Agreement may be terminated by the City for default if Consultant or Applicant
breach this Agreement or if Consultant refuses or fails to pursue the work under this Agreement
or any phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its completion within a period
of time as provided for in this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement because of a default of
Consultant or Applicant shall not relieve Consultant or Applicant from liability of such default.
9. City’s Right to Terminate Payment for Convenience, Documents.
9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this Agreement, City, with prior
written notice to the Applicant shall have the absolute right at any time to terminate this Agreement
or any work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement.
9.2. In the event of termination of this Agreement by City, in the absence of default of
Consultant, Applicant shall pay Consultant for the reasonable value of the services actually
performed by Consultant up to the date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums
previously paid to Consultant for services performed after execution of this Agreement and prior
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 110 of 1221
Page 9
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
to its termination. Upon City concurrence of the services performed, the City shall reimburse the
Applicant for one half of the approved Counsultant Invoice.
9.3. Consultant and Applicant hereby expressly waive any and all claims for damage or
compensation arising under this Agreement, except as set forth herein, in the event of such
termination.
9.4. In the event of termination of this Agreement, and upon demand of City or
Applicant, Consultant shall, at Consultant’s sole expense, deliver to the City and Applicant all
field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents
prepared by Consultant in performance of this Agreement, and all such documents and materials
shall be the property of the City and Applicant; provided however, that Consultant may retain
copies for its own use
10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures.
No suit shall be brought arising out of this Agreement against City unless a claim has first
been presented in writing and filed with City and acted upon by City in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the provisions of which
are incorporated by this reference as if set fully set forth herein.
11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
11.1. Consultant to Indemnify City re. Injuries.
To the maximum extent allowed by law, Consultant shall protect, indemnify and hold
harmless City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collectively,
“Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs,
expenses, (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs), liability, loss, damage or injury,
in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or
incident to any alleged acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its
officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors, arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the Required Services, the results of such performance, or this Agreement. This
indemnity provision does not include any claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses arising
from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Also covered is liability
arising from, connected with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent
acts or omissions of the Indemnified Parties which may be in combination with the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any
third party.
With respect to losses arising from Consultant’s professional errors and omissions or arising out
of or in connection with the performance of the Required Services, Consultant shall indemnify,
protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees from and
against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense to the extent caused by the negligence
of Consultant (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees) except those claims arising
from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, it officers or employees. With respect to any
professional liability claim or lawsuit, including professional errors and omissions or any claim or
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 111 of 1221
Page 10
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
lawsuit arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Required Services, although
this indemnity does not include providing the primary defense of City, Consultant shall be
responsible for City’s defense costs to the extent such costs are incurred as a result of Consultant’s
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct.
Consultant’s indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, reasonable
attorneys’ fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending
against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant’s obligations under
this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
Consultant’s obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
11.2. Applicant to Indemnify City re. Compensation of Consultant.
Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless against and from any and
all claims, losses, damages, expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected officials,
officers, employees, agents, or representatives of City (City Indemnitees), in any way resulting
from or arising out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant for the
performance of services required by this Agreement.
12. Business Licenses.
Applicant and Consultant agree to obtain business licenses from City and to otherwise
comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 5.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither Consultant nor Applicant shall
have authority to act as City’s agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
13.2. Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States
mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested,
at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit A.
13.3. Entitlement to Subsequent Notices.
No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein legally required to
be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand in the
same, similar or other circumstances.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 112 of 1221
Page 11
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
13.4. Integration.
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the role,
rights and obligations of City concerning Consultant’s preparation of the UI Overlay Zone,
technical studies, and environmental document. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof
may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by
the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. Nothing
in this Agreement shall be deemed to conflict with the Consultants original proposal for services
(Proposal for Services), attached as Exhibit B, including, but not limited to, Exhibit A Paragraph
4 “General Services,” Paragraph 5 “Detailed Services,” and Paragraph 7 “Schedule, Milestone,
Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services.” Consultant shall at all times comply with
both this Agreement and the Proposal for Services. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to
constitute an amendment to any other agreement between City and Applicant.
13.5. Capacity of Parties.
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it
has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement; that
all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
13.6. Governing Law/Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable,
the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement and performance
hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
13.7. Modification.
No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the
same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the specific
instance and for the purpose for which given.
13.8. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together shall constitute but one instrument.
13.9. Severability.
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be determined to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and
agree to such amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other
appropriate action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination,
implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 113 of 1221
Page 12
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
13.10. Headings.
The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not define
or limit the provisions hereof.
13.11. Waiver.
No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or delay, or the partial
exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver of any
rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of a payment by either party with
knowledge of the existence of a breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of
any such breach.
13.12. Remedies.
The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any
rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to the
contrary.
13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries.
Despite the fact that the required performance under this Agreement may have an effect
upon persons not parties hereto, the parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom, and agree that
no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a party to this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a three party agreement and the City is an express third party
beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant.
14. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material.
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems
and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement, with the exception of signed
copies of City approved documents, shall be the sole and exclusive property of Applicant. No
such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to
private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country
without the express written consent of Applicant. Applicant shall have unrestricted authority to
publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such
reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement. Signed copies of City approved documents produced under this Agreement shall be
the sole property of City.
15. Reserved.
16. Assignability.
The obligations of Applicant and Consultant are personal to the City, and Applicant and
Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 114 of 1221
Page 13
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
same (whether by assignment or notation), without prior written consent of City.
17. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written with respect
to the subject matter contained herein.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 115 of 1221
Page 14
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Signature Page To
The Three-Party Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista,
Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK
For Environmental and Planning Consulting Services for the
University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
(Signature Page 1 of 2)
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their
hand hereto as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
City of Chula Vista
By: ____________________________
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
Attest:
Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
___________________________
Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
Consultant: DUDEK
By:_________________________
__________________
Name: Joe Monaco*
Title: President & CEO
* Consultant to provide signature authority for signatory.
https://chulavistaca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mshirey_chulavistaca_gov/Documents/Covid-19 Work From Home/Projects/UID/Agreements/UID-OverlayZone-
Dudek&AECOM3PtyAgt-081221-1.11.22-RevFinal.docx
___________________________
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 116 of 1221
Page 15
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Signature Page To
The Three-Party Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista,
Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK
For Environmental Consulting Services for the
University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
(Signature Page 2 of 2)
Applicant: Otay Land Company, LLC
By: *
Name:
Title:
* Applicant to provide signature authority for signatory.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 117 of 1221
Page 16
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Exhibit A
Effective Date: The Agreement shall take effect upon full execution of the Agreement, as of the
Effective Date stated in Section 1 of the Agreement.
City: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Consultant: DUDEK
Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
( x ) Corporation
Address: DUDEK
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
T +1-760-942-5147
Applicant: Otay Land Company, LLC
Business Form of Applicant:
Address: Otay Land Company, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1. Property (Commonly known address or General Description): Village 9, Village 10 and
University Innovation District
2. Project Description (Project): Environmental Consulting Services for the UI Overlay Zone
3. Entitlements applied for: N/A
4. General Nature of Consulting Services (General Services): Environmental Consulting Services.
4.1 University Innovation Overlay Zone - Provide professional Environmental
Consulting Services as required to prepare, submit and obtain the Approval from the
City Council of the UI Overlay Zone. Consultant services shall be performed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The Services shall consist of a
draft and final necessary technical Studies, and Environmental Document with
accompanying support documents as outlined in Section 5 - Detailed Scope of Work.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 118 of 1221
Page 17
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
4.2 Technical Studies - Provide professional Consulting Services as required to prepare,
submit and obtain the Approval from the Development Services Director of necessary
engineering technical studies (traffic analysis, water, water conservation and sewer
studies, basin and storm drain sizing, grading, backbone infrastructure mapping, water
quality, title review, and encumbrance) to complete the Environmental Document
4.3 Environmental Document - Provide professional Environmental Consulting Services
as required to prepare, submit and obtain the approval of an Addendum to EIR 13-01
(“Environmental Document”) screencheck and final that analyzes and discloses the
environmental impacts resulting from the approval of the UI Overlay Zone.
5. Detailed Scope of Work
Consultant shall provide the following services all to the satisfaction of the Applicant and City
(Director of Development Services):
5.1 Pre-application Meeting with Staff
Within 10 business days of City Council approval of the Three Party Agreement and
approval to proceed from the Applicant, the Consultant shall schedule and attend a
introductory meeting with the City’s Development Services Department and Applicant
prior to beginning the scope of work. This meeting will be used to familiarize the
Consultant with issues related to the development of the UI Overlay Zone, required
technical studies, and environmental document.
5.2 Preparation of Technical Studies
In addition to the technical memorandums identified in 5.3, additional analyses will be
conducted to ensure that traffic, water, sewer, basin sizing, mapping, and water quality
are adequately covered for the UI Overlay Zone. These analyses are being completed
by subconsultants, as identified in Exhibit B, per the scopes of work submitted to the
Consultant.
5.3 Preparation of Environmental Document
5.3.1: EIR 13-01 Addendum
The environmental document needed for the proposed project will consist of an
addendum to EIR 10-04 (SCH No. 2010061090), EIR 13-01 (SCH No. 2013071077),
and EIR14-01 (SCH No. 2014121097) addressing the environmental effects of the
proposed action.
5.3.2: Project Start-Up and Initiation
To establish lines of communication between all team members during this initial
phase, Consultant project managers and key technical staff will meet with the project
team upon receipt of a notice to proceed. The purpose of this meeting is to meet the
key team members and clarify roles, establish data exchange procedures, verify project
schedule, and collect any additional available data. Prior to the team meeting,
Consultant will review materials submitted thus far to ensure a productive meeting.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 119 of 1221
Page 18
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
5.3.3: Screencheck Draft EIR Addendum
Consultant will prepare an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Otay Ranch University Villages Project EIR 10-04 (SCH No. 2010061090), EIR 13-
01 (SCH No. 2013071077), and EIR14-01 (SCH No. 2014121097) pursuant to
California Code of Regulation section 15164 in order to satisfy CEQA environmental
review requirements. Section 15164 states that a lead agency shall prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but
where there are no substantial changes or new information of substantial importance
(as described in Section 15162). The addendum will describe changes to the project
description and environmental impacts described in the EIR.
It is assumed for the purposes of this scope and fee that the analyses contained within
the technical studies, (other than those addressed in 5.2 above) prepared for the EIRs
covering Village 9, 10, and the University site remain valid, and that the creation of the
UI Overlay Zone only necessitates minor updates to several technical reports. As such,
the technical reports listed below will be evaluated and technical memos will be
prepared by Consultant to address the plan changes.
• Biological Technical Reports
• Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Reports
• Noise Assessment Technical Reports
Consultant will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR Addendum forApplicant/City review.
Consultant will incorporate all comments received from the Applicant/City into the
subsequent screencheck and will be responsible for making all revisions requested by
the Applicant/City. The screencheck will be delivered to the Applicant/City in
accordance with the Applicant/City’s policies regarding the number and format for
submitting such copies. A total of two screenchecks will be prepared and provided to
the Applicant/City for its review and approval before finalizing the EIR Addendum.
The scope for the second screencheck EIR Addendum is provided under 5.4.4.
5.3.4: Second Screencheck Draft EIR Addendum
Consultant will prepare the Second Screencheck Draft EIR Addendum for
Applicant/City review and approval. Consultant will incorporate all comments received
from the Applicant/City into the final addendum and will be responsible for making all
revisions requested by the Applicant/City.
5.3.5: Final EIR Addendum
Consultant will finalize theEIR Addendum and address any last minute comments that
the Applicant/City might have regarding the document.
5.4. Overlay Zone Document & Framework Land Planning
Planning services to draft the University Innovation District Overlay Zone document
shall be provided by Nicholle N. Wright consistent with Exhibit C, as an employee of
the Applicant. The costs of services outlined in Exhibit C are not included in the
consultants cost of this contract and will not be subject to reimbursement by the City.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 120 of 1221
Page 19
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Consultant shall not be responsible for deliverables associated with Exhibit C.
5.5. Project Management
Consultant will attend project meetings and hearings. This task includes project
management and administration, regular progress reports and communication with the
client, coordination of project team, quality control, etc. Additionally, Consultant will
attend one Planning Commission hearing and one City Council hearing.
5.6. Deliverables
5.6.1. Technical Studies and Memorandums (Deliverable No. 1):
a. Draft technical memorandums.
b. Final technical memorandums.
c. Draft engineering technical studies.
d. Second Draft engineering technical studies.
e. Final engineering technical studies.
5.6.2. Environmental Document (Deliverable No.2):
a. Screencheck addendum document including text, tables, diagrams,
and appendices.
b. Second Screencheck
c. Final addendum including text, tables, diagrams, and appendices.
5.6.3. Overlay Zone Document & Land Plan (Deliverable No.3):
a. Screencheck addendum document including text, tables, diagrams,
and appendices.
b. Second Screencheck
c. Final addendum including text, tables, diagrams, and appendices.
d. First plan check, second plan check, and final document UI Overlay
document, digital file
e. Revised and final Framework Land Plan, digital file
f. One (1) draft presentation slide deck for Planning Commission; the
City shall be responsible for finalization of the presentation
g. One (1) draft presentation slide deck for City Council; the City shall
be responsible for finalization of the presentation
h. Meetings and attendance at public hearings as identified in Exhibit
C.
6. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant
Applicant will provide to Consultant all maps, grading plans, drainage, soils and other relevant
technical reports, improvement plans, landscape plans, aerial photographs, etc necessary for
the Consultant to perform the services described in Sections 4 and 5 above.
7. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services per approved Design
Project Schedule
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 121 of 1221
Page 20
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
7.1 Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
Same as Effective Date of Agreement
7.2 Format of Deliverables
The work for this phase will be in the form of word processing documents as necessary
to communicate the UI Overlay Zone and corresponding SPA Plan amendments for
recommendation by Planning Commission and approval by City Council.
Instruments of Service / Electronic Media:
Electronic documents are the deliverable instruments of service. In accepting and
utilizing any documents or other data on any form of electronic media generated
and provided by the Consultant, the City and Applicant covenants and agrees that
all such drawings and data are instruments of service of the Consultant. The
electronic files submitted by the Consultant to the City and Applicant are submitted
for an acceptance period of five working days. Any defects the City and Applicant
discovers during this period will be reported to the Consultant and will be corrected
by the Consultant.
7.3 General Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables
Consultant to update City on the Project Status on a regular bi-monthly basis related to
Consultant/Applicant meeting schedule. Updates will be in writing in a format to be agreed
to by all parties. City needs to be aware of all issues resolved and unresolved. Scheduled
meetings may be substituted with formal written memoranda.
7.4 Project Meetings
7.4.1 Kick-off meeting with City per approved Project Schedule.
7.4.2 Deliverable No. 1.a and 1.b.: No Mandatory Meeting.
7.4.3 Deliverable No. 1.c. and 1.e.: Consultant meets with City per attached Project
Schedule and presents work products.
7.4.4 Deliverable No. 1.d.: No Mandatory Meeting.
7.4.5 Deliverable No. 2.a. and 2.c.: Consultant meets with City per attached Project
Schedule and presents work products.
7.4.6 Deliverable No. 2.b.: No Mandatory Meeting.
7.4.7 Deliverable No. 3 Meetings:
1. Presentation to Planning Commission at Final.
2. Presentation to the City Council following Planning Commission.
3. Meetings as identified in Exhibit C.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 122 of 1221
Page 21
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
7.4.8 Deliverable: Project Status reporting to City Staff through out the Contract
Administration phase will be made available via the Applicant and the Consultant.
Meetings to be determined.
7.5 Date for completion of all Consultant services
Times for performance, as identified in the approved Project Schedule may be revised in
the sole discretion of the Director of Development Services.
8. Documents to be provided by City to Consultant
1. University Innovation District
2. City Landscape Design Manual
3. Other engineering, planning and landscape architect standards, manuals, plans or other
documents applicable to the work contemplated by this Agreement.
9. Contract Administrators
Applicant: Halé Richardson
Otay Land Company, LLC
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-918-8200
City: Project Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 409-5887
Consultant: Brian Grover, AICP
Principal
DUDEK
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
T +1-760-942-5147
10. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest
Code
The Political Reform Act1 and the Chula Vista Conflict of Interest Code2 (Code) require designated
state and local government officials, including some consultants, to make certain public
disclosures using a Statement of Economic Interests form (Form 700). Once filed, a Form 700 is
1 Cal. Gov. Code §§81000 et seq.; FPPC Regs. 18700.3 and 18704.
2 Chula Vista Municipal Code §§2.02.010-2.02.040.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 123 of 1221
Page 22
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
a public document, accessible to any member of the public. In addition, consultants designated to
file the Form 700 are also required to comply with certain ethics training requirements.3
1.Required Filers
Each individual who will be performing services for the City pursuant to the Agreement and
who meets the definition of “Consultant,” pursuant to FPPC Regulation 18700.3, must file a
Form 700.
2.Required Filing Deadlines
Each initial Form 700 required under this Agreement shall be filed with the Office of the City
Clerk via the City's online filing system, NetFile, within 30 days of the approval of the
Agreement. Additional Form 700 filings will be required annually on April 1 during the term
of the Agreement, and within 30 days of the termination of the Agreement.
3. Filing Designation
The City Department Director will designate each individual who will be providing services
to the City pursuant to the Agreement as full disclosure, limited disclosure, or excluded from
disclosure, based on an analysis of the services the Consultant will provide. Notwithstanding
this designation or anything in the Agreement, the Consultant is ultimately responsible for
complying with FPPC regulations and filing requirements. If you have any questions regarding
filing requirements, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk at (619)691-5041, or the
FPPC at 1-866-ASK-FPPC, or (866) 275-3772 *2.
APPLICABLE DESIGNATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL(S) ASSIGNED TO PROVIDE
SERVICES
(Category descriptions available at www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/city-clerk/conflict-of-
interest-code.)
Name Email Address Applicable Designation
Enter Name
Brian Grover
Enter email address
bgrover@dudek.com
X A. Full Disclosure
☐ B. Limited Disclosure (select one or
more of the above categories under which
the consultant shall file):
☐ 1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐ 6.
☐ 7.
Justification:
☐ C. Excluded from Disclosure
Enter Name Enter email address ☐ A. Full Disclosure
☐ B. Limited Disclosure (select one or
more of the above categories under which
the consultant shall file):
☐ 1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐ 6.
☐ 7.
Justification:
☐ C. Excluded from Disclosure
Completed by: Enter Name (Add additional pages, as
needed.)
3 Cal. Gov. Code §§53234, et seq.
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 124 of 1221
Page 23
Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK for Environmental Consulting
Services for the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone
Pursuant to the duly adopted City of Chula Vista Conflict of Interest Code, this document shall
serve as the written determination of the consultant’s
requirement to comply with the disclosure
requirements set forth in the Code.
11. City Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall adhere to all terms and conditions of Section 3 of the Agreement and agrees to
provide the following types and minimum amounts of insurance, as indicated by checking the
applicable boxes (x).
Type of Insurance Minimum Amount Form
☐ General Liability:
Including products and
completed operations,
personal and
advertising injury
$2,000,000 per occurrence for
bodily injury, personal injury
(including death), and property
damage. If Commercial General
Liability insurance with a general
aggregate limit is used, either the
general aggregate limit must apply
separately to this Agreement or the
general aggregate limit must be
twice the required occurrence limit
Additional Insured Endorsement
or Blanket AI Endorsement for
City*
Waiver of Recovery Endorsement
Insurance Services Office Form
CG 00 01
*Must be primary and must not
exclude Products/Completed
Operations
☐ Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury, including death, and
property damage
Insurance Services Office Form
CA 00 01
Code 1-Any Auto
Code 8-Hired
Code 9-Non Owned
☐ Workers’
Compensation
Employer’s Liability
$1,000,000 each accident
$1,000,000 disease policy limit
$1,000,000 disease each employee
Waiver of Recovery Endorsement
☐ Professional Liability
(Errors & Omissions)
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
[End of Agreement]
www.gonitro.com2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 125 of 1221
November 4, 2020
Hale Richardson
HomeFed Corporation
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
Dear Ms. Richardson:
Dudek is pleased to submit this proposal to provide environmental services for the Flex District
Overlay Zone project (proposed project). This proposal includes our understanding of the
proposed project and a task-by -task description of the work we envision necessary to complete
an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch University Villages
Project, as well as a cost estimate for the proposed work. The addendum will be prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and
the City of Chula Vista (City) Environmental Review Guidelines. The City will act as the lead
agency under CEQA.
PROJECT BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project (EIR),
which was certified by the Chula Vista City Council in December 2014, contains a
comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the
implementation of the University Village Project in the City of Chula Vista, of which Village 10
is a part. The proposed project includes the expansion of the University Innovation District - Flex
District Overlay to include the University Innovation District, Village 9 and Village 10. This
would expand the existing vision and framework established in the University Innovation
District SPA Plan, including the approved “Flex District Overlay” designation, to a larger
geography that allows for flexible redistribution of university, innovation, supportive commercial
and market residential land uses.
The location of the existing UI District provides a vision, regulatory approach, and maximum
capacities for attracting educational users. Village 9 and Village 10 were planned to provide
university supportive uses and residential housing for the UI District. Village 9 separates the
City-owned UI District land from SR-125 and Millenia urban center and provides limited
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 126 of 1221
Hale Richardson
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
2 November 2020
interface with planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes to a university user and major
transportation routes. The limited applicability of the existing “Flex District Overlay”
designation provides for some market-responsive flexibility; however, it does not provide the
level of flexibility warranted to address the expressed interests of potential university and
innovation users.
In discussions with a variety of universities, the above stated factors have been identified as
challenges to locating an educational department or campus in the UI District. Relocation of the
university innovation area closer to the intersection of Hunte Parkway and SR-125 has been
noted as being better suited to contemporary university and innovation needs. The proposed UI
Overlay Zone would support establishment of university and innovation uses by enabling
development opportunities customized to the user’s needs and preferences.
The proposed UI Overlay Zone would expand the existing approved “Flex Overlay District”
concept across Village 9, Village 10, and the UI District for increased responsiveness to
university users while maintaining the existing entitled maximum capacities and meeting open
space and preserve commitments.
The UI Overlay Zone will guide physical development within its boundaries. It is not an
implementation plan, and adoption of the zone does not constitute a commitment to any specific
project, construction schedule, or funding priority. Rather, the UI Overlay Zone would provide
for an alternative to the existing, previously permitted transects as established by the adopted
SPA plans to better accommodate university facilities should the property owners wish to
exercise the provisions of the UI Overlay Zone. Underlying SPA Plan approvals will remain in
place should the UI Overlay Zone not be utilized.
The UI Overlay Zone would enable a university user to have the flexibility to determine the
appropriate location, size, and configuration for their needs within a development framework that
creates an active, urban innovation environment. This approach would also increase the
attractiveness of Chula Vista as a university location by allowing the City to be responsive to
user needs and eliminating the regulatory hurdles of re-planning or re-entitlement. This
regulatory approach would allow for and facilitate:
1. Near-term phased installation of needed infrastructure
2. Ability to rapidly develop buildings that can be occupied by university/innovation users
3. User-determined use location and size
4. Near-term completion of direct access to SR-125
5. Ability for university users to more fully benefit from early southward extension of BRT
services
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 127 of 1221
Hale Richardson
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
3 November 2020
The UI Overlay Zone would specifically allow property transfers between existing ownerships
(City of Chula Vista and HomeFed). As location(s) and acreage(s) are identified for development
of a university or innovation user, a property and entitlement transfer would take place to
respond to the user. This process would enable flexibility and change of transect without
rezoning property; the property and entitlement transfer would identify the zoning transect(s)
they were electing to use from the underlying three SPA Plans.
Development proposals under the UI Overlay Zone would be required to be consistent with the
transect standards identified in the existing SPA Plans; however, the application of those
transects would not be limited to the underlying SPA Plan boundaries. This process builds on the
Flex Overlay Zone established by the existing UI SPA and applies the concept more broadly for
better accommodation of university users.
The UI Overlay Zone will maintain the maximum development potential in the existing three
underlying SPA Plans. Flexible redistribution of uses within the UI Overlay Zone would be
required to identify the square footage, number of units, and use type consistent with the existing
entitlements.
The primary review process for making future UI Overlay Zone land use exchanges will be via a
new substantial conformance review process. University, innovation, and market rate
development that are consistent with the development parameters of the overlay zone, including
modification to tentative maps, will be approved by a staff level decision. The overlay zone will
define the provisions of the individual SPA plan regulations that will apply, and development
that is consistent with those regulations can be permitted through a predictable review and
approval process.
SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES
Task 1: CEQA Addendum
The environmental document needed for the proposed project will consist of an addendum
addressing the environmental effects of the proposed action.
Task 1.1: Project Start-Up and Initiation
To establish lines of communication between all team members during this initial phase, Dudek
project managers and key technical staff will meet with the project team upon receipt of a notice
to proceed. The purpose of this meeting is to meet the key team members and clarify roles,
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 128 of 1221
Hale Richardson
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
4 November 2020
establish data exchange procedures, verify project schedule, and collect any additional available
data. Prior to the team meeting, Dudek would review materials submitted thus far to ensure a
productive meeting.
Task 1.2: Screencheck Draft Addendum
Dudek will prepare an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch
University Villages Project pursuant to California Government Code section 15164 in order to
satisfy CEQA environmental review requirements. Section 15164 states that a lead agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary,
but where there are no substantial changes or new information of substantial importance (as
described in Section 15162). The addendum would describe changes to the project description
and environmental impacts described in the EIR.
It is assumed for the purposes of this scope and fee that the analyses contained within the
technical studies prepared for the prior EIRs remain valid, and that the proposed project (overlay
zone) would not require any updates to those reports. As such, this scope of work does not
include any revisions to technical studies or associated update memorandums.
Dudek will prepare a Screencheck Draft of the addendum for client/City review. Dudek will
incorporate all comments received from the client/City into the subsequent screencheck and will
be responsible for making all revisions requested by the client/City. The screencheck will be
delivered to the client/City in accordance with the client/City’s policies regarding the number
and format for submitting such copies. A total of two screenchecks will be prepared and
provided to the client/City for its review and approval before finalizing the addendum. The scope
for the second screencheck addendum is provided under Task 1.3.
Task 1.3: Second Screencheck Draft Addendum
Dudek will prepare the Second Screencheck Draft for the client/City’s review and approval.
Dudek will incorporate all comments received from the client/City into the final addendum and
will be responsible for making all revisions requested by the client/City.
Task 1.4: Final Addendum
Dudek will finalize the addendum and address any last minute comments that they client/City
might have regarding the document.
Task 1 Cost…………………………………………………………..………....………$24,500
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 129 of 1221
Hale Richardson
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
5 November 2020
Task 2: Technical Studies – Dudek Memorandums
It is assumed for the purposes of this scope and fee that the analyses contained within the
technical studies prepared for the EIRs covering Village 9, 10, and the University site remain
valid, and that the creation of the Flex District Overlay Zone only necessitates minor updates to
some of those reports. As such, the technical reports listed below will be evaluated and technical
memos will be prepared by Dudek to address the plan changes.
• Biological Technical Reports
• Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Reports
• Noise Assessment Technical Reports
Task 2 Cost…………………………………………………………..………....………$15,000
Task 3: Technical Studies – Other
In addition to the technical memorandums identified in Task 2, additional analyses will be
conducted to ensure that traffic, water, sewer, basin sizing, mapping, and water quality are
adequately covered for the Flex District Overlay Zone. These analyses are being completed by
subconsultants (Chen Ryan, Dexter Wilson, and Hunsaker) per the scopes of work attached to
this proposal. The below costs include a 10% markup for Dudek to manage these subconsultants.
• Chen Ryan (traffic analysis) – $16,500
• Dexter Wilson (water and sewer studies) - $17,600
• Hunsaker (basin sizing, mapping, water quality) - $89,980
Task 3 Cost………………………………………………………...………....………$124,080
Task 4: Project Management
Dudek will attend project meetings and hearings. This task includes project management and
administration, regular progress reports and communication with the client, coordination of
project team, quality control, etc. Additionally, Dudek will attend one Planning Commission
hearing and one City Council hearing.
Task 4 Cost…………………………………………………………..………....………$12,000
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 130 of 1221
Hale Richardson
Subject: Flex District Overlay Zone – CEQA Addendum
6 November 2020
COST SUMMARY
Tasks 1 through 4 will be billed on a time-and-material basis in accordance with the Dudek 2020
Standard Schedule of Charges, not to exceed $175,580. Thank you for the opportunity to
continue providing services for Otay Ranch projects, and we hope that Dudek will serve your
needs for this effort. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact
me at 760.479.4248, or bgrover@dudek.com.
Sincerely,
Brian Grover, AICP
Principal
Att: Chen Ryan Proposal (Traffic)
Dexter Wilson Proposal (Water and Sewer)
Hunsaker Proposal (Engineering)
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 131 of 1221
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310 | San Diego, CA 92103 | (619) 795‐6086
www.ChenRyanMobility.com
October 15, 2020
Mr. Brian P. Grover, AICP
DUDEK
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Flex District Overlay Zone – As‐Needed Traffic Engineering Services
Dear Brian,
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. (CRA) is pleased to submit this letter proposal to Dudek (the “Client”) to provide
traffic engineering services for the proposed Flex District Overlay Zone (“Proposed Project”). This project
would expand the University Innovation District ‐ Flex District Overlay to include the University Innovation
District, Village 9 and Village 10.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CRA will provide the following services for the Proposed Project (the “Services”):
1. Compile previously approved traffic studies (V2, University Villages, V8W, V9 and the Innovation
District SPA Plan project, etc.) in the Proposed Project study area and consolidate impacts and
mitigation triggers. This information will be reported in a comprehensive mitigation trigger matrix,
including respective land use assumptions and ADT/EDU allowances.
2. Review approved land uses within the Proposed Project study area and compare this information
with what was studied in previous impact analyses. It is assumed that AECOM will prepare and
provide a complete list of approved land uses including quantities.
3. Compile and reconcile roadway and intersection geometric assumptions among previously studies
within the study area. It is estimated that up to seven main (7) intersections are located in the
study area.
4. Recalculate mitigation triggers based on the latest land uses and consolidated roadway and
intersection geometrics.
5. Conduct a roadway capacity analysis to determine if the currently adopted Circulation Element
roadway classifications are sufficient to accommodate the anticipated traffic associated with the
collective land uses within the Overlay Zone and the surrounding areas.
6. Coordinate with the City and the project team to fill out a Project Information Form (PIF), as
required by the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines. The PIF will include a
determination of whether the Proposed Project is required to conduct a Vehicles Miles Traveled
(VMT) analysis. Based on our current understanding and direction from City’s staff, it is assumed
that the Proposed Project is not required to conduct a VMT based analysis.
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 132 of 1221
Page 2 of 2
7. Document the findings in a technical memorandum.
8. Attend up to eight (8) meetings in person or via conference call (up to one hour each).
COMPENSATION
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. will perform the tasks outlined above for a time‐and‐material not‐to‐exceed cost
of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), including expenses such as reproduction and mileages. Note that
any SANDAG modeling costs, if determined necessary, is not included in this estimate.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A draft technical memorandum will be submitted to the Client within five (5) weeks following a written
authorization to proceed or a signed contract.
As always, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and we look forward to assisting you on
this Project!
Sincerely,
Monique Chen, PE
Principal
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 133 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 134 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 135 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 136 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 137 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 138 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 139 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 140 of 1221
www.gonitro.com Exhibit B - Dudek Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 141 of 1221
University Innovation District Overlay Zone
Exhibit C Planning Services Scope of Work
1
Nicholle N. Wright, AICP (Nicholle Wright), as an employee of the
Applicant, shall provide professional planning services to develop the UI
District Overlay Zone for flexible regulation of Village 9, Village 10, and the
University Innovation District. The following scope of work is designed to
support a mutually beneficial Overlay Zone document through to adoption.
All Tasks will be conducted in coordination with Dudek (the consultant) and the City of Chula Vista (City). Nicholle Wright will
follow procedures to maintain appropriate communication with the City regarding the Overlay.
The costs of services outlined herein are not included in the consultants cost defined in the Three Party Agreement Between City
of Chula Vista, Otay Land Company, LLC and DUDEK and will not be subject to reimbursement by the City.
Task 1: Project Management
Nicholle Wright shall attend project meetings with the City of Chula Vista, and the Dudek team (Dudek and subconsultants).
This assumes two (2) meeting per month for approximately 10 months during the Project Schedule; this assumes 20 meetings
to be attended by Nicholle Wright to enable effective coordination and communication to complete Tasks 2 and 3 below.
Task 2: UI District Overlay Zone Document
Nicholle Wright shall serve as the lead author of the University Innovation District Overlay Zone (UI Overlay). All work in this
task will be based on the draft started in the summer of 2020 and rely on notes from the previous work effort, and coordination
meetings completed in Task 1.B.
The UI Overlay will respect all existing entitlements and include coordinated standards that amend by reference the University
Innovation District SPA Plan, Village 9 SPA Plan, and Village 10 SPA plan as adopted. Amendments are anticipated to include
the following:
– Site utilization
– Street types / cross sections (in collaboration with Chen Ryan as needed)
– Amend all ‘Permitted Land Use’ tables to be consistent with each other and existing state law
– Building configurations
– Transect / zone standards for a consolidated approach and objective standards
– Height exemptions and encroachments
– Parking configuration and parking lot standards
This Task is scoped to allow for SPA Plan standards to be harmonized to work together within the UI Overlay. Initial Draft UI
Overlay Zone will include text, tables, diagrams. The Overlay will amend by reference the Otay Ranch Village 9, Village 10,
and the University and Innovation District SPA Plans, including an amendment to be attached to each SPA Plan. This task
Exhibit C
UI District Overlay Zone
Planning Services to be provided by Applicant
www.gonitro.com Exhibit C - Applicant Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 142 of 1221
Planning Services Scope of Work Otay Land Company, LLC
December 2021
2
may include strikeout/underline amendments to the individual SPA Plans; this does not include amendment of any SPA Plan
appendices or other City documents.
In collaboration with the Applicant, City of Chula Vista, and the Dudek team, Nicholle Wright will produce one (1) first plan
check draft, one (1) second plan check draft, and one (1) final document.
All versions of the UI Overlay document will be provided digitally to the Applicant and City; the scope assumes no costs for
physical reproduction or distribution.
The Applicant and the City of Chula Vista will have a concurrent four (4) week review period for each of the draft documents.
Task 3: Framework Land Planning
Based on work completed in the previous phase Nicholle Wright will provide land planning services to refine the framework
land plan to establish:
– location of primary backbone roads
– connective open space consistent with SPA Plan vision/entitlements
– transit line location
– connections to revised SR-125 interchanges/frontage road
The framework land plan will respect, and not alter, the ‘Preserve Edge’ area of any of the three SPA Plans or any O-1 Open
Space area of the UI District SPA Plan. This Task includes:
- one (1) coordination/review meeting with Dudek team to evaluate and comment on the draft land plan from the previous
drafting
- one (1) revised framework land plan based on previous work (PDF graphic file)
- one (1) follow up meeting with the Applicant, City, and Dudek team to review/confirm revised framework plan
- provide digital files to the Dudek team for land plan / infrastructure finalization
Nicholle Wright shall not be responsible for changes in land improvement costs to City land or Applicant land that may result
from the updated framework land plan. This Task does not include any tentative mapping, AutoCAD files, grading or technical
land engineering.
Task 4: Public Hearing Support
Nicholle Wright shall support the City in preparation of staff report and presentation materials for up to two (2) public hearings.
This Task includes:
– provision of technical or summary materials to support the staff report(s) or presentations
– review of, and suggested revisions for, the Planning Commission staff report
– one (1) draft presentation slide deck for Planning Commission; the City shall be responsible for finalization of the
presentation
– one (1) draft presentation slide deck for the City Council; the City shall be responsible for finalization of the presentation
– Attendance at two (2) public hearing at the request of the City
www.gonitro.com Exhibit C - Applicant Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 143 of 1221
University Innovation District Overlay Zone
Exhibit C Planning Services Scope of Work
3
Anticipated Deliverables:
The following deliverables are anticipated under this scope of work.
1. Up to 20 project meetings; assumes two (2) in-person meetings in Chula Vista, all other meetings assumed to be digital
format.
2. One (1) first plan check draft UI Overlay document, digital file
3. One (1) second plan check draft UI Overlay document, digital file
4. One (1) final document UI Overlay document, digital file
5. One (1) revised Framework Land Plan based on previous work
6. Framework Land Plan digital files provided to Dudek team
7. One (1) draft presentation slide deck for Planning Commission; the City shall be responsible for finalization of the
presentation
8. One (1) draft presentation slide deck for City Council; the City shall be responsible for finalization of the presentation
9. Attendance at two (2) public hearings by Nicholle Wright at the request of the City
Notes:
1. All meetings discussed herein shall be held via digital meeting platform or conference call until such time as the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance ends social distancing requirements.
www.gonitro.com Exhibit C - Applicant Scope2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 144 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Funding Application: Approval to Authorize Submittal of Applications to CalRecycle's Recycling Payment
Program
Report Number: 22-0054
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Economic Development
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no
environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager or designee to submit applications to receive funding from
CalRecycle’s Recycling Payment Program.
SUMMARY
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) distributes approximately $10,500,000
each fiscal year to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup
activities. As a requirement to receive this funding, eligible cities and counties must submit a resolution
approving a request for funds for this program. Staff is requesting Council approval to apply for this
reoccurring, annual payment program for a period of five years through 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and it has been determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the
state CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant
to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, it has also been determined that the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Thus, no environmental review is
required.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 145 of 1221
P a g e | 2
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code 14581 (a)(3)(A) of the California Beverage Container and Liter
Reduction Act, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) distributes
approximately $10,500,000 each fiscal year to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage
container recycling and litter cleanup activities. The goal of CalRecycle’s beverage container recycling
program is to reach and maintain an 80 percent recycling rate for all California Redemption Value (CRV)
beverage containers such as aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic bottles and bi-metal cans. These
programs are in furtherance of California's efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the
state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment.
In furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the
administration, application, awarding, and management of the payment programs. CalRecycle's procedures
for administering payment programs require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare
by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. This program
allows the City Manager or an approved designee, as the "Signature Authority" on behalf of the City and is
authorized and directed to execute all documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements,
amendments and requests for payment, necessary to implement the Beverage Container Recycling
Payment Program in the City, and secure payment for such program. (Attachment 1. Beverage Container
Recycling City/County Payment Program-Program Guidelines Fiscal Year 2021-22)
Staff is requesting Council approval to apply for this reoccurring, annual, funds payment program for a
period of five years. These funds provide California Redemption Value (CRV) container collection, litter
reduction containers, education at public access venues and liter clean-up events. Funds from this program
allow the City to provide collection containers in areas that currently lack recycling opportunities such as
shopping corridors with pedestrian-friendly areas, public courtyards, recreation centers and libraries.
Promotion of CRV container recycling opportunities are also created using multi-media and printed media
collateral materials.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and
consequently, the real property holdings of the Chula Vista City Council members and do not create a
disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't
Code § 87100, et seq.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. All current expenditures and revenues associated
with the Beverage Container Recycling Program are fully funded through CalRecycle.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 146 of 1221
P a g e | 3
There will be no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. All current expenditures and revenues associated
with the Beverage Container Recycling Program are fully funded through CalRecycle.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program-Program Guidelines Fiscal Year 2021-22
Staff Contact: Manuel Medrano, Environmental Services Manager
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 147 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA [AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
APPLICATIONS FOR CALRECYCLE'S BEVERAGE
CONTAINER RECYCLING PAYMENT PROGRAM AND
RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS, FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS]
WHEREAS, [pursuant to the Public Resources Code 14581 (a)(3)(A) of the California
Beverage Container and Liter Reduction Act, the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) distributes approximately $10,500,000 each fiscal year to eligible
cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities ];
and
WHEREAS, [in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish
procedures governing the administration, application, awarding, and management of the
payment programs
WHEREAS, CalRecycle's procedures for administering payment programs require,
among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain
authorizations related to the administration of the payment program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
that it [that the City of Chula Vista, is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for
the CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling Payment Program].
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee; is designated as the
Signature Authority on behalf of the City and is hereby authorized and directed to execute all
documents; including but not limited to, applications; agreements; amendments and requests for
payment, necessary to implement the Beverage Container Recycling Payment Program in the City.
and secure payment for such program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it that
this authorization is effective for five years from the date this resolution is adopted, unless
earlier rescinded by the City Council.].
Presented by Approved as to form by
[Eric C. Crockett] Glen R. Googins
[Deputy City Manager] City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 148 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 149 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 1
October 2020
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Beverage Container Recycling
City/County Payment Program
Application and Program Guidelines
Fiscal Year 2020–21
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 150 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 2
Table of Contents
Cycle Overview ......................................................................................... 3
Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 4
Eligible Applicants ........................................................................................................ 4
Joint Application Requirements .................................................................................... 4
Eligible Projects/Products ............................................................................................. 4
Available Funds ............................................................................................................ 5
Term ............................................................................................................................. 5
Eligible and Ineligible Costs .......................................................................................... 5
Public Records Requests ............................................................................................. 7
Confidentiality ............................................................................................................... 7
Application Instructions ........................................................................... 9
Application Access ....................................................................................................... 9
Funding Request Tab - Application Contents and Instructions ..................................... 9
Contacts Tab ........................................................................................................... 10
Addresses Tab ........................................................................................................ 10
Activities Tab ........................................................................................................... 10
Documents Tab ....................................................................................................... 11
Application Documents .......................................................................... 12
Electronic and Original Signatures ............................................................................. 12
Funding Request Certification .................................................................................... 12
Resolution ................................................................................................................ 12
Letter of Designation ............................................................................................... 13
Letter of Authorization.............................................................................................. 14
Funding Request Review and Award Process ...................................... 15
Funding Request Review Process .............................................................................. 15
Funding Award Process.............................................................................................. 15
Award Conditions ....................................................................................................... 15
Program Administration ......................................................................... 16
Reporting Process ...................................................................................................... 16
Semi-Annual Reporting for AB 506 .......................................................................... 16
Payment Request Process ......................................................................................... 16
Expenditure Payments............................................................................................. 17
Expenditure Changes .............................................................................................. 17
Records Retention and Audit Consideration ............................................................... 17
Termination for Cause ................................................................................................ 17
Indemnity .................................................................................................................... 18
Compliance ................................................................................................................. 18
How to Reach Us ........................................................................................................ 18
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 151 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 3
Cycle Overview
Submittal of a Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program
(Program) Application constitutes acceptance of these Guidelines as the
controlling requirements for receiving, spending, and accounting for funds and
for reporting. The on-line funding request application and these Guidelines shall
constitute the Agreement.
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) offers the
Beverage Container Recycling City County Payment Program pursuant to Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 14581(a)(3)(A) of the California Beverage Container
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. CalRecycle is distributing $10,500,000 in fiscal year
(FY) 2020-21 to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling
and litter cleanup activities.
The purpose of the beverage container recycling program is to reach and maintain an
80 percent recycling rate for all California Refund Value beverage containers –
aluminum, glass, plastic, and bi-metal. Projects implemented by cities and counties will
assist in reaching and maintaining this goal.
These Guidelines describe the application and administrative processes to implement
the Program. Recipients are responsible and accountable for ensuring that
expenditures are appropriate, and that proper internal supporting documentation is
maintained. To ensure full compliance with the processes and requirements, recipients
must adhere to these Guidelines and the provisions set out in PRC 14581 et al.
This resource document provides applicants with instructions to access and complete
the application online and information about program administration. The web-based
application is in CalRecycle’s City/County Annual Payment and Reporting System
(CAPRS)
(https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/CAPRS/SignIn.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fCAPRS%2f ). The
applicant will need to sign in to CAPRS to complete and submit an application.
Note: The following terms used in this document are defined below, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
• “Applicant” refers to either the legal name of the entity that is legally responsible
for project administration, if awarded, or to a person who is completing an
application on behalf of the Applicant (this is usually the primary contact listed on
the application, but could also be the secondary contact, signature authority, or
consultant).
• “You” refers to a person who is completing the application on behalf of the
Applicant.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 152 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 4
Timeline
October 19, 2020: Funding Request Open Date
January 19, 2021: Funding Request Due Date
• Applicants must submit applications in CAPRS by 11:59 p.m. on this date.
• Customer service will be available until 4:00 p.m. on this date.
April 2021 (tentative): Payment Awards and Beginning of Term (Request for
Approval Date)
• CalRecycle considers funding recommendations, and if approved, conditionally
awards payments during this month.
• Program expenditures may start no earlier than the date of the award.
June – July 2021 (tentative): Payments Distributed
March 1, 2023: Term End Date
April 3, 2023: Reporting Due Date
Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants include cities, counties, or cities and counties in California, as
identified by the California Department of Finance, unless otherwise determined by
CalRecycle.
California Labor Code section 1782 prohibits a charter city from receiving state funding
or financial assistance for construction projects if that charter city does not comply with
Labor Code sections 1770-1782. If any applicants or participating entities are charter
cities or Joint Powers Authorities that include charter cities, the lead participating entity
must certify on the Detail tab of the application that Labor Code section 1782 does not
prohibit any included charter city from receiving state funds for the project described in
this application. If it is determined after award that an applicant or participating entity is
a charter city prohibited from receiving state funds for this grant project, the grant will be
terminated and any disbursed grant funds shall be returned to CalRecycle.
Joint Application Requirements
Eligible entities may join together in a joint application in which two or more eligible
entities join together to implement the project. A Lead Participant (Lead) must be
designated to act on behalf of all participating entities. The Lead is the applicant, and if
awarded, will be the entity responsible for the performance of the Program and all
required documentation. CalRecycle will direct all official correspondence and
payments to the Lead.
Note: An entity may not submit an individual application if that entity is also a participant
of a joint application.
Eligible Projects/Products
Eligible activities include, but are not necessarily limited to:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 153 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 5
• New or existing curbside recycling programs.
• Neighborhood drop-off recycling programs.
• Public education promoting beverage container recycling.
• Litter reduction and cleanup where the waste stream includes beverage
containers that will be recycled.
• Cooperative regional efforts among two or more cities and counties.
• Other beverage container recycling programs.
• Supporting AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR) requirements. For
additional information on MCR and definitions of “businesses” and “multi-family
residential dwellings” as they relate to this regulation, see Mandatory Commercial
Recycling (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/).
o Infrastructure for businesses to recycle beverage containers.
o Support for new or existing beverage container recycling programs for
residential dwellings.
o Public education and outreach that includes a beverage container
recycling component.
Available Funds
• $10,500,000 is available for fiscal year 2020–21, subject to funding availability.
• Each city is eligible to receive $5,000 or an amount calculated by CalRecycle, on
a per capita basis, whichever is greater.
• Each county is eligible to receive $10,000 or an amount calculated by
CalRecycle, on a per capita basis, whichever is greater.
The calculation is based upon the population in the incorporated areas of a city, or a city
and county, or the unincorporated area of a county as of January 1, 20 20 (Department
of Finance E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Ann ual
Percent Change – January 1, 2019 and 2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020.)
Term
The Term begins from the date of the award and ends on March 1, 2023. Eligible costs
must be incurred no later than March 1, 2023.
Recipients are notified by email once the awards are approved and will be provided the
listing of the awarded amount.
Eligible and Ineligible Costs
All eligible expenditures are subject to proportionate cost/rate to beverage container
recycling activities (i.e., a flyer containing equal parts E-Waste, Oil, Household
Hazardous Waste, and Beverage Container Recycling would be funded at a 25 percent
proportionate rate.). Multi-bin, co-mingled, and single stream systems may also require
a proportionate rate cost to be applied to the expenditure. The funding level for
beverage container portions for activities will be approved on a case-by-case basis by a
CalRecycle Regional Representative.
Bins/Litter Reduction. Please distinguish between litter reduction projects and waste
management projects. Trash only receptacles are not considered litter reduction.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 154 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 6
Therefore, the receptacles are an ineligible expenditure. The purchase of multi -material
recycling bins (to include beverage container recycling), permanently attached together,
is an eligible expense and may be funded. Litter reduction activities must include
beverage containers as part of the waste stream and must be recycled.
Water Refill Stations. Expenditures related to the installation or replacement of
infrastructure, plumbing, maintenance, additional attachments, education & outreach, or
modifications related to water refill stations are now eligible. The intent is to reduce the
number of single-use beverage containers from entering the waste stream. Refillable
water bottles (e.g. water cooler services, canteen water bottles, etc.), are currently still
ineligible.
Advertising/Promotion. If you plan to spend Program funds on advertising/promotion,
submit the artwork, brochure, radio script, flyer, or poster to the assigned CalRecycle
Regional Representative for your jurisdiction for approval prior to going to
print/production. CalRecycle Regional Representatives are listed on the Funding
Request page in CAPRS.
Education/Outreach. Education and outreach activities and materials are subject to
proportionate cost/rate. Recipients must provide supporting documentation to the
CalRecycle Regional Representative for approval. For example, a recycling guide costs
$5,000. The guide includes material topics such as oil, electronic waste, sharps,
organics, cardboard, and beverage container recycling. The beverage container
recycling portion is 1 or 4 pages of the entire guide. Therefore, staff would approve 25
percent (or $1,250) in this case as an eligible expenditure.
Acknowledgement. Recipients are not required to acknowledge CalRecycle’s support
when activities or projects funded, in whole or in part, by this Agreement are publicized
in any news media, brochures, articles, seminars or other type of promoti onal material.
California Resource Recovery Association Conference. If you anticipate attending
the California Resource Recovery Association annual conference, or other conference
related to beverage container recycling, please limit the expenditures to registration and
travel for no more than two (2) staff. Please contact your CalRecycle Regional
Representative before making travel plans in order to ensure that the trip is eligible for
reimbursement. Travel expenses must follow the criteria for state travel expenses. The
most current information related to travel expenses reimbursable by the state can be
found at the California Department of Human Resources webpage
(https://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx).
Personnel Hours. If you are charging personnel hours, ensure they are auditable by
hours. Program funding will only pay for direct time toward increasing beverage
container recycling.
Litter Clean-Up Event. If you are sponsoring a litter cleanup event, in which beverage
containers are part of the waste stream and are being recycled, Program funds may be
used to pay for charges related to the cleanup. This may include supplies (i.e., bags,
liners, grabbers, and gloves), personnel, and safety items (i.e., water, vests, and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 155 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 7
goggles). However, giveaways, incentives, food and/or promotional T -shirts are
ineligible expenditures.
Promotional Items/Stuff We All Get. In accordance with the governor’s directive,
promotional items are ineligible expenses under CalRecycle’s grant/direct payment
programs. More information can be found at Promotional Items/SWAG (Stuff We All
Get) (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SWAG).
Ineligible Activities/Items.
Any activity/items unrelated to beverage container recycling or litter reduction to include,
but are not limited to:
• Recycled Content Products.
• Pet/BioBag Waste Bags.
• Monetary/Gift Card Rewards for Recycling Activities/Challenges.
• Memberships to Association.
• Out of State Conferences.
• Trash Containers Only.
• Refillable Water Bottles.
• Water Drop-Off Services.
• Activities solely related to used oil, E-waste, household hazardous waste,
organics, compost, cardboard recycling, and waste.
• Items or services whose cost is covered by another CalRecycle Grant.
• Any costs for construction projects by charter cities prohibited by Labor Code
section 1782.
Jurisdictions may incur eligible costs only during the Expenditure Period.
Public Records Requests
It is the policy of CalRecycle to make records requested by the public promptly available
in accordance with the laws governing disclosure of records and information to the
public. In general, all records in the possession of a state agency are public records
subject to disclosure, unless a law provides that a particular kind of record or
information is not a public record or is exempt or prohibited from disclosure.
Upon request, the entire contents of the submitted application are subject to public
records requests. This may include contact information, project summary, uploaded
documents, and scoring information. Public records may be requested from CalRecycle
through the California Public Records Act Requests web page
(https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Forms/ContactUs/PublicRecordsRequest/).
Confidentiality
The following describes the treatment of certain confidential or proprietary information
under the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250, et seq.) and related
regulations. It also describes how questions are resolved on whether information is
truly confidential, the legal protections for confidential information, and internal and
program procedures to maintain confidentiality.
Confidential or Proprietary Information
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 156 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 8
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), sections 17041-17046
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/), states that confidential or
proprietary information shall include, but is not limited to:
• Personal or business-related financial data, customer client lists, supplier lists
and other information of a proprietary or confidential business nature provided by
persons in applications, reports, returns, certifications or other documents
submitted to [CalRecycle] which if released would result in harmful effects on the
person’s competitive position
• Tax information prohibited from disclosure, pursuant to the Revenue and
Taxation Code
Accordingly, appropriate documents submitted with an application that are clearly
marked, on each page, “confidential or proprietary information” will be treated by
CalRecycle pursuant to the procedures set forth in 14 CCR sections 17041-17046.
However, the law does not treat documents marked as “confidential or proprietary
information” (such as sales brochures, promotional literature and other general non -
financial documents) as confidential if they do not fall within the categories of protected
financial documents listed above.
What if there is a question about what is confidential?
If CalRecycle receives a request to disclose data claimed by the applicant to be
confidential, CalRecycle would notify the applicant of the request and state that the
documents were under review to determine whether information was correctly identified
as “confidential.” If there was any question as to whether specific information was
confidential, CalRecycle would contact the person(s) identified in the application to
provide a justification and statement why the information is confidential. The process
for evaluating confidentiality claims is set forth in section 14 CCR 17046.
What program procedures will keep information confidential?
Any financial information will be evaluated and analyzed only by CalRecycle staff, kept
confidential, and will be maintained with restricted access. Records no longer needed
to provide the services offered under the payment program are periodically destroyed,
when allowed by audit policies and state law.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 157 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 9
Application Instructions
Application Access
The application is available for cities and counties to apply for Program funds by
completing a Funding Request in CalRecycle’s web-based City/County Annual Payment
and Reporting System (CAPRS). Access to CAPRS is secure; therefore, you must
have a CalRecycle WebPass to log in to the system. Those who have not previously
obtained a CalRecycle WebPass can create an account at the CalRecycle WebPass
page (https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/WebPass/).
• First time users of CAPRS must contact the CalRecycle Regional Representative
(https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Grants/CityCountyContacts/) and
request access to CAPRS. After the request is received and approved, a
WebPass invitation will be sent along with an email granting accessing to
CAPRS.
• Returning users can immediately login into CAPRS.
Note: WebPass accounts are created for individuals, not organizations, and are tied
to the individual’s specific email address. If the individual’s email address changes
or becomes inactive, a new WebPass account is needed to access CAPRS. All
individuals must create their own password. Passwords should not be shared within
the organization. Access cannot be granted to the on -line application unless the
applicant is designated as a contact in CAPRS.
The components of the Funding Request are divided into tabs. To fill out a Funding
Request, click on each tab and complete the sections in each tab as required. General
instructions are on the top of each page. A complete Funding Request application
includes a Funding Request Certification signed by the applicant’s signature authority
and a valid Resolution. Additional documents may be required. See the Application
Documents section.
Funding Requests must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. on January 19, 2021.
The system will not allow any Funding Requests to be submitted after the deadline
(PRC section 14581(a)(3)(E)). Customer service will be available until 4:00 p.m. on the
application due date either by emailing grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov or calling
Ms. Melissa Sanford at (916) 341-6104.
Funding Request Tab - Application Contents and Instructions
This tab provides a summary of the funding status, eligible Program funds, due dates,
program requirements, checklist, contacts, addresses, documents, region information,
and a link to this document, the Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment
Program Guidelines. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all required
documents, based on the individual or regional application, are submitted by the
appropriate due date.
To begin, click the Edit button. Start with the Funding Request Type and use the drop
down to select either Individual or Regional.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 158 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 10
Note: If the applicant selected Regional as the Funding Request Type, a new tab titled
Participating Jurisdictions will be added to the row of tabs. This is where the
participating jurisdictions are selected, and their authorizing documents are uploaded.
Contacts Tab
A contact may be the city or county recycling coordinator or lead agency. One staff
person may serve as more than one contact. Contacts may be updated before a
Funding Request is submitted by updating the Contacts tab in the Funding Request.
Contact Types are as follows.
• Signature Authority. The person(s) authorized to sign CalRecycle documents,
such as Funding Request Certification and Expenditure Reporting Certification,
etc., as authorized by a board/council-adopted Resolution or Letter of
Designation.
• Primary Contact. One person who has been authorized by the Signature
Authority/Designee to manage and oversee the Program. This person will be the
first contact with whom the CalRecycle Regional Representative will
communicate.
• Secondary Contact. A person authorized (by the Primary Contact or Signature
Authority/Designee) as the alternate person with whom the CalRecycle Regional
Representative will communicate. (Not required)
Addresses Tab
A payment and a physical address are required. Payments will be mailed to the
payment address. To comply with the requirements of Chapter 8400 of the State
Administrative Manual (Warrants Payable to Counties), the county treasurer’s address
will be identified as the payment address for counties. If one address is used for more
than one address type, only enter the address once, and check the appropriate address
types.
Activities Tab
Pursuant to PRC section 14581(a)(3)(C), these funds shall not be used for activities
unrelated to beverage container recycling or litter reduction. Approved activi ties are
listed in the Activities tab, by category, in the Funding Request. The Other field is
provided to allow additional activities to be listed. These are subject to approval by
CalRecycle.
Eligible activities include, but are not necessarily limited to:
• New or existing curbside recycling programs.
• Neighborhood drop-off recycling programs.
• Public education promoting beverage container recycling.
• Litter reduction and cleanup where the waste stream includes beverage
containers that will be recycled.
• Cooperative regional efforts among two or more cities and counties.
• Other beverage container recycling programs.
• Supporting AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR) requirements. For
additional information on MCR and definitions of “businesses” and “multi-family
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 159 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 11
residential dwellings” as they relate to this regulation, see Mandatory Commercial
Recycling (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/).
o Infrastructure for businesses to recycle beverage containers.
o Support for new or existing beverage container recycling programs for
residential dwellings.
o Public education and outreach that includes a beverage container
recycling component.
Documents Tab
When uploading a document, enter a document title, select the appropriate document
type from the drop-down list, and enter the date that it was executed/signed. Below is a
list of documents that the applicant is responsible for preparing and uploading to the
Documents tab. Payment program-specific examples can be found on our Resolution
and Letter Examples webpage (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/funding/sampledocs).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 160 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 12
Application Documents
Electronic and Original Signatures
CalRecycle now allows for certified e-Signature or original wet signature on documents
or forms that certify legally binding information.
Note: The e-Signature must be the Adobe Digital ID or through another certified digital
signature program, and cannot be the “Fill and Sign” function within Adobe. Any
documents using the “Fill and Sign” method, will be considered as incomplete and may
be sent back to the applicant.
Once the document(s) have been signed by the Signature Authority, you must scan the
wet signature, or upload the digitally signed document and save it to CAPRS. Retain
the original document for potential CalRecycle audits.
If you have questions, email grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov.
Funding Request Certification
The Funding Request Certification is a required document that must be generated from
CAPRS. After each tab of the application is complete and documents are uploaded,
generate the Funding Request Certification from the Funding Request tab. A wet
signature or certified digital signature from the authorized Signature Authority (identified
in your resolution or Letter of Designation) is required, then scan the document, upload
to the Documents tab, and retain the original hard copy document.
Resolution
Any applicant that is subject to a governing body must upload a Resolution that
authorizes specific payment program-related matters. A copy of the authorizing
Resolution is a required application document that must be uploaded no later than the
Funding Request due date or CalRecycle will deem the application incomplete and
disqualify the applicant.
Resolution requirements vary for individual applications and joint applications as
described in the following sections. For Resolution templates refer to the Resolution
and Letter Examples (https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SampleDocs) web page.
CalRecycle staff are available to answer questions about the Resolution, or to review
your draft Resolution to ensure it meets the requirements of the grant program. You
may upload the Resolution to your application as a Draft Resolution, or for immediate
review email it to grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov.
Individual Application Resolution Requirements:
• The Resolution must authorize submittal of an application for one or more
specifically named CalRecycle payment program(s) or for all CalRecycle
payment programs for which the applicant is eligible.
• The Resolution must identify the time period during which the authorizations are
valid.
o Valid until rescinded is encouraged; however, periods of less are acceptable.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 161 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 13
o If a Resolution does not specify a time period, CalRecycle will consider the
Resolution valid for one year from the date of adoption.
• The Resolution must identify the Signature Authority by listing the job title of the
person(s) authorized to sign all payment program-related documents necessary
to implement and close-out the cycle(s).
o (Optional but encouraged) The Resolution should authorize the Signature
Authority to delegate their signature authority to another person identified by
job title. Applicants can only submit a Letter of Designation if the
corresponding Resolution includes designee language.
Note: The Signature Authority must sign a Letter of Designation prior to the designee’s
exercise of their authority.
Joint Application Resolution Requirements:
• The Lead Participant (Lead) must submit an approved Resolution that authorizes
it to act as a lead on behalf of itself and the participating entities.
• If the Resolution is valid for more than one year, it is highly recommended that:
o the list of participants be provided as an attachment rather than embedded in
the Resolution, and
o the Signature Authority be authorized to revise the list as necessary with each
subsequent application (this allows a Signature Authority to add or remove
participants with each new application without the necessity of obtaining a
new Resolution).
• Participants must provide a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the Lead, authorizing
the Lead to act on its behalf. LOA(s) may be valid for as long as the Lead’s
Resolution is valid, otherwise, if no time period is specified, the LOA will be valid
for only one year from the document date. The applicant must upload copies of
the LOA(s) no later than the application due date.
Letter of Designation
CalRecycle requires a Letter of Designation (LOD) only when the Signature Authority
identified in the approved Resolution chooses to delegate their signature authority to
another person.
The approved Resolution must indicate the Signature Authority’s ability to delegate or
designate their authority. The applicant must upload the LOD prior to the designee’s
exercise of their authority. If the designee signs an application document in place of the
Signature Authority, the applicant must upload the LOD with their application.
The LOD must:
• Be on the applicant’s letterhead.
• Be signed by the Signature Authority.
• Include the job title of the designee and the scope of the designee’s authority.
• Include the time period during which the designee may exercise the authority.
o The designee’s authority may not extend beyond the effective date of the
approved Resolution. For example, if the Resolution is effective until
December 31, 2020, then the Letter of Designation may not be effective
beyond December 31, 2020. If the letter does not identify a valid time
period, the letter will follow the same time frame as the Resolution .
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 162 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 14
For LOD templates refer to the Resolution and Letter Examples
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SampleDocs) web page.
Letter of Authorization
Applicants may use a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for projects that allow for Joint
applications. The Participating Entity prepares the LOA and gives the Lead Participant
authorization to apply for and to act on its behalf in the implementation and
administration of the program.
The Lead must upload the LOA no later than the application due date or CalRecycle will
remove the Participating Entity(ies) from the application.
Letter of Authorization Requirements:
The LOA must:
• Be on the Participant’s official letterhead.
• Be signed by an individual authorized to contractually bind the Participating
Entity.
• Be valid for as long as the Lead’s Resolution, otherwise the participating entity
must date the letter within the last 12 months.
• Authorize the Lead to submit a joint application and act as Lead Agency on
behalf of the Participating Entity.
• Authorize the Lead to execute all documents necessary to implement the project.
For LOA templates refer to the Resolution and Letter Examples
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SampleDocs) web page.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 163 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 15
Funding Request Review and Award Process
Funding Request Review Process
After the close of the application period, CalRecycle staff will review the applications for
completeness and eligibility. Only complete applications will be considered for award.
Funding Award Process
For qualifying applications, CalRecycle staff will develop funding recommendations for
the consideration and approval of CalRecycle’s Director, or their designee; CalRecycle
tentatively schedules this for April 2021. CalRecycle reserves the right to partially fund
or fund individual phases of selected proposals, and CalRecycle may fund an amount
less than requested.
CalRecycle reserves the right to not award any program funds under one or more
cycles.
Award Conditions
When awarded, this program will be subject to two conditions:
1. The recommended jurisdiction must pay all outstanding debts due to CalRecycle
or bring current outstanding payments owed to CalRecycle by the RFA award
date.
2. The recommended jurisdiction’s Signature Authority (or their delegated signature
authority) must have signed and returned the Funding Request Certification to
CalRecycle by the Funding Request Due Date.
Failure to comply with either condition will void the award.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 164 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 16
Program Administration
Reporting Process
Expenditure reporting is a requirement for ongoing eligibility for the Program.
Recipients must spend the Program funds by March 1, 2023 with a reporting due date
of April 3, 2023. Recipients must meet CalRecycle’s online reporting requirements.
Recipients may submit an Expenditure Report once all Program funds have been spent
but no later than April 3, 2023. Failure to meet this reporting due date may result in the
denial of future Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program funding
and/or collection of unspent/unreported Beverage Container Recycling City/County
Payment Program funds.
Report all expenditures through CAPRS. Supporting documentation and proof of
payment for all expenditures will be required. Failure to account for funds and/or
ineligible expenditures may result in requiring reimbursement from and/or forfeiture of
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program funds. In addition,
recipients may be denied future Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment
Program funding.
Semi-Annual Reporting for AB 506
Unspent Program funds at the end of the term must be reimbursed by check to
CalRecycle within 45 days of that date. Notify your CalRecycle Regional
Representative if you will be sending in a check. The check will need to be labeled as
City County Payment Program Unspent Funds for FY 2020-21 and mailed to:
CalRecycle, Accounting
P.O. Box 4025
Sacramento, CA 95812-4025
If there are questions or other issues related to expenditures, contact your CalRecycle
Regional Representative
(https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Grants/CityCountyContacts/).
Note: Program funds due to CalRecycle but left unpaid may result in a recipient not
being eligible for future funding.
Payment Request Process
CalRecycle will approve Funding Requests and authorize the State Controller’s Office to
make payments to each city and county. The warrant will arrive without a cover letter to
the city or to the county treasurer. Payments must be placed into an interest-bearing
account. Tracking and reporting of interest earned (if any) on the payment is not
required. All interest accrued and received from the Program shall be used only for
eligible expenses related to the performance of this Agreement. Pursuant to PRC
section 14581(a)(3)(F), CalRecycle may withhold payment to any city, county, or a city
and county that has prohibited the siting of a certified recycling center at a supermarket
site, caused a certified recycling center at a supermarket site to close its business, or
adopted a land use policy that restricts or prohibits the siting of a certified recycling
center at a supermarket site within its jurisdiction since January 1, 2000.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 165 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 17
Expenditure Payments
Expenditures must be incurred no earlier than the date of the award and no lat er than
March 1, 2023. Proof of payment for expenditures incurred must occur and be
submitted no later than April 3, 2023.
Expenditure Changes
Changes in original activities/expenditures are acceptable during the term. Please
report any expenditure changes in activities/expenditures by entering actual costs and
activities in the Expenditure Module.
Records Retention and Audit Consideration
Recipients are responsible and accountable for all Program funds; therefore, it is
essential that adequate supporting documentation and a clear paper/audit trail are
maintained. The accounting of Program funds must be maintained in a manner that
provides clear and separate tracking of funds and related transactions for fiscal program
management and audit purposes.
CalRecycle, the Department of Finance, the California State Auditor, or their designated
representative(s) shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting
documentation pertaining to the use of Program funds; and shall have the right to
interview staff relevant to the audit. Examples of supporting documentation subject to
audit include:
• Expenditure ledgers.
• Paid warrants.
• Travel logs.
• Payroll register entries.
• Time sheets.
• Contracts and change orders.
• Samples/pictures of items and materials developed with Program funds.
• Invoices, receipts, cancelled checks.
Supporting documentation must clearly identify all eligible expenditures related to
beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. All such records shall be
maintained for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after the Program term
end date, or until completion of any action and resolution of all issues, which may arise
as a result of any litigation, dispute, or audit, whichever is later.
Termination for Cause
In the event the recipient fails to comply with the requirements of these Guidelines at
the time and in the manner herein provided, CalRecycle may terminate the Agreement.
Recipients are encouraged to discuss any problems they may have in complying with
these Guidelines with their CalRecycle Regional Representative to determine if
CalRecycle can be of assistance.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 166 of 1221
Application and Program Guidelines
Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program (FY 2020–21) 18
Indemnity
Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the state, CalRecycle, its
officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims and/or losses accruing or
resulting from the performance of the Program.
Compliance
Recipient shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, and permits.
How to Reach Us
Your CalRecycle Regional Representative’s contact information is in CAPRS on your
Funding Request page. This is the best contact for any questions about the Program.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Grants and Payment Unit 5
1001 I Street, MS 13A
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 322-0613
Email: City County Payment Program (citycounty@calrecycle.ca.gov)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 167 of 1221
Original Message-----
From: laurel white <laurelwhite@att.net>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:23 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Sewer Rates in Chula Vista California
Warning: External Email
Has anyone noticed that th proposal sent out to raise sewer rates significantly requires property
owners to submit a written protest against the proposed increases? The only way to is if the
property owner of record goes online and downloads the form which has to be received before
February 8 (or accepted at the city council meeting). The last month or so city council meetings
have been virtual. The notice itself is pretty incomprehensible. I tried calling the city but the
robotic system offers no way to speak to a human. The raise in rates (5% to start) has been
recommended by Willdan Financial Services. I can’t understand how it is legal to require a citizen to
own a computer and be savvy enough to download the form, not to mention to be able to
understand such gobbledegook. Can someone with a conscience please follow up on this issue in
time to prevent the city from picking the pockets of its citizens? As a senior citizen, I feel
particularly vulnerable.
Thank you.
Laurel Dailey White
522 Carla Ave
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Sent from my iPhone
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 168 of 1221
From: webmaster@chulavistaca.gov <webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:09 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>; Sheree Kansas <skansas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: City of Chula Vista: City Council Meeting Comments
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: City Council Meeting Comments
Date & Time: 01/24/2022 4:09 PM
Response #: 54
Submitter ID: 102616
IP address: 166.205.107.63
Time to complete: 8 min. , 41 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please use this form to submit comments on items that appear on the City Council's agenda or general
comments to be provided to the City Council. Comments submitted up to 30 minutes prior to a Council
Meeting will be provided as part of the meeting. Comments submitted later will still be accepted, but will
not be provided to the City Council as part of the meeting.
All comments will be provided to the City Council and available to the public. If you have questions about
using this form, please email the City Clerk at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or call (619) 691-5041.
Council Meeting Date
01/25/2022
Is your comment related to an item that is on the
agenda for the meeting date selected?
(○) No
Page 3
Comments (if any)
Any comments submitted will become part of the public record.
I would like the council to address the ongoing traffic backup issue on east L street at Nacion Ave. the traffic
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 169 of 1221
backs up between 1-6 pm everyday because the traffic light at Nacion and the southbound ramp to I -805 are
totally out of sync. The traffic backs up past monserate with horns honking and people yelling at each other.
Also it’s very difficult for the residents to enter into L st as no one will let us in and this is very frustrating. Cv
traffic division had synced the lights before and need them to do it again or this traffic issue will get worse.
Also it’s very difficult for emergency vehicles to get by all of the traffic. We really need this issue fixed. When
the lights are synced the traffic is great. Please discuss and ask the traffic division to once and for all sync up
the lights. Thx Steve
The following information is optional, although we do request it for follow up purposes.
Name
Steven Dedrick
City of Residence
Chula Vista
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 170 of 1221
From: Mike Webb <mikewebb.acumen.inc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:55 PM
Subject: Open Letter to CDC Honorable Director Walensky, City, County, State and Local Officials
Dear Honorable Director Walensky & EOP
It is increasingly clear that the policies have lost the trust of an
increasing proportion of internal and external communities. We
are two years into this pandemic and experts from around the
world have successfully bypassed the controlled information
domains by publishing data, having discussions, and directly
calling into question the “one-size-fits-all” COVID-19 narrative.
Many in our community mistrust the policies and leadership as a
result. Unfortunately, it may take years to repair the damage done
up to this point. The situation is a clear and present danger to
public health and much to your dismay, is a direct result of a self-
inflicted & festering wound.
The vital reason why this is happening, are: 1) WHO’s & CDC’s
lack of trustworthiness regarding natural immunity and, 2) CDC’s
deviation from “the science of Immunology”
Many community professionals and first responders agree that the
CDC’s messaging has been disorganized, confusing, undisciplined
and scientifically disingenuous. The latest CDC admission
regarding natural immunity is the key point.
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 171 of 1221
The majority of America does not intrinsically accept censorship of
competing ideas or debate. It is a national tradition.
Labeling every scientist, doctor, nurse, paramedic, firefighter,
police officer, and/or military member that can read literature and
come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the messaging and
narrative has been flawed and contradicts data and logic - insults
us all.
The talking points and narrative being pushed hourly, combined
with the mixed messaging, lack of transparency or candor, and
outright lies are not helping the situation. This is reflected in
public polling numbers.
This is especially true in regards to parents' concerns and views
related to healthy children whose risk of serious outcome from
COVID-19 is negligible based on data and credible statements
from world leading experts.
Brownstone Institute: 141 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to
Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER
OCTOBER 17, 2021
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X?via%3Dihub
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 172 of 1221
Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Children and Adolescents Aged, 1772
MMWR / December 31, 2021 / Vol. 70 / No. 51-52 US Department of Health and
Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
For any mandate or law to be comfortably followed, it must, 1)
pass a rational risk-based approach, and 2) accommodate special
circumstances (medical, religious, internal/external consent
laws).
The “one-size-fits-all” doctrine along with mandates, doubling
down rigidity, and refusal to acknowledge or listen to experts who
disagree will continue to cause fracture and discord across the
fabric that holds our society together.
Who in their right mind would agree with the following:
The bureaucracy knows best, not the doctor that has been
treating his/her patient for years?”
The millions of Americans with acquired immunity to COVID-19
from a prior infection, have serological evidence of robust
antigens-specific immunity which the CDC had to finally fall on
the sord and admit. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
The fact that CDC is SILENTLY allowing millions of already well
immune Americans to undergo mandated vaccination, under
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 173 of 1221
threat of loss of educational or employment opportunities from
private and state entities, is a critical public health error.
The CDC’s rationale that there is a small marginal benefit to
vaccinating such already immune persons, as the justification for
imposing draconian mandates is a very serious threat to your
current & future credibility.
It also demonstrates a lack of insight into what the majority of
Americans and many others around the world understand. The
utter inability to see or begin to validate data and epidemiology is
causing the conspiracy theories to grow as a result. Again, this is
self-inflicted and is festering, an obvious unintended consequence.
The obsession with “one-size-fits-all” solution has paralyzed the
recovery of the country, the economy, other public health needs,
and the practice of science & medicine. It’s long overdue for
public policy review - “perfect is the enemy of good.”
This policy continues to do great harm resulting in unmeasurable
damage to the welfare of children, parents, education, business,
commerce, and society. We have hospitals, clinics, businesses,
and governments turning away and punishing the vaccine
hesitant.
The majority of America (vaxed and unvaxed) see the cognitive
error, recognize the corrupt influence of pharmaceutical giant’s TV
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 174 of 1221
and Radio commercials which include (by law) the risks and
potential side effects. No matter how many times you are forced
to say “the vaccine is safe and effective” – another Omicron is right
around the corner, and I’m not worried about the mud on your
face. How many jabs is it going to take before you have lost all
credibility? It brings back a memory of Lucy trying to convince
Charlie Brown to run up and try to kick the ball again.
Lucy & Charlie Brown Kicking the Ball Compilation - The
Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ivn0C8oebg
The public view is changing and does not approve of opportunistic
fear mongering, price gouging, waiting in lines, shortage of
supplies, or the nefarious intent to strip away individual rights and
autonomy.
This dangerous negative sentiment is borne out of the
government’s failure to grasp that the consent of the governed is
achieved through transparency not censorship of opposing views,
open debate not coercion or a poorly written FAQ section on the
CDC website repeating talking points. The public demands
accountability not immunity.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 175 of 1221
The black and Hispanic community understand and remembers
from a historic viewpoint (Tuskegee & Guatemala experiments).
The vaccine hesitation is a direct result of the loss of trust.
Many are likely unaware of the atrocities committed in Guatemala
between 1945 and 1956 by Doctors from the John Hopkins
University, Rockefeller Foundation, as well as four executives from
Bristol-Myers predecessors, Bristol Laboratories and the Squibb
Institute. Minority and other communities understand reprisal,
coercion, and persecution. The black and Hispanic communities
now share a common historical perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/08/guate
mala-victims-us-syphilis-study
I am hopeful still, that it is possible for CDC and health officials to
listen with care and reverse course before the damage is
irreversible and all trust is lost.
With this message, I hope to move the less egocentric towards a
more rational approach. I hope that they may influence their
bosses and convince them that admitting errors and moving
forward with the below listed recommendations will do more good
than harm.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 176 of 1221
Here are three key steps Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD strongly
suggested that the CDC must take urgently to satisfy public dissent
and re-earn trust:
1. Guide American business and educational enterprises (as
well as federal agencies) to formally relieve Americans with
prior COVID-19 infection who are seropositive for COVID-19
antibodies from mandated vaccination.
2. Guide American business and educational enterprises (as
well as federal agencies) to formally relieve Americans
with “hybrid immunity” (i.e., those with a natural infection
AND two mandated COVID-19 vaccine shots) from mandated
booster” vaccination.
3. Guide American business and educational enterprises (as
well as federal agencies) to formally relieve Americans in
whom a licensed physician has performed a serological
evaluation and demonstrate robust immunity (i.e., from
vaccine or prior infection) from any mandated vaccination.
Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD is right, we need the CDC to
accept and inform the American people that IMMUNITY is the
Achilles heel of this pandemic.
Vaccination” is NOT synonymous with natural IMMUNITY
The path back to normal should be focused on “screening tests” to
clear all that have developed immunity (vaccinated or not).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 177 of 1221
Immediately STOP the mad dash and dangerous rush for the
volatile “viral testing.” This policy was in error and actually
creates opportunities for transmission from symptomatic to others
who were responding as a result of fear, possible exposure, or a
public policy (required to work, go to school, attend a concert,
etc.). It’s not that hard to visualize the reality on the ground.
Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD, also opines that “It is NOT a
complex matter to screen Americans for antibody immunity” —
this metric is the medical gold standard for determination of
resistance to diseases. He goes on to state, “it is also a far more
durable and meaningful metric.”
LIMIT ALL viral screening to the SYMPTOMATIC and generally
SEPARATE the high risk FROM the symptomatic when possible.
PROMOTE and require all health companies to conduct at least
one IMMUNITY screening for each member during intake or or
regular office visits.
PROMOTE an aggressive early outpatient care with a right to try
approach. Attacking the viral replication period when COVID-19
at first symptoms has shown to improve outcomes. It’s time to
admit this and other failures.
Like Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD, I too agree with the
courageous message from clinician-scientist and Harvard faculty
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 178 of 1221
member, Dr. Amy Josephine Reed: “One-size-fits-all approaches
to medical practice erode trust, do harm and kill unsuspecting
and trusting persons.”
Clear logic and rational dissent from doctors from around the
world have spoken and have been heard. More are coming out
against draconian mandates and “one-size-fits-all” group-think.
This is not political. They love science, but reject unethical
dangerous violations of scientific methods, international laws &
treaties. Many have put it all on the line to speak out.
Unfortunately, having worked 27 years for the government, I fear
you will ignore any input or guidance not originating from within
the governmental or political establishment circles.
You are being judged, only you can change course. I do not wish to
tarnish the CDC’s legacy, or the legacy of every physician,
politician, and bureaucrat that did not speak out for science,
reason, and truth. Do not depart from your oath, logic or reason.
Stop blaming minorities for policy failures.
Sincerely,
Mike Webb, Patrol Agent in Charge -Retired
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 179 of 1221
DHS, CBP, San Diego Border Intelligence Center 2003-2010
Assistant to Lead Federal Coordinator -FEMA Region IX,
All Threats / All Hazards / Pandemic Planning & Response
P.S. - Retired and not looking for work!
End Note: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Declaration-of-Dr.-
Hooman-Noorchashm-MD-PhD.pdf
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 180 of 1221
From: M Nojd <mnojd1531@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 4:36 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: E Comment for Jan 25, 2022 Council Mtg
Hello,
As I won't be able to watch the meeting live to submit my comment, I would like to make it known to
you so it can be added at the appropriate time.
Regarding the "Organic Waste" Program Rates: please require that EVERYONE PAYS something whether
they have room for a bin or not. This law SB 1383 is for everyone and not a select few. Everyone needs to pay
something. Thank you.
Michele Nojd
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 181 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Planning Commission Appeal: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for a 120-Bed Acute Psychiatric
Hospital in the Eastlake II Planned Community, known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Report Number: 22-0010
Location: 830 and 831 Showroom Place
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) has been prepared.
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Brad Davis and affirming the Planning
Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 and Design Review Permit DR19-0012 to
construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a
10.5 acre site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the city
known as Eastlake Business Center II.
SUMMARY
On May 20, 2019, Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted an application for a
Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) and Design Review (“DR”) to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot
building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a vacant 10.5-acre site at 830 and 831
Showroom Place (see Locator Map, Attachment 2), known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (“EBHH”
or the “Project”).
On November 10, 2021, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Project by a vo te of 6-1. A
total of 50 speakers submitted speaker slips at the Planning Commission hearing. The staff report and
associated attachments from the Planning Commission hearing are provided as Attachment 6 to this report.
On November 17, 2021, Brad Davis (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal (Attachment 4) of the Planning
Commission’s decision to the City Council. The Appellant cites “Factual Error,” “New Information” and
“Findings Not Supported” as the bases of the appeal. The appeal specifically states:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 182 of 1221
P a g e | 2
1. The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were factually in error.
2. The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning Commission that was not disclosed or
made public.
3. The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
4. The FEIR does not provide sufficient support, as required by California Public Resources Code
Sections 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a), by failing to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly
assessed.
5. The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer community questions and
concerns.
This item now presents the Project for City Council consideration and action. While this is an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s November 10, 2021 vote, and the City Council should take into full consideration the
deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the authority to consider the
Project, in its entirety, and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings. Staff has
reviewed and ultimately recommended approval of the Project due to several factors, including that the
proposed Project is a conditional use allowed within the zone, it is compatible with existing and surrounding
land uses and zoning, it is in compliance with current Development Standards, it has met the findings
required for a CUP, and it would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs relating
to the City’s General plan or the Municipal Code. More specifically, the proposed use complies with the
General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial and industrial uses for the City of Chula Vista through
the attraction of industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local
economy. As such, it is staff’s recommendation that the appeal be denied, and the decision of the Planning
Commission be upheld.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record, and the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; nonetheless, the Applicant
chose to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR20-0001.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On November 10, 2021, the Planning Commission made a Motion to approve the Project with a request by
Commissioner Torres to add a condition to the EIR/CUP Planning Commission Resolution indicating the
Applicant will maintain any and all licenses and accreditations necessary to legally operate in California. This
condition was added into the EIR/CUP Planning Commission Resolution as Condition Number 14 in addition
to a staff added condition (Condition Number 13) regarding the Project’s Operational Profile. The Motion
passed by a vote of 6-1. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 4.
DISCUSSION
The 10.5-acre Project Site is located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion
of the City known as the Eastlake Business Center II. The Project Site is a flat, vacant lot that has been
previously graded. The site is comprised of two lots totaling 10.5-acres at the end of the cul-de-sac on
Showroom Place. The Project Site sits adjacent to an Amazon driver training lot, and the District at Eastlake
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 183 of 1221
P a g e | 3
which is comprised of commercial uses such as restaurants and family-oriented businesses, providing
recreational areas for adults and children, most of which also require CUPs to operate.
The proposed Project would consist of specific medical and ancillary services to include in - and out-patient
behavioral services for geriatric, adult, and adolescent patients. The types of services provided by an acute
psychiatric hospital reflect a highly therapeutic level of care, designed to meet the mental health needs of
patients who greatly benefit from a structured and safe environment. Such care consists of therapeutic group
programming throughout the patient’s stay, seeing a psychiatrist, being supervised by licensed, trained staff
on a daily basis, and 24-hour acute care nursing. Onsite security measures would include the following: an
eight-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along the front, side, and rear property lines; landscape barriers
throughout the site; a single public entry and exit from a driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac; 24-hour
monitoring of common areas through closed circuit camera monitoring; patient checks at a minimum of
every 15 minutes; and controlled access in and out to the facility and between units to encourage safety.
Security personnel will be onsite 24 hours per day to monitor the facility and the surrounding premises.
The Appellant filed an appeal on November 17, 2021 and has stated several causes of action in their appeal.
Factual Error
The Appellant states that the Applicant “made representations regarding economic impact that were
factually in error.” At the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant discussed the economic impact that
the hospital would have on the City of Chula Vista’s economy through the provision of high paying jobs and
tax revenue generated from the developed Project site. Staff did not review or endorse the salary or tax
revenue estimates discussed by the applicant at said hearing. However, as part of the General Plan
consistency analysis, staff did include in both the Report to the Planning Commission and in staff’s
PowerPoint presentation on November 10, 2021, the acknowledgement that, “through the construction and
operation of the proposed hospital, an additional 150 higher-wage jobs would be added to the local
economy.” It is important to note that CEQA does not require an economic impact analysis. As such, the
economic impact of the Project was not studied in the EIR. The Planning Commission was asked to make a
determination based on the environmental impacts of the Project and the land use compatibility of the
Project to the surrounding uses. The only economic impact information presented to, and considered by the
Planning Commission in their deliberations, was the reference to 150 higher-wage jobs being added to the
local economy. No information to suggest this is an inaccurate statement has been provided.
New Information
Ex-Parte Communication
The appeal states there was “ex-parte communications with the [Council] that was not disclosed or made
public.” In order to make a valid appeal, appellants are required to substantiate “the facts and circumstances
on which the claim of the appeal is based.” In an effort to gain clarification on the ex-parte communication
claim, City staff contacted the Appellant on November 18, 2021. In a phone conversation with City staff, the
Appellant clarified their claim that they had received credible evidence of written communication being sent
from the Applicant to one or more members of the Planning Commission but was unprepared to provide
such evidence to City staff. The Appellant was not sure if similar communication had occurred between the
Applicant and members of the City Council but was confident it had occurred with members of the Planning
Commission and that said communication was not properly disclosed by members of the Planning
Commission at the November 10, 2021 hearing.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 184 of 1221
P a g e | 4
As part of the Planning Commission proceedings on November 10, 2021, each Planning Commissioner was
asked to disclose, on the record, any discussions or communications they had received prior to the hearing
of this matter. Several Commissioners indicated they had received unsolicited emails and phone calls related
to this Project. All Commissioners disclosing such communication indicated they either did not read, respond
to, nor did they engage in any communication related to the Project prior to the November 10, 2021 hearing.
Failure to disclose an ex-parte communication would not necessarily invalidate the Planning Commission’s
decision, nor would it compromise the City Council’s authority and discretion to consider and take action on
the appeal.
Failure to Disclose
The appeal states the “Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.” As part of the
requirements to apply for a Conditional Use Permit or a Design Review permit with the City of Chula Vista,
all applicants must provide a Disclosure Statement at the time they submit the Project. The purpose of the
Disclosure Statement is to provide information to the public of any financial interests or conflicts of interest
that may exist when a member of a City discretionary body takes action on a Project. The Disclosure
Statement asks about any financial interest, payments, or campaign contributions made by the Applicant to
any member of the discretionary bodies within the City.
The Applicant submitted their original Disclosure Statement on May 17, 2019 and provided an updated
Disclosure Statement on April 6, 2020. There is no legal requirement for the Applicant to submit an updated
disclosure statement prior to a hearing unless circumstances have changed from their original filing. The
Applicant stated on the record at the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, that nothing had
changed. Staff has since requested a new Disclosure Statement from the Applicant which is included as
Attachment 5 to this Report. No new relevant contributions were disclosed on the updated Disclosure
Statement.
Findings Not Supported
CEQA Study of Alternatives
Both the EIR for the Eastlake community (EIR 81-03) approved on January 29, 1985, and the General
Development Plan for Eastlake II (adopted November 16, 1999 and amended on August 23, 2005 and
December 18, 2007), addressed the environmental impacts of future Eastlake Business Center II
developments in such a way as to not legally require further analysis be performed for the Project. However,
the Applicant elected to prepare a project-specific EIR.
The appeal states that the project-specific EIR did not adequately analyze alternatives to the Project.
Specifically, the Appellant cites two provisions within CEQA as the basis for appeal:
1. Section 21002.1(a) states, “the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the
significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to
indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.”
2. Section 21100(b)(4) states that the EIR “shall include a detailed statement setting forth all of the
following: Alternatives to the proposed project.”
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 185 of 1221
P a g e | 5
Throughout CEQA there are requirements to “identify alternatives to the project.” Section 15126.6(a) gives
guidance to lead agencies that EIRs “need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it
must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision
making and public participation.” Further, Section 15126.6(c) requires the EIR to only consider those
reasonable alternatives that “could feasibly accomplish most of the objectives of the Project and could avoid
or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts.”
The result of the project-specific EIR is that there are no significant impacts to the environment created by
the proposed Project in the categories of agriculture, biology, cultural resources, housing, mineral resources,
and population. The EIR identifies less than significant impacts in the categories of aesthetics, air quality,
energy, geology, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, hydrology, land use, noise, public services, public
utilities, transportation and wildfire. Therefore, there are no significant impacts resulting from the proposed
Project.
Staff has analyzed the EIR and has determined the Applicant has met the requirements of Section 21002.1(a)
by identifying there are no significant effects the Project has on the environment, as well as identifying the
alternatives to the Project. Further, the EIR complies with Section 21100(b)(4) by listing in Chapter 7.0 of
the EIR (Attachment 6.c.), all of the alternatives studied:
Chapter 7.1.1 – alternative locations were studied and rejected for failing to achieve most of the
objectives of the Project
Chapter 7.2 – a No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative was rejected for creating greater
impacts than the proposed Project
Chapter 7.3 – a Reduced Intensity Alternative and was rejected for failing to achieve the objectives of
the Project
Finally, many comments from the public in opposition to the Project cite the location as a poor choice and
that the Applicant should study alternative sites as an alternative. CEQA Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) states the
key question to be answered when discussing alternative locations is “whether any of the significant effects
of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.”
As part of the EIR, alternative sites were evaluated on how well they served the Project objectives. Key
Project objectives identified include:
Location in an area underserved by inpatient beds
Proximity to major road network
Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped acres) to construct a one-story facility
Zoning that allows for a hospital use
Based on these objectives, the EIR states that several alternative sites were evaluated in the EIR. However,
these alternative sites were not listed out in the EIR. On page 7-3 of the EIR (Attachment 6.c.), the analysis
states:
A number of alternative sites were considered in an attempt to meet the required criteria, as
identified in the project objectives. None of the alternative sites were located at any closer
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 186 of 1221
P a g e | 6
proximity to major road networks, nor could accommodate the size of the structure or could
be developed without a conditional use permit. The project site was selected, in addition to
meeting the siting criteria, because it provides a flat graded area which would avoid
additional site clearing, excavation, grading and compaction.
In compliance with Section 15126.6(c), only alternatives sites which would meet the Project objectives need
be studied, and because the proposed Project will have no significant impact on the environment, Section
15126.6(f)(2)(A) is also met. Therefore, Staff feels the Applicant has met CEQA’s requirements with regard
to the study of Project alternatives.
Failure to Address Community Concerns
Lastly, the appeal states that the EIR “failed to address and answer community questions and input.” As part
of the public review process, approximately 431 comments were received in response to the EIR. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City independently evaluated the
comments and written responses were prepared by the Applicant in consultation with the City. No new or
previously undisclosed, significant environmental issues were raised by the public review comments. The
Responses to Comments are included on pages RTC-1 through RTC-146 of Attachment 6.c. Environmental
Impact Report EIR20-0001.
Analysis and Bases for Staff’s Recommendation
This appeal presents to the City Council not only the ability to take into full consideration the deliberations
and decision of the Planning Commission, but also to exercise the City Council’s full authority to consider the
Project, in its entirety, and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings.
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
As described in Staff’s Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 6), the proposed one-story, 97,050
square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital is a conditionally permitted use in the
Eastlake Business Center II planned area. Staff ‘s analysis of the proposal found it complies with the policies,
guidelines, and design standards for the Eastlake Business Center, Chula Vista Municipal Code, Design
Manual as well as the Landscape Manual. In addition, the size, location and condition of the two relatively
flat, vacant parcels provides a desirable location for the Project’s needs.
The proposal provides a desirable acute care option to the residents of Chula Vista and the region in a location
within the Eastlake Business Park that can be easily accessed by surrounding transportation infrastructure.
The proposed location is easily accessible by the SR125 freeway to the west and nearby major thoroughfares
such as Proctor Valley Road to the north and Otay Lakes Road to the south.
Concerns regarding proximity to residential use are mitigated by the fact that there is an approximate 20- to
60-foot grade differential between the Project Site and the residential properties which are all located below
the Project at the base of an existing, manufactured, and heavily vegetated slope. In addition, all residences
have rear fences and the Project site will have an eight-foot wall around the entire perimeter of the property.
The proposed Project would also be consistent with the vision of the Eastlake Business Park in having a
diverse base of industries for the residents of Chula Vista. Sitting adjacent to the District at Eastlake, the
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 187 of 1221
P a g e | 7
Project Site would add to the business park’s envisioned, diverse mixture of industrial and commercial
tenants, many of which also require CUPs to operate in the Eastlake Business Park. Further, the proposed
Project is consistent with the applicable design standards for building, facade and roof articulation; materials
and colors; landscaping; and trash enclosures & recycling.
The proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, including but
not limited to matters of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazards or excessive concentrations
of traffic, all as evidenced in the Project EIR. A limited amount of noise and dust is to be expected in
association with construction activities, but Conditions of Approval and the City’s performance standards
offset and mitigate for such impacts.
Operational Profile
Many of the comments in opposition to the Project addressed the issue of securi ty of the site. The Applicant
submitted and has agreed to have made a condition of approval of their CUP, an Operational Profile
(Attachment 6.b.) which addresses many of the concerns voiced by the community. Included in the
Operational Profile is a security plan indicating 24-hour patrols, controlled access in and out of the facility,
closed circuit security cameras, and patient checks every 15-minutes. The Applicant must meet and confer
with the Director of Development Services upon request to confirm that Project operations are consistent
with the Operational Plan and to obtain City approval for any material changes thereto. (See CUP condition
14.)
Limits on Discretion Presented by Federal ADA and Fair Housing Rules
The City, generally, has broad discretion to determine the classification and utilization of land within its
jurisdiction. There are, however, limitations on that discretion.
In all of its dealings, including when making land use decisions, the City is prohibited from utilizing criteria
or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against individuals with disabilities. This
includes individuals with mental illness. Specifically, both Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 protect the rights of providers and clients of residential
treatment programs and prohibits the exclusion or otherwise denial of equal services, programs, or activities
to an individual or entity because of the known (actual or perceived) disability of an individual with whom
the individual or entity has a known relationship or association.
Accordingly, both as a matter of best practices, and as a matter of law, land use decisions must be made
utilizing objective, nondiscriminatory criteria. Criteria must be reasonably related to the land use impacts of
the proposed Project and not on other criteria that would be considered discriminatory to federally
protected populations. Land use decisions should also not be based on the reputation of partic ular
applicant/operator or the population an applicant serves.
That being said, in processing and considering this project, it should not be unlawful for the City to consider
neighborhood concerns, and to impose reasonable, proportionate security measures to mitigate risks known
to arise from projects such as these. Staff believes that such concerns have been reasonably addressed
through the CUP process, particularly with the incorporation of the applicant’s Operational Profile, described
above, as a condition of the CUP.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 188 of 1221
P a g e | 8
Conclusion
In conclusion, because Staff has determined that (1) the Applicant has met or exceeded the analysis burdens
of CEQA with no unmitigated environmental impacts identified, (2) there is substantial evidence in the
record that the Project meets the findings for issuance of a CUP, with legally appropriate concerns addressed
through conditions on the Project, , and (3) Project design is consistent with City design standards, Staff
recommends the City Council deny the Appellant’s appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of
Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 and Design Review Permit DR19-0012 to construct a one-story, 97,050
square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5 acre site located at 830 and
831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the city known as Eastlake Business Center
II.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City council members and has found no property holdings
within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item
does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of
Regulations Title 2, section 18705.2(a)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,
et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City council member, of any other fact
that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The appeal fee of $250 was paid by the Appellant and the processing of the appeal to City Council, and
processing costs associated with the Project are borne by the Applicant. There is no net fiscal impact to the
General Fund or the Development Services Fund as a result of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this action. All processing costs are
paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution
2. Locator Map
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4. Appeal, dated 11/17/21 and Written Communication Received from Appellant, dated 11/29/21
5. Updated Disclosure Statement from Applicant, dated 11/22/21
6. Planning Commission Report
a. Project Plans
b. Eastlake Operational Profile, dated November 9, 2021
c. Environmental Impact Report EIR20-0001
d. EIR Appendices (11)
e. CEQA Findings
f. Neighborhood Meeting Public Comments Summary and Response Matrix
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 189 of 1221
P a g e | 9
g. Public Comments (9)
7. EIR CUP Planning Commission Resolution
8. DR19-0012 Planning Commission Resolution
Staff Contacts: Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services
D. Todd Philips, Planning Manager, Development Services
Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 190 of 1221
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL BY BRAD DAVIS
AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP19-0010
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DR19-0012 TO CONSTRUCT
A ONE-STORY, 97,050 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING
CONSISTING OF A 120-BED ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITAL ON A 10.5-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 830 AND 831
SHOWROOM PLACE WITHIN THE URBANIZED
NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE CITY KNOWN AS
EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II
WHEREAS, the parcel of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in
Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description consists of 10.5-acres located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the
urbanized northeast portion of the City known as Eastlake Business Center II (the “Project Site”);
and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC (the “Applicant”)
submitted duly verified applications requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit Application
CUP19-0010 and Design Review Application DR19-0012 which were filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department; and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of Conditional Use Permit Application
CUP19-0010 and Design Review Application DR19-0012 to construct a 97,050 square-foot
building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital with associated parking and
landscaping (the “Project”) on the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site, at least ten (10) days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on November 10, 2021 in the Council Chambers,
276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs’ presentation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on said date reviewed the Project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and certified Final Environmental Impact
Report (“FEIR”), FEIR20-0001; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021, Brad Davis (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s Decision to approve Conditional Use Permit Application CUP19-0010
and Design Review Application DR19-0012 (the “Appeal”); and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 191 of 1221
Resolution No.______
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the Appeal and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundary of the Project Site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Appeal
at the time and place as advertised, namely January 25, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
276 Fourth Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby find and determine that under the provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code
(“CVMC”) Sections 19.14.588.B and 19.14.130, the Appeal that is the subject of this Resolution
is hereby denied and the decision of the Planning Commission to certify FEIR20-0001 and approve
the Project is hereby affirmed, with findings as follows:
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of its independent
judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered FEIR20-0001 for the Project and
adopts the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Project and FEIR-20-0001 as well as the Minutes and Resolutions resulting
therefrom which hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6 and that FEIR-20-0001 and the Findings of Fact (Exhibit “1” to the Planning
Commission Resolution, a copy which is on file with the Development Services Department), are
prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.),
the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
II. CONFORMANCE WITH CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of its independent judgment,
as set forth in the record of its proceedings does hereby adopt all findings made by the Planning
Commission contained in Conditional Use Permit Application CUP19-0010 and Design Review
Application DR19-0012 for the Project, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, as if said findings were their own.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby find and determine that the Appeal that is the subject of this Resolution is hereby DENIED
and that the determination of the Planning Commission is hereby AFFIRMED, in accordance with
the applicable development standards, regulation and guidelines of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code and the Conditions of Approval specified in Planning Commission Resolutions CUP19-0010
and DR19-0012 dated November 10, 2021, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, as may be modified hereby.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 192 of 1221
Resolution No.______
Page 3
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_______________________________ ____________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 193 of 1221
HUNTE PWLANE AVPROCTOR VALLEY RD
O T A Y L A K E S R D
F E N T O N S T
PROJECT
LOCATION
L:\Gabe Files\Arcmap Locator Template\Locators\CUP190010.ai.06.13.19
SCALE:FILE NUMBER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:830 & 831 Showroom Place Project Summary: Proposal is for one-story 92,349 sq. ft. building
consisting of a 120-bed Psychiatric Hospital with associated parking.
Related cases: CUP19-0010No Scale DR19-0012
PROJECT
APPLICANT:LOCATOR
NORTH
MISCELLANEOUSEastlake Behavioral Health, LLC
CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 194 of 1221
1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 10, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Present: Commissioner Burroughs, Vice Chair De La Rosa, Commissioner
Milburn, Commissioner Nava, Commissioner Torres, Chair Zaker,
Commissioner Gutierrez
Also Present: Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Director Development Services Allen
Others Present Assistant Development Services Director Black, Planning Manager
Philips, Senior Planner Donn, Development Services Technician
Ramos, Secretary Zepeda
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was called
to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Secretary Zepeda called the roll.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Commissioner Burroughs led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the
hearing was held on the date and no earlier than specified in the notice.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 195 of 1221
2
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOSPITAL
Senior Planner, Stan Donn gave a presentation on the item and answered
questions of the Commission.
Fifty speaker slips were received at the meeting, twenty-five members of the
public spoke or were in favor of the item:
Pedro Anaga, Chula Vista resident
John Boarman
Tom Gammiere
Michael Genovese
Tina Go
Jerry Gold
Randall Goldberg
Charles Hill
Dan Kaperick
Robin Madaffer
Farah Mahzari
Ted Manaktela
Karen McCabe
Luisa McCarthy
Monica Montano
Saad Nazo
Jim O'Callaghan
Jason Paguio
Sally Preston
Cheryl Reed
Fabian Rodriguez
Lori Spar
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 196 of 1221
3
Michael Vogt
Stephen Wen
Mary Weaver, Chula Vista resident
Twenty-five members of the public spoke or were in opposition of the item:
Richard Barreto, Chula Vista resident
Belina Bernabe, Chula Vista resident
Dianne Bliven, Chula Vista resident
Martin Calvo, Chula Vista resident
Brad Davis, Chula Vista resident
Ray Edwards, Chula Vista resident
Rebecca Edwards, Chula Vista resident
Clarissa Falcon
Sara Fernando Chula Vista resident
Marcelino Garcia, Chula Vista resident
Aileen Jarina, Chula Vista resident
Manuelito Jarina, Chula Vista resident
Mark Liuag, Chula Vista resident
Brian Madlangbayan, Chula Vista resident
Brandon McClintock, Chula Vista resident
Kahnoush Mokhbery, Chula Vista resident
John Moot, Chula Vista resident
Monica Nelson, Chula Vista resident
Miriam Pabiani
Laura Penilla-Santiago, Chula Vista resident
Lena Pradel, Chula Vista resident
Mahrough Shahidi, Chula Vista resident
Arturo Swadener, Chula Vista resident
Ashkan Tafti, Chula Vista resident
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 197 of 1221
4
John Teevan, Chula Vista resident
Moved by Torres
Seconded by Gabe Gutierrez
Conduct a public hearing and: 1. Consider a resolution certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20-0001/SCH 2021030087) and
approving Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 to allow the use of a one-
story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric
hospital ; with an added condition of approval of ongoing adherence to the
Operational Profile dated 11/09/21, as presented to the Commission in writing
during the discussion of the item, as new Condition Number 13 of the CUP;
and an additional condition that the Applicant demonstrate and provide
verification of ongoing and current accreditation and licensing with the State
of California; and 2. Consider a resolution approving Design Review Permit
DR19-0012 for the construction of a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building
consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital.
Yes (6): Burroughs, Vice Chair De La Rosa, Milburn, Torres, Zaker, and
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
No (1): Nava
Result: Carried (6 to 1)
OTHER BUSINESS
6. STAFF COMMENTS
7. CHAIR'S COMMENTS
8. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Patricia Salvacion, Planning Commission Secretary
_________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 198 of 1221
D e v e l ( EV gDn t S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t
1 A "}: "a A. F,IT PJkhrt.ing Division Development Processing
Cltr Of
CHUTA VISTA
Appeal the decision of the:
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission
Application Information
l'?j 'N 'I I I A v 2L1 APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Name of Appellant Mr. Brad Davis
Address 797 Creekside Place, Chula Vista, CA 91914
Business Address
Project Address 830 and 831 Showroom Place, Chula Vista, CA 91914
Project Description Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
STAFF (1SE0NI.Y
Date Recelved:
Receipts
Caser!
77_
Phone 619-253-8685
Example: variance, conditional use permit, design review, etc.)
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.
Grounds for an appeal must be based on at least one of the following:
1) Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditionally
approving, or denying a permit, map, or other matter was inaccurate;
2) New Information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available
through that person's reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision; or
3) Findings Not Supported. The decision maker's stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
permit, map, or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.
In order for an appeal to be valid, detailed responses must be included which cite at least one of the above reasons for the appeal
along with substantiation of the facts and circumstances on which the claim of theappeal is based. If an appeal is filed within the
time limit specified, and determined to be valid, it automaticallystays proceedings in the matter until a determination is made by
the City Council.
1. Findings Not Supported: The Report does not provide sufficient support as required by California Public Resources Code 21100(b)
4) and 21002. Ila). The report fails to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed. 2. Factual Error: The Applicant made
representations regarding economic impact that were factually in error. 3. New Information: Applicant had Ex parte communication
with the Council that was not disclosed or made public. 4. Findings Not Supported: The Applicant prepared the EIR but failed to
address and answer community questions and input. 5. New Information: Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures
Appeal Form Directions
Pursuant to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.14, an interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator,
or Planning Commission to the City Council. The appellant must be an interested party. An interested party means a person who was
present at a public hearing from which an appeal arose and who had filed a speaker slip with the decision maker at that public hearing,
or a person who expressed an interest in the project in writing to that decision maker before the close of the public hearing or a decision
on an action from which an appeal may be filed. The appellant must file a complete appeal application form within the specified appeal
period (10 business days after the decision has been made), complete the Disclosure Statement, and pay the required fee. Once a valid
appeal form is filed ppea 'll be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council within 30 days.
Signature of Appellant Date.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: City Council On / /
Development Services Department City Clerk
1 oft
rrru
276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista California 91910 (619) 691.5101
8.5.14
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 199 of 1221
TysharTurner
From:ToddPhilips
Sent:Friday, January21, 202212:51PM
To:TysharTurner
Subject:FW: EastlakeBehavioralHospitalAppeal & RequestforaCityCouncilMeetingafter
December7
D. ToddPhilips | PlanningManager
619.409.5465
tphilips@chulavistaca.gov
From: BradDavis <
Sent: Monday, November 29, 20211:37PM
To: GlenGoogins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: ToddPhilips <Tphilips@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: EastlakeBehavioralHospitalAppeal & RequestforaCityCouncilMeetingafterDecember7
Warning:
External
Email
DearMayorSalas, CityCouncilmembersandCityAttorneyGoogins,
MynameisBradDavisandIfiledtheappealofthePlanningCommissionapprovalof
theEastlakeBehavioralHealthHospital. Iamwritingthisletteronbehalfofmyself,
MonicaNelsonandconcernedresidentswhoattendedtherecentPlanningCommission
hearingandtoformallyprotesttheCityCouncilhearingonourappealonDecember
7th. WehavebeenadvisedbyMr. ToddPhilipsthattherearealreadyseveral “bigticket
items” ontheagenda, includingtheShortTermRentalOrdinance andnewredistricting
councildistrictmaps, whichwillresultinlimitationsonthetimethecommunity willhave
tospeakonouritem. Ontopofthis, Ms. Nelsonsubmitted apublicrecordsact
requestfortheexpartecommunications submittedtothePlanningCommission
thatwerenotmadeavailabletothepublic priortothehearing. Shehasbeen
advisedtheCitywillnotproduce thoserecordsbyDec7th.
ThetimeperiodforthecommunitytospeakatthePlanningCommissionwasalready
reducedfromfiveminutestothree. NowitappearstheCityistryingtopushthroughthis
1
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 200 of 1221
controversial projectwithoutprovidingthoseopposedtheirdueprocessattheCouncil
meeting. Over400peoplesubmittedcomments fortheEIR, thevastmajorityin
opposition. Wewereshocked tohearthatAcadiawasallowed topreparetheEIR
andresponsestothecommunity commentsandconcerns. Thisinandofitselfcalls
intoquestiontheimpartialityoftheEIRandtheprocesstheCityhasengagedintopush
throughanapprovaloftheprojectwithoutaddressingthelegitimateconcernsofthe
residents.
ThePlanningCommissionhearing raisedsomeseriousquestionsthatbythisletterwe
wouldlikeansweredatCouncilhearingafterDecember7thwhenthereisadequate
timesetasidetoanswerthem. First, whydidtheCityallowAcadiatohiretheir
handpickedcompanytopreparetheEIRandcomments? Weobjecttothisprocess
andaskthattheEIRberedonebyanimpartialthirdparty. Second, welearnedatthe
hearingthattheEIRdidnotexamineanobviousandbetteralternative sitewhich
Scrippsalreadyowns, isontheirhospitalcampuswithpublictransportationdirectlynext
toit, andisincloseproximitytoamedicalcomplexofofficesforsupportservicesafter
dischargeandwithinamileandahalfofthepolicestationintheeventofanemergency
elopement ofsomeone whoisadangertothemselvesorothers. Weareaskingthat
theEIRbeamendedtostudythisorotheralternativesitesandbesentoutfor
community commentsonalternative sites.
AtthePlanningCommissionhearing andfollowingaquestionbyacommissionerit
becameapparentthattheapplicantmadeassertions abouttheeconomicimpactofthe
projectthatwereatbestmisleading, ifnotdeliberatelyexaggeratedwithnoactual
backupfortheclaims. Inresponse, theprojectplannerstatedtheCitydidnotdoan
economicimpactanalysis. WhywasAcadiaallowedtopresentthisfalse,
unsubstantiated information concerningtheproject'seconomicimpact? Weaskthat
suchanimpartialanalysisbedonebytheCityandthecorrectinformation beincludedin
animpartialEIR.
Inresponse toanotherquestion byacommissioner, Acadiasaidthe “goodpayingjobs”
averaged $30perhour. Thisraisessomeseriousissuesabouthowthisfacilitywillbe
staffed. Willithaveafull-timepsychiatristonstaff? Willitbestaffedwithunionized
registered nursesandifsohowmany? A $30dollaranhouraveragesuggeststhat
thelow-costmodelthathasbeencritiquedinthenumerousarticlessubmittedas
partoftheEIRcommentswillbethemodelforthisfacility. Thesesamearticles
document howthismodeladoptedbyAcadiahascausedinotherfacilitiesasafety
dangertothepatientsandworkersinthefacilities. ThepublicsafetysectionoftheEIR
wasnotevenapagelonganddidnotadequatelyaddresseitherthisissueorthepublic
safetyissuesposedbyelopementinanareaclosetochild-relatedservicesinthe
adjacent commercialcenterandincloseproximitytohomes. WeaskthattheEIR
addresstheseissuesindepth. Itshouldincludethequestionssubmitted bythepolice
departmentandAcadia'sanswersthatwerementionedinthestaffreportbutnot
includedintheEIRcommentssection. Wefounditdisconcertingtolearnforthefirst
timeatthePlanningCommissionhearingthatthestaffreportwaschangedtoindicate
thepolicedepartment'spositionwas, infact, notinfavorbutneutral.
Itwasalsoapparentfromanotherquestionbyacommissionerthattherewereno
alternative findingsavailabletothosecommissioners whoseemedinclinedto
denytheproject. Thequestionwasexplicitlyaskedwhatthefindingscouldbeandit
wasneveranswered. Again, itappears onlyonesideofthestorywasbeingmade
2
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 201 of 1221
available tothedecisionmakers. Giventheconfusionoverthelegalissuespresented
byAcadia, thereneedstobeaclearandbalancedpresentationonwhatoptionsare
availableifcertaincouncilmemberswanted todenytheprojectandalternative findings
prepared thatwouldsupportdenial. Thisanalysisshouldbedistributedaweekin
advanceofanyhearingsoitcanbelookedatandexamined bythecommunityin
advanceofthemeeting.
Lastly, theCUPpresentedatthePlanningCommission hearinglackedanyreal
enforcementmechanism. WhatifthereportsonAcadia’strackrecordofelopements
areindeedaccurate? HowmanywilltheybeallowedbeforetheCUPcanbe
withdrawn? SeveralarticlesincludedintheEIRcommentsnotedAcadiafacilitiesthat
hadtobecloseddownorwereraidedbythepolice. TheCUPconditionsneedtohave
clearstandardsthatcanbeenforced. Forexample, thereisonlyan8-footwallthatcan
easilybescaledseparatingsomeonewantingtoescapethefacilityandresidentsright
nextdoor. TheCUPdoesnotaddressthiscommunitysafetyconcernwhichis
necessary tomakeanappropriate findingtopreservepublicsafety .
Iamrequesting thatalltheissuesinthisletterbeconsideredandaddressedby
theCouncilatahearingscheduledafterDecember 7thandthatacopyofthis
letterbemadeavailablepriortothepublichearing.
BradDavis
3
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 202 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 203 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 204 of 1221
Item 7.2
Attachment 6a. – 6g.ix
https://cvapps.chulavistaca.gov/Weblink/browse.aspx?startid=241452
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 205 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-20-0001; SCH NO.
2021030087) AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP19-
0010) TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY 97,050 SQUARE-FOOT, 120-BED
ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL ON A 10.5-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 830
AND 831 SHOWROOM PLACE
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP 19-0010) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by
Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC (the “Applicant”); and
WHEREAS, the application requests approval to construct a one-story 97,050 square-foot,
120-bed acute psychiatric hospital, with 144 surface parking spaces, on a vacant site zoned BC -4
within the Eastlake Planned Community District (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is an existing vacant
10.5-acre parcel located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed use falls within the hospital classification of unclassified uses
described in Chapter 19.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) and Chapter 19.44 of the
CVMC allows for Unclassified Uses in the Light Industrial Zone such as the BC-4 zone, subject
to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the Project
may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services
has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR 20-0001; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR-20-0001” or “Draft EIR”)
for the Project was issued for public review on April 27, 2021 and was processed through the State
Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR and requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final EIR (“Final EIR-20-0001” or “Final
EIR”) was prepared for the Project; and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 206 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 2
WHEREAS, Final EIR-20-0001 incorporates all comments and recommendations received
on the Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR, and the City’s responses to all “significant environmental points” raised by public and agency
comments submitted during the review and consultation process, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132; and
WHEREAS, revisions to Final EIR-20-0001 did not result in modifications to conclusions
regarding significance of impacts or the addition of significant new information that would require
recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set a hearing before the Planning
Commission for the consideration of and recommendation on the Final EIR and the CUP. Notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Chula Vista, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500-
feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter
closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista that it hereby finds, determines and orders as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Project and Final EIR-20-0001 as well as the Minutes and Resolutions
resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the
Planning Commission, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision (e), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the CEQA
(Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) The record of proceedings shall be maintained by the
Development Services Department at City Hall.
II. Final EIR-20-0001 CONTENTS
That Final EIR-20-0001 consists of the following:
1. EIR for the Project
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 207 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 3
2. Comments received during public review and responses
3. Technical Appendices
(All hereafter collectively referred to as “Final EIR-20-0001”)
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT TO Final EIR-20-0001
1. Findings of Fact
IV. PRESENTATION TO THE DECISIONMAKING BODY
That the Final EIR-20-0001 was presented to the Planning Commission as the decision-
making body of the Lead Agency and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered
the information contained in Final EIR-20-0001 prior to approving the Project.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
That the Final EIR-20-0001 and the Findings of Fact (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, a copy
which is on file with the Development Services Department), are prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California
Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
VI. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISS ION
That it utilized its independent judgment and analysis in reviewing the Final EIR-20-0001
for the City as Lead Agency for the Project.
VII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
That the Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if
set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in Exhibit “1” to
this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the Development Services Department.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 208 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 4
That on the basis of the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution and as more
fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0001, the Planning Commission hereby finds
pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects identified in Final EIR-20-0002, and that such changes and
alterations have eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment
where feasible as shown in the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution. Furthermore,
that the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, as set forth in Final
EIR-20-0001 and in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, are fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements or other measures, including but not limited to conditions of approval of the Project,
and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned
thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0001 and in Exhibit “1” to this
Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the Project, which were identified
in Final EIR-20-0001, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the
Project objectives.
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final EIR-20-0001 did not identify any significant impacts requiring the adoption of
mitigation measures. All impacts were determined to be below a level of significant due to
regulatory compliance, project design features, or the nature of issue area presented no potential
significant impacts. Therefore, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is not
required to be adopted.
E. Findings are Binding and not Merely Advisory
That to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project (Exhibit “1” of this Resolution)
conclude that regulatory compliance and project design features outlined in Final EIR-20-0001 are
feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the Planning Commission herby
binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These
findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that
will come into effect when the Planning Commission adopts the Resolution approving the Project.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 209 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 5
VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Development Services Director of the City of Chula Vista is directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, should the Planning
Commission approve this Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15094.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
hereby makes the following CUP findings:
1. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or
the community.
The Project Site provides a desirable location for the Project needs. It is located on two parcels
within the Eastlake II planned community at the end of the cul-de-sac at 830 and 831
Showroom Place. The two relatively flat, vacant parcels have been mass graded with a
developable area that contains existing infrastructure (i.e., sewer, water, utilities). While open
space and single-family residential properties are located to the north and east of the Project
Site, there is an approximate 60-foot grade differential between the Project Site and the
residential properties which are all located at the base of an existing manufactured slope. There
is no significant grade separation between the Project Site and the District at Eastlake, an
adjacent business park with both commercial and industrial uses.
The proposed use of an acute psychiatric hospital also provides a desirable acute care option
to the residents of Chula Vista in a location within the Eastlake Business Park that can be easily
accessed by surrounding transportation infrastructure. The proposed location is easily
accessible by the SR 125 freeway to the west and nearby major thoroughfares such as Proctor
Valley Road to the north and Otay Lakes Road to the south.
The proposed project would also be consistent with the vision of the Eastlake Business Park in
having a diverse base of industries for the residents of Chula Vista. A large Project Site is
necessary to accommodate the proposed use and is compatible with the surrounding uses found
in the District at Eastlake. Sitting adjacent to the District at Eastlake, the Project Site would
add to the business park’s envisioned, diverse mixture of industrial and commercial tenants,
many of which also require CUPs to operate in the Eastlake Business Park.
The proposed project would also provide needed jobs during and after construction as well as
serve as a specialized medical care facility in the community contributing to the general well-
being of the Chula Vista community. Not only will the hospital provide an acute psychiatric
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 210 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 6
care option for the residents, it will also provide approximately 100 jobs during construction
and provide 150 permanent jobs, contributing to the economic well-being of the community.
2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use is located within the BC-4 Zone of the Eastlake II Planned Community. In
accordance with the provisions of the BC-4 Zone, the proposed use is allowed with a CUP.
The proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare,
including but not limited to matters of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazards
or excessive concentrations of traffic, all as evidenced in the Project EIR. A limited amount of
noise and dust is to be expected in association with construction activities, but Conditions of
Approval and the City’s performance standards offset and mitigate for such impacts.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chula
Vista Municipal Code Title 19 (Planning and Zoning) for such use.
Pursuant to the provisions within the BC-4 zone within the Eastlake Planned Community
District and as an unclassified use pursuant to CVMC Section 19.54.020(h), the acute
psychiatric hospital is an allowed use subject to a CUP in accordance with CVMC Section
19.44.040(o). The proposed project will comply with and is subject to the conditions of this
CUP as required by the above-referenced CVMC Sections.
4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City, or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The proposed use is located within the BC-4 Zone of the Eastlake II Planned Community. In
accordance with the provisions of the BC-4 Zone and CVMC sections 19.54.020(h) and
19.44.040(o), the proposed use is a permitted use subject to a CUP which requires compliance
with specified regulations and conditions.
The proposed use complies with the General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial
uses for the surrounding residents. The Project site is vacant and was previously graded in
2002. The commercial use is appropriate for this site and allowed under the Business Center
II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA), Business Center 4 (BC-4) zone. Approval of
the Project requires compliance with all applicable codes and regulations, and all conditions
must be satisfied prior to the final building inspection or occupancy.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 211 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission, based on the findings
above, hereby adds and requires the following conditions of approval:
IX. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services, or designee, prior to issuance of Building Permits, unless otherwise specified:
Planning/Transportation:
1. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees,
including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DDA-0457.
2. The hours of operation for the Project shall be 24-hours per day, seven days per week,
employing up to 150 staff and facility personnel, working in three employee shifts. Day
shifts are eight hours, except for the nursing staff who work 12-hour shifts. Shifts are
between 7:00 am to 3:00 pm, 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm, and 11:00 pm to 7:00 am.
3. The Project shall provide 24-hour security patrols, closed circuit security camera
monitoring of the exterior and common areas (e.g., lobby, cafeteria, visiting area, outside
areas).
4. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall provide proof of a
transportation plan that demonstrates a shuttle service to and from the facility to the nearest
public transit stop to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. The colors and materials specified on the building plans shall be consistent with the colors
and materials shown on the site plan and materials board approved by the Planning
Commission for DR19-0012.
6. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall
be noted for any building and wall. Additionally, the Project shall conform to Chapter 9.20
of the CVMC regarding graffiti control.
7. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Director of Development Services. Such screening
shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
8. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 212 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 8
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director
of Development Services.
9. All exterior lighting shall include shielding to remove any glare from adjacent residents.
Details for said lighting shall be included in the architectural plans and shall be reviewed
and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, prior to the
issuance of the first Building Permit.
10. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a Sign Permit from the Development Services
Department for each sign. Signs shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
CVMC.
11. Prior to the First Building Permit, the Applicant shall install a new traffic signal at the
Harold Place/Fenton Street intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. Prior to the First Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay the fair share contribution
toward the installation of the City’s preferred Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC)
modules to the signalized intersections on Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway
and Hunte Parkway, and for the Eastlake Parkway/Fenton Street intersection. The
Applicant’s fair share contribution is shown in the table below:
Intersection
Project Fair
Share
3. Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road 3.0%
4. Lane Avenue/Otay Lakes Road 4.1%
5. Fenton Street/Otay Lakes Road 6.8%
6. Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road 1.6%
7. Eastlake Parkway/Fenton Street 2.6%
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 213 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 9
Land Development Division/Landscape Architecture Division:
13. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the CVMC; the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual; City of Chula Vista Design and Construction Standards; the
Development Storm Water Manual for Development & Redevelopment Projects, The
Chula Vista BMP Design Manual; the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797;
and the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
14. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Map
No. CVT 00-02.
15. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall process a Lot Consolidation.
16. Before the issuance of the Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay the following fees
(subject to automatic adjustment on October 1st of each year):
a. Sewer Capacity Fee
b. Traffic Signal Fee
c. Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee (DIF)
d. Other Engineering Fees and deposits in accordance with the City Subdivision
Manual, and Master Fee Schedule will be required for the submittal of Grading
Plans and Improvement Plans.
17. All driveways shall conform to the City of Chula Vista’s sight distance requirements in
accordance with Section 12.12.120 of the CVMC and Chula Vista standard drawing RWY-
05 (Sight Distance Requirements). Also, landscaping, street furniture, or signs shall not
obstruct the visibility of the driver at the street intersections or driveways.
18. The proposed Fire Access shall meet H-20 Loading requirements or shall be designed for
a Traffic Index (T.I.) of 5.
19. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parking shall be
designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, American’s with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable.
20. The Applicant must obtain a Grading Permit prior to beginning any earthwork activities at
the site and before issuance of Building Permits in accordance with Municipal Code
Chapter 15.04. The Applicant shall submit grading plans in conformance with the City’s
Subdivision Manual and the City’s Development Storm Water Manual requirements,
including, but not limited to the following:
a. Grading plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
City Engineer.
b. Any offsite work will require Letters of Permission from the property owner(s).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 214 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 10
21. Prior to issuance of Grading, Construction, and Building Permits, the Applicant shall
document on applicable plans compliance with the requirements pertaining to Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The Applicant shall develop and implement post
construction BMPs in accordance with the most recent regulations at the time of Grading
and Building Permit issuance.
22. The Applicant and Owner shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities
Maintenance Agreement to perpetually maintain all permanent BMPs located within the
Project prior to issuance of the Grading Permit.
23. The Applicant must ensure that all roof drains are directed toward the treatment facilities
as proposed in accordance with the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).
24. The Applicant shall provide the City with proof of Pad Certification prior to issuance of
any Building Permit within the Project.
25. The infrastructure fronting the site shall be constructed and fully operational before the
issuance of the Final Building Inspection, all to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Development Services Department.
26. Separate permits for other public utilities (e.g., gas, electric, water, cable, telephone) shall
be required, as necessary.
27. The Applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit for private utility connections to the
public mains prior to Building Permit issuance.
28. The Applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit to construct the private driveways and
associated signage and striping in the City’s right-of-way, prior to issuance of any Building
Permit.
29. The Applicant is responsible for the replacement of any broken or damaged curb, gutter,
and sidewalk along the frontage of the Project Site. Required improvements shall be
constructed following the requirements of the Chula Vista Design and Construction
Standard Drawings, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
30. The onsite sewer and storm drain system shall be private. All sewer laterals and storm
drains shall be privately maintained from each building unit to the City-maintained public
facilities.
31. Before issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall provide the City a “Will
Serve” letter from Otay Water District.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 215 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 11
32. Any private facilities (if applicable) within the public right-of-way or City easement will
require an Encroachment Permit prior to improvement plan or Building Permit approval.
33. All trash enclosures shall be fully covered with a solid roof.
34. Prior to the second submittal of the Building Permit set, the Applicant shall submit a
complete set of landscape improvement plans for review and approval by the Director of
Development Services or designee. For further information about submitting landscape
improvement plans and to download a landscape improvement review packet see the
following link. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-
services/landscape-architecture Said plans shall conform to the following City documents
including, but not limited to:
a. Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (LWCO), Chapter 20.12 of the CVMC
b. City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual
c. Shade Tree Policy (576-19)
35. Prior to the final building inspection, the Applicant shall have installed landscape
improvements in accordance with the approved landscape improvement plans to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services or designee.
Fire/Building Department:
36. The Applicant shall apply for required Building Permits. Permits shall comply with
applicable codes and requirements, including but not limited to: the current California
edition of the Building Code (CBC), Energy Code, Fire Code (CFC), Electrical Code,
Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code and California Green Standards Code as adopted and
amended by the State of California and the City of Chula Vista.
37. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the following shall be required to be satisfied
during the site improvement and architectural plans submittal processes. The following are
conditions that will need to be addressed on the corresponding Building Permit submittals.
38. Provide a Fire Notes Section that includes the following notes:
a. To schedule a fire inspection, contact The Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) at
(619) 691-5029
b. Project shall comply with California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 33, “Fire Safety
during Construction and Demolition”.
c. Impairments to fire protection systems will be coordinated in accordance with
CVFD Fire Prevention Division Fire Watch policy.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 216 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 12
39. Provide a complete and thorough Project Scope section that includes all proposed work.
40. Reproduce and sign the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Construction Site Policy
Agreement onto plans.
41. Provide a CVFD Details Sheet and reproduce the following details onto plans (all details
are available in .pdf format at the website listed at the end of this document):
• Fire Control Room
• Premise Identification
• Fire Lane Identification
• Auto Turn Data
• Knox – Single Tenant with Fire Control Room
• Exterior Strobe Detail
Building Data:
42. Provide a building data table that indicates the following:
• Construction Type
• Total Building Floor Area in Square Footage
• Number of Stories
• Total Floor Area in Square Footage of Project Scope
• Existing and Proposed Occupancy Type(s)
• Is Building Sprinklered (Yes/No)
43. Perform a building analysis that indicates compliance with California Building Code
(CBC) Ch.5 General Building Heights and Areas. If applicable, perform an analysis that
indicates the Project is in compliance with CBC Section 508 for mixed use and occupancy
(e.g., show occupancy types of neighboring tenant spaces).
Fire Department Access:
44. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility or building and shall extend
to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building.
45. Fire apparatus access road dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Perform an auto-turn analysis on all
private streets using CVFD auto-turn data.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 217 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 13
46. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with
an approved area for turning around fire apparatus (3 point turn max using auto-turn
analysis).
47. Fire apparatus access roads shall be marked as Fire Lanes in accordance with CVFD
standard detail for fire lanes. Identify location of fire lanes on site plan.
48. Fire apparatus access road obstruction: Automatic gates shall be provided with both an
Opticom Detection System and a Knox Key Switch override. Provisions shall be taken to
operate the gate upon the loss of power. Manual Gates shall be provided with a Knox
padlock or a Knox Box depending on the installation.
49. Buildings shall be provided with Knox rapid entry appliances in accordance with CVFD
standards applicable to this Project. This Project will require Knox appliances in
accordance with CVFD Detail for Single Tenant with Fire Control Room. Show proposed
or existing location on the floor plan and elevation sheets for approval.
50. The building(s) shall be addressed in accordance with the following criteria (address
location shall be shown on elevation view for approval):
• 0 – 50 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 6-inches in height with a 1-inch
stroke
• 51 – 150 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 10-inches in height with a
1.5 -inch stroke
• 151 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 16-inches in height with a 2-inch
stroke
• Individual suites shall be addressed with the following criteria: 4-inches in height
with a 1-inch stroke.
Underground Fire Service Wet Utilities:
51. For 92,349 square feet of Type IB construction, this Project will require a fire flow of 3,250
gallons per minute for a 3-hour duration. Chula Vista Fire Code allows a 25% percent
reduction for buildings protected by fire sprinklers. This reduction is already accounted for
in the figure above. CVFD will produce and send a water letter to the respective water
authority to determine if the fire flow demand is available.
52. Based upon the required fire flow for Type IB construction type, a minimum of 4 fire
hydrants are required to serve this Project.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 218 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 14
53. Fire Hydrants shall be located and spaced in accordance with CFC, Appendix C. Based
upon the required fire flow for this Project, fire hydrants shall be located with an average
spacing of 400 feet. The maximum distance from any point along a fire apparatus access
road to a fire hydrant shall not exceed 225 feet.
54. Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a fire apparatus
access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building, on site
fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (All exteriors walls of a building shall be within
400 feet of a fire hydrant).
55. All private/on-site underground fire service utilities shall be permitted directly with CVFD
by submitting the design of such systems to CVFD for approval. Please note CVFD
requires all fire hydrant systems to be in service (i.e., installed and inspected) prior to
delivery of any combustibles to a site. Public fire hydrants shall be permitted through a
review process with the City’s Land Development Department.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems:
56. This Project is to be protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system
in accordance with section 903.2.6 of the CFC (NFPA 13). Provide a note in the fire/general
notes section indicating such.
57. Provide a fire control room in accordance with the City’s Fire Department Standard detail.
Show required identification on door, regular and emergency lighting, and dimensions as
required on the standard detail.
Fire Alarm System:
58. This Project is to be protected throughout with an approved fire alarm system in accordance
with section 907.2.6.2 of the CFC and NFPA 72. Provide a note in the fire/general notes
section indicating such.
Separate Submittals
59. Provide a separate submittals section that indicates the following (VERBATIM):
“Plans for the design and installation of the fire protection system(s) are a deferred
submittal and shall be submitted and approved, prior to any installation work, to
CVFD Fire Prevention Division located at 276 Fourth Ave, Bldg. C. (619) 691-
5029
Submittals required for this Project:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 219 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 15
• Fire Sprinkler
• Fire Alarm – Enter Type of System required
• Kitchen Hood Fire Suppression System
• Fire Service Underground
Fire Extinguishers:
60. Provide fire extinguishers in accordance with Title 19 Table 2 that is referenced in CFC
section 906.3. Fire extinguisher locations and proposed size shall be shown on plans so that
they can be approved. The maximum travel distance to a fire extinguisher is 75 ft. Fire
extinguishers shall be installed in dedicated cabinets.
Egress:
61. Provide an egress plan that indicates the following: location of exits, travel distance to
exits, separation of exits and all portions of the means of egress including exit access, exit
and exit discharge.
62. Perform and occupant load analysis that ensures the occupant load is clearly described and
calculated for all areas/rooms and uses. Provide a summary of analysis in tabular form.
63. Provide door and hardware schedules that give adequate hardware details to determine that
the correct locking hardware are being provided on all existing and new egress doors.
64. IF a locking device is utilized at the main front door in accordance with CFC 1010.1.9.3
#2 (i.e., deadbolt), note on plans that it shall be readily distinguishable as locked and key-
operated and a readily visible sign is posted on the egress side or adjacent to the door
stating: ‘THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THIS SPACE IS OCCUPIED’.
The sign shall be in 1” high letters on contrasting background. This exception is only
applicable to one main entrance/exit in Group A of 300 or less occupants and Group, B,
F, M, and S occupancies.
65. All egress doors within a Group A occupancy shall be of the panic hardware type.
Exception would be ONE main door when occupant load does not exceed 300 in
accordance with CFC 1010.1.9.3 #2.
Electrical:
66. Provide required means of egress illumination on emergency/back-up power in
accordance with CFC section 1008.3. Provide a photometric drawing indicating means of
egress emergency/back-up illumination levels in the entire exit access has the proper
candela of an average minimum of 1ft candle per CFC section 1008.3.5 for the means of
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 220 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 16
egress illumination. Ensure the illumination levels at any one point are at least .1ft candle
and provide a max-to-min illumination uniformity ratio that does not exceed 40 to 1.
67. Provide required illuminated exit signage in accordance with CFC section 1013. Locations
shall be shown on electrical and/or floor plans.
Mechanical:
68. Provide duct smoke detectors on the supply side of air distribution systems having a
capacity of greater than 2000 cubic feet per minute (CFM). This is a cumulative CFM
within the same space. When installing new air moving equipment, CVFD strongly
recommends factory installed duct detectors located within the air moving equipment.
69. Drawings shall show that keyed remote test switches with LED light indicators are
provided on the wall at no greater than 6 ft. for all duct smoke detectors.
70. The Applicant shall provide a note indicating that duct smoke detector activation will result
in the immediate loss of power to the air moving equipment. Air moving equipment serving
the same space shall be interconnected for global shutdown.
71. The Applicant shall provide specification sheets for detector type proposed and clearly
show where the duct smoke and/or fire dampers detector will be located in the form of a
cross-section detail. Factory installed duct detectors shall still be installed on the supply
side of the air moving equipment.
72. Mechanical duct penetrations through fire rated construction will require combination
smoke/fire dampers. The combination smoke/fire dampers will require keyed remote test
switches with LED light indicators provided on the wall at no greater than 6 ft. for all duct
smoke/fire dampers. Provide a specification sheet for the smoke/fire damper.
X. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on this
approval:
73. The Project Site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans,
which include site plans, floor plan, and elevation plan on file in the Planning Division, the
conditions contained herein, and Title 19 of the CVMC, as approved by DR19-0012.
74. Approval of the CUP shall not waive compliance with any sections of Title 19 of the
CVMC, nor any other applicable City Ordinances, laws and regulations in effect at the time
of Building Permit issuance.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 221 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 17
75. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City, its Planning Commission, City Council members, officers,
employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and
issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, any and all environmental determinations for the
Project and (c) City’s approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the Project
Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this
provision by executing a copy of this CUP where indicated below. The Property Owner’s
and Applicant’s compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the
Property Owner’s and Applicant’s successors and assigns.
76. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Applicant as to
any or all of the Property.
77. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City’s General
Plan; the City’s Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Chula
Design Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from time to
time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval
of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate
department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material
modifications shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
78. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall 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 including issuance of building
permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the
approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions; and/or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified
10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be
given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
79. This CUP shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within three years from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.600 of the CVMC.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 222 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 18
XI. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a)
and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees or service fees in connection with the Project; and it does not apply to any
fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to
this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
XII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines
provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped
copy returned to the City’s Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed
and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate
the Property Owner/Applicant’s desire that the Project, and the corresponding application
for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Property Owner Date
________________________________
Printed Name of Property Owner
________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Applicant Date
________________________________
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 223 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 19
Printed Name of Applicant
XIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
on the basis of the findings as set forth above hereby certifies Final EIR-20-0001 and adopts the
Findings of Fact (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15091 and approves CUP 19-0010 subject to the conditions of approval contained herein.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ _______, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Max Zaker, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 224 of 1221
PC EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010
Page 20
_________________________ ____________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 225 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. DR19-0012
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DR19-0012 TO
CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY 97,050 SQUARE-FOOT, 120-BED ACUTE
PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL ON A 10.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 830 AND
831 SHOWROOM PLACE
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2019, a duly verified application for a Design Review Permit (DR
19-0012) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Eastlake
Behavioral Health, LLC (the “Applicant”); and
WHEREAS, the application requests approval to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot,
120 bed acute psychiatric hospital, with 144 surface parking spaces, on a vacant site zoned BC-4
within the Eastlake Planned Community District (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is an existing vacant
10.5-acre parcel located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
Project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development
Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR20-0001; and
WHEREAS, EIR 20-0001 does not identify any potential significant environmental
impacts caused by the Project; therefore, no Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP)
is required; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set a hearing before the Planning
Commission for the consideration of and recommendation on the Design Review Permit (DR19-
0012). Notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter
closed.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 226 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission does hereby find and determine as follows:
I. DESIGN REVIEW
1. That the proposed development will be consistent with the City of Chula Vista’s General
Plan and Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
The Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan and Title 19 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). The Project will be strategically situated on the site such that
it is located at the approximate rear third portion of the parcel that is flat and elevated which
will minimize views from the surrounding residential uses to the north. The parcel is
surrounded by industrial and commercial uses similar in design and scale of the Project. In
addition, the proposed location of the building and associated parking, along with building
elevations, are such that all required development standards of the BC-4 zone are being met.
A series of architectural site sections and perspectives demonstrate that the topography,
proximity of uses, proposed wall and fencing, and landscaping would provide sufficient visual
screening and protection between the property and the neighbors.
2. The design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost-
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
The design features are a cost-effective method of satisfying the City of Chula Vista Design
Manual and Landscape Manual. The design of the building incorporates several desired
features in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Design Manual such as varied facades and
roof articulation with a modern architectural theme that matches the precedent form and
volume of the surrounding neighborhood. Linear massing of the building breaks up a series of
wall pane off-sets including reveal lines and pop-out features and canopies to provide a
staggering of the building façade. Vertically, the building uses height and roofline variations,
different colors, varying fenestration and wainscot to create both interest and shadows that
provides vertical relief.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission, based on the findings
above, hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to the following conditions:
II. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services, or designee, prior to issuance of Building Permits, unless otherwise specified:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 227 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 3
Planning:
1. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees,
including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DDA-0457.
2. The colors and materials specified on the building plans shall be consistent with the colors
and materials shown on the site plan and materials board approved by the Planning
Commission.
3. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall
be noted for any building and wall. Additionally, the Project shall conform to Chapter 9.20
of the CVMC regarding graffiti control.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Director of Development Services. Such screening
shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director
of Development Services.
6. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, all exterior lighting shall include shielding
to remove any glare from adjacent residents. Details for said lighting shall be included in
the architectural plans and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director
of Development Services.
7. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a Sign Permit from the Development Services
Department for each sign. Signs shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
CVMC.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 228 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 4
Land Development Division/Landscape Architecture Division:
8. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the CVMC; the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual; City of Chula Vista Design and Construction Standards; the
Development Storm Water Manual for Development & Redevelopment Projects, The
Chula Vista BMP Design Manual; the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797;
and the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
9. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Map
No. CVT 00-02.
10. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall process a Lot Consolidation.
11. Before the issuance of the Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay the following fees
(subject to automatic adjustment on October 1st of each year):
a. Sewer Capacity Fee
b. Traffic Signal Fee
c. Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee (DIF)
d. Other Engineering Fees and deposits in accordance with the City Subdivision
Manual, and Master Fee Schedule will be required for the submittal of Grading
Plans and Improvement Plans.
12. All driveways shall conform to the City of Chula Vista’s sight distance requirements in
accordance with CVMC Section 12.12.120 and Chula Vista standard drawing RWY-05
(Sight Distance Requirements). Also, landscaping, street furniture, or signs shall not
obstruct the visibility of the driver at the street intersections or driveways.
13. The proposed Fire Access shall meet H-20 Loading requirements or shall be designed for
a Traffic Index (T.I.) of 5.
14. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parking shall be
designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, American’s with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable.
15. The Applicant must obtain a Grading Permit prior to beginning any earthwork activities at
the site and before issuance of Building Permits in accordance with CVMC Chapter 15.04.
The Applicant shall submit grading plans in conformance with the City’s Subdivision
Manual and the City’s Development Storm Water Manual requirements, including, but not
limited to the following:
a. Grading plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
City Engineer.
b. Any offsite work will require Letters of Permission from the property owner(s).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 229 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 5
16. Prior to issuance of Grading, Construction, and Building Permits, the Applicant shall
document on applicable plans compliance with the requirements pertaining to Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The Applicant shall develop and implement post
construction BMPs in accordance with the most recent regulations at the time of Grading
and Building Permit issuance.
17. The Applicant and Owner shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities
Maintenance Agreement to perpetually maintain all permanent BMPs located within the
project prior to issuance of the Grading Permit.
18. The Applicant must ensure that all roof drains are directed toward the treatment facilities
as proposed per the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).
19. The Applicant shall provide the City with proof of Pad Certification prior to issuance of
any Building Permit within the Project.
20. The infrastructure fronting the site shall be constructed and fully operational before the
issuance of the Final Building Inspection, all to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Development Services Department.
21. Separate permits for other public utilities (e.g., gas, electric, water, cable, telephone) shall
be required, as necessary.
22. The Applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit for private utility connections to the
public mains prior to Building Permit issuance.
23. The Applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit to construct the private driveways and
associated signage and striping in the City’s right-of-way, prior to issuance of any Building
Permit.
24. The Applicant is responsible for the replacement of any broken or damaged curb, gutter,
and sidewalk along the frontage of the project site. Required improvements shall be
constructed following the requirements of the Chula Vista Design and Construction
Standard Drawings, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
25. The onsite sewer and storm drain system shall be private. All sewer laterals and storm
drains shall be privately maintained from each building unit to the City-maintained public
facilities.
26. Before issuance of the first Building Permit, provide a “Will Serve” letter from Otay Water
District.
27. Any private facilities (if applicable) within public right-of-way or City easement will
require an Encroachment Permit prior to improvement plan or Building Permit approval.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 230 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 6
28. All trash enclosures shall be fully covered with a solid roof.
29. Prior to the second submittal of the Building Permit set, applicant shall submit a complete
set of landscape improvement plans for review and approval by the Director of
Development Services or designee. For further information about submitting Landscape
Improvement plans and to download a landscape improvement review packet see the
following link. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-
services/landscape-architecture Said plans shall conform to the following City documents
including, but not limited to:
a. Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (LWCO), Chapter 20.12 of the CVMC
b. City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual
c. Shade Tree Policy (576-19)
30. Prior to the final building inspection, the Owner shall have installed landscape
improvements in accordance with approved landscape improvement plans to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services or designee.
Fire/Building Department:
31. The Applicant shall apply for required Building Permits. Permits shall comply with
applicable codes and requirements, including but not limited to: the current California
edition of the Building Code (CBC), Energy Code, Fire Code (CFC), Electrical Code,
Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code and California Green Standards Code as adopted and
amended by the State of California and the City of Chula Vista.
32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the following shall be required to be satisfied
during the site improvement and architectural plans submittal processes. The following are
conditions that will need to be addressed on the corresponding Building Permit submittals.
33. Provide a Fire Notes Section that includes the following notes:
a. To schedule a fire inspection, contact The Chula Vista Fire Department at (619)
691-5029
b. Project shall comply with California Fire Code Chapter 33, “Fire Safety during
Construction and Demolition”.
c. Impairments to fire protection systems will be coordinated in accordance with
CVFD Fire Prevention Division Fire Watch policy.
34. Provide a complete and thorough Project Scope section that includes all proposed work.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 231 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 7
35. Reproduce and sign the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Construction Site Policy
Agreement onto plans.
36. Provide a CVFD Details Sheet and reproduce the following details onto plans (all details
are available in .pdf format at the website listed at the end of this document):
Fire Control Room
Premise Identification
Fire Lane Identification
Auto Turn Data
Knox – Single Tenant with Fire Control Room
Exterior Strobe Detail
Building Data:
37. Provide a building data table that indicates the following:
Construction Type
Total Building Floor Area in Square Footage
Number of Stories
Total Floor Area in Square Footage of Project Scope
Existing and Proposed Occupancy Type(s)
Is Building Sprinklered (Yes/No)
38. Perform a building analysis that indicates compliance with CBC Ch.5 General Building
Heights and Areas. If applicable perform an analysis that indicates the project is in
compliance with CBC Section 508 for mixed use and occupancy (e.g., show occupancy
types of neighboring tenant spaces).
Fire Department Access:
39. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility or building and shall extend
to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building.
40. Fire apparatus access road dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Perform an auto-turn analysis on all
private streets using CVFD auto-turn data.
41. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with
an approved area for turning around fire apparatus (3 point turn max using auto-turn
analysis).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 232 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 8
42. Fire apparatus access roads shall be marked as Fire Lanes in accordance with CVFD
standard detail for fire lanes. Identify location of fire lanes on site plan.
43. Fire apparatus access road obstruction: Automatic gates shall be provided with both an
Opticom Detection System and a Knox Key Switch override. Provisions shall be taken to
operate the gate upon the loss of power. Manual Gates shall be provided with a Knox
padlock or a Knox Box depending on the installation.
44. Buildings shall be provided with Knox rapid entry appliances in accordance with CVFD
standards applicable to this project. This project will require Knox appliances in
accordance with CVFD Detail for Single Tenant with Fire Control Room. Show proposed
or existing location on the floor plan and elevation sheets for approval.
45. The building(s) shall be addressed in accordance with the following criteria (address
location shall be shown on elevation view for approval):
0 – 50 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 6-inches in height with a 1-inch
stroke
51 – 150 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 10-inches in height with a
1.5 -inch stroke
151 feet from the building to the face of the curb: 16-inches in height with a 2-inch
stroke
Individual suites shall be addressed with the following criteria: 4-inches in height
with a 1-inch stroke.
Underground Fire Service Wet Utilities:
46. For 92,349 square feet of Type IB construction, this project will require a fire flow of 3,250
gallons per minute for a 3-hour duration. Chula Vista Fire Code allows a 25% percent
reduction for buildings protected by fire sprinklers. This reduction is already accounted for
in the figure above. CVFD will produce and send a water letter to the respective water
authority to determine if the fire flow demand is available.
47. Based upon the required fire flow for Type IB construction type, a minimum of 4 fire
hydrants are required to serve this project.
48. Fire Hydrants shall be located and spaced in accordance with California Fire Code,
Appendix C. Based upon the required fire flow for this project, fire hydrants shall be
located with an average spacing of 400 feet. The maximum distance from any point along
a fire apparatus access road to a fire hydrant shall not exceed 225 feet.
49. Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a fire apparatus
access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building, on site
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 233 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 9
fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (All exteriors walls of a building shall be within
400 feet of a fire hydrant).
50. All private/on-site underground fire service utilities shall be permitted directly with CVFD
by submitting the design of such systems to CVFD for approval. Please note CVFD
requires all fire hydrant systems to be in service (i.e. installed and inspected) prior to
delivery of any combustibles to a site. Public fire hydrants shall be permitted through a
review process with the City of Chula Vista Land Development Department.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems:
51. This Project is to be protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system
in accordance with section 903.2.6 of the CA Fire Code (NFPA 13). Provide a note in the
fire/general notes section indicating such.
52. Provide a fire control room in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Fire Department
Standard detail. Show required identification on door, regular and emergency lighting, and
dimensions as required on the standard detail.
Fire Alarm System:
53. This Project is to be protected throughout with an approved fire alarm system in accordance
with section 907.2.6.2 of the CA Fire Code and NFPA 72. Provide a note in the fire/general
notes section indicating such.
Separate Submittals
54. Provide a separate submittals section that indicates the following (VERBATIM):
“Plans for the design and installation of the fire protection system(s) are a deferred
submittal and shall be submitted and approved, prior to any installation work, to
CVFD Fire Prevention Division located at 276 Fourth Ave, Bldg. C. (619) 691-
5029
Submittals required for this project:
Fire Sprinkler
Fire Alarm – Enter Type of System required
Kitchen Hood Fire Suppression System
Fire Service Underground
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 234 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 10
Fire Extinguishers:
55. Provide fire extinguishers in accordance with Title 19 Table 2 that is referenced in CFC
section 906.3. Fire extinguisher locations and proposed size shall be shown on plans so
that they can be approved. The maximum travel distance to a fire extinguisher is 75 ft.
Fire extinguishers shall be installed in dedicated cabinets.
Egress:
56. Provide an egress plan that indicates the following: location of exits, travel distance to
exits, separation of exits and all portions of the means of egress including exit access, exit
and exit discharge.
57. Perform and occupant load analysis that ensures the occupant load is clearly described and
calculated for all areas/rooms and uses. Provide a summary of analysis in tabular form.
58. Provide door and hardware schedules that give adequate hardware details to determine that
the correct locking hardware are being provided on all existing and new egress doors.
59. IF a locking device is utilized at the main front door in accordance with CFC 1010.1.9.3
#2 (i.e., deadbolt), note on plans that it shall be readily distinguishable as locked and key-
operated and a readily visible sign is posted on the egress side or adjacent to the door
stating: ‘THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THIS SPACE IS OCCUPIED’.
The sign shall be in 1” high letters on contrasting background. This exception is only
applicable to one main entrance/exit in Group A of 300 or less occupants and Group, B,
F, M, and S occupancies.
60. All egress doors within a Group A occupancy shall be of the panic hardware type.
Exception would be ONE main door when occupant load does not exceed 300 in
accordance with CFC 1010.1.9.3 #2.
Electrical:
61. Provide required means of egress illumination on emergency/back-up power in
accordance with CFC section 1008.3. Provide a photometric drawing indicating means of
egress emergency/back-up illumination levels in the entire exit access has the proper
candela of an average minimum of 1ft candle per CFC section 1008.3.5 for the means of
egress illumination. Ensure the illumination levels at any one point are at least .1ft candle
and provide a max-to-min illumination uniformity ratio that does not exceed 40 to 1.
62. Provide required illuminated exit signage in accordance with CFC section 1013. Locations
shall be shown on electrical and/or floor plans.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 235 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 11
Mechanical:
63. Provide duct smoke detectors on the supply side of air distribution systems having a
capacity of greater than 2000 cubic feet per minute (CFM). This is a cumulative CFM
within the same space. When installing new air moving equipment, CVFD strongly
recommends factory installed duct detectors located within the air moving equipment.
64. Drawings shall show that keyed remote test switches with LED light indicators are
provided on the wall at no greater than 6 ft. for all duct smoke detectors.
65. Provide a note indicating that duct smoke detector activation will result in the immediate
loss of power to the air moving equipment. Air moving equipment serving the same space
shall be interconnected for global shutdown.
66. Provide specification sheets for detector type proposed and clearly show where the duct
smoke and/or fire dampers detector will be located in the form of a cross-section detail.
Factory installed duct detectors shall still be installed on the supply side of the air moving
equipment.
67. Mechanical duct penetrations through fire rated construction will require combination
smoke/fire dampers. The combination smoke/fire dampers will require keyed remote test
switches with LED light indicators provided on the wall at no greater than 6 ft. for all duct
smoke/fire dampers. Provide a specification sheet for the smoke/fire damper.
III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on this
approval:
68. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the CVMC, and
all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
69. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Planning Commission, City Council members, officers, employees
and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred
by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this
Design Review Permit, any and all environmental determinations for the Project and (c)
City’s approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the Design Review Permit contemplated on the Project
Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this
provision by executing a copy of this Design Review Permit where indicated below. The
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 236 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 12
Property Owner’s and Applicant’s compliance with this provision shall be binding on any
and all of the Property Owner’s and Applicant’s successors and assigns.
70. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Applicant as to
any or all of the Property.
71. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan; the City’s Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
Chula Design Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from
time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the
approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the
appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material
modifications shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
72. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall 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 including issuance of building
permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the
approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions; and/or seek damages for their violation. The applicant shall be notified 10
days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given
the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
73. This Design Review Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within three
years from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.600 of the CVMC.
IV. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a)
and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any
fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 237 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 13
this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
V. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines
provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped
copy returned to the City’s Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed
and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate
the Property Owner/Applicant’s desire that the project, and the corresponding application
for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Property Owner Date
________________________________
Printed Name of Property Owner
________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Applicant Date
________________________________
Printed Name of Applicant
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable,
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 238 of 1221
Planning Commission Resolution No. DR19-0012
Page 14
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ _______, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Max Zaker, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ ____________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 239 of 1221
Written Communications - Davis
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 240 of 1221
Written Communications - Davis
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 241 of 1221
Written Communications - Davis
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 242 of 1221
From: Brenda Zaragoza <bgzara91@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 4:45 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health treatment
capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not kept
pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the inpatient
beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region. Behavioral
health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will
provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge you to
reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BRENDA
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:bgzara91@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 243 of 1221
From: Alfonso Morales <imafern2011@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 7:25 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE CANCEL THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly do not support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health
and Acadia Healthcare. This project will negatively impact the community in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and can be better placed in
another location. It is truly a crisis to the neighborhood if it is built within the homes. We have less than
half the inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will
cause distress to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission is making the wrong decision in approving the project, and I urge
you to accept the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
L. Alfonso Morales
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:imafern2011@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 244 of 1221
From: rosario romo < >
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 7:03 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
INSERT YOUR NAME HERE***
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 245 of 1221
From: Franchesca Castaneda <f.castaneda87@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 3:23 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Franchesca Castaneda
mailto:f.castaneda87@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 246 of 1221
From: Carolina Stephanía Miranda <itscarolinamirandaa@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:58 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolina Miranda
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:itscarolinamirandaa@i
cloud.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 247 of 1221
From: isabel sandoval <isabelsmit0713@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 10:37 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council: <BR> <BR>I strongly support the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare. This project
will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health treatment capacity in the South County
region. <BR>The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our
region has not kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less
than half the inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in
our region. Behavioral health affects us all. <BR>The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project,
proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will provide care to our families, friends,
neighbors, and coworkers. <BR>The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in
approving this project, and I urge you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
BR>Thank you for your consideration. <BR> <BR>Sincerely, <BR> <BR>***INSERT YOUR NAME
HERE***
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:isabelsmit0713@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 248 of 1221
From: Cathryn Nacario <CathrynNacario@namisd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:05 AM
To: Patricia Salvacion <psalvacion@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>;
jmgalvez@chgulavistaca.gov; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Good morning, I am writing on behalf of NAMI san Diego and
Imperial Counties in support of the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Project. I am the current CEO of NAMI SD/IC along with being the President
of the Mental Health Contractors Association San Diego. Let me start by
saying the mental health services at all levels create healthier communities.
As an advocate to reduce stigma surrounding mental illness as well as
increase access to mental health services this project is so important to the
community. 1 in 3 Americans have identified as having a mental health
concern in the past 20 months which is up from 1 in 5 over previous years.
Access to treatment is typically 10-13 years from onset of symptoms due to
stigma, fear, and lack of adequate and quality community resources. The
sooner we can assist individuals experiencing mental health challenges
access to quality mental health services early we can reduce and eliminate
community issues such as criminal justice involvement, homelessness, and
unemployment.
A community based psychiatric hospital is nothing to fear. It is a community
asset. Within this hospital project is embedded wrap around services to walk
the journey to mental wellness with each patient as he/she graduates to
lower levels of mental health care. This supportive model allows for greater
assisted treatment services performed in a collaborative and human-
centered approach.
In our own families, we have all experienced mental health challenges with
family members that just were not talked about in the past. Now is the time
to change the mindset about mental illness. It is a brain disorder that is
treatable just like treating diabetes or high blood pressure. It is time to
embrace the uniqueness of every individual with mental health concerns with
community compassion and care.
There is no health without mental health. Let’s build a stronger community
through this project.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:CathrynNacario@
namisd.org
mailto:psalvacion@chula
vistaca.govmailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chgula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 249 of 1221
Kindly,
Cathryn
Cathryn Nacario, RN, MHA
Chief Executive Officer
NAMI San Diego & Imperial Counties
O: 858-634-6580, Ext 103
www.namisandiego.org
Peer and Family Support Helpline: 800-523-5933
http://
www.namisandiego.org/
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 250 of 1221
From: Leo Luc <geneluc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:04 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leovani Lucas, BSN,RN
mailto:geneluc@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 251 of 1221
Original Message-----
From: Arturo Jimenez <ajtherapeutics@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Arturo Jimenez
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:ajtherapeutics@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 252 of 1221
From: ANGELA ARCE <anglearce@g.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 12:43 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
My close friend is suffering from psychosis right now and there is no place for her to get the
treatment that she needs. The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown
significantly and our region has not kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our
community. We have less than half the inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the
behavioral health needs in our region. Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Angela Arce
mailto:anglearce@
g.ucla.edu
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 253 of 1221
Original Message-----
From: Olivia <oliviarosillo@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 5:02 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
INSERT YOUR NAME HERE***
Olivia Rosillo
LMFT
619 987 3828
oliviarosillo@gmail.com
mailto:oliviarosillo@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:oliviarosillo@g
mail.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 254 of 1221
Original Message-----
From: Allison Ocampo <ocampo.allison@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 5:10 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Allison Ocampo
mailto:ocampo.allison@y
ahoo.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 255 of 1221
From: Lexy Wellman <wellmanl77@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 8:32 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lexy Schwab
mailto:wellmanl77@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 256 of 1221
From: Kimberly Ruelos <kimberly.ruelos@ymail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 12:51 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
I have worked in psychiatric and behavioral health settings for over 4 years now, and I can see the
benefits of receiving treatment in the inpatient setting as well as having outpatient resources and
psychiatric emergency services. The pandemic has put so much stress in almost all aspects of our
daily lives (relationships, financially, etc). It has even driven my family friend to attempt suicide
twice this past year. We need resources in our area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kim Ruelos
mailto:kimberly.ruelos@y
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 257 of 1221
From: bibi luko <bibiluko@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Maria Kachadoorian <mkachadoorian@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Samantha Trickey <SamanthaT@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Request to reschedule Jan 11th hearing for Acadia Hospital
Hello,
I would like to formally request that the hearing for the Eastlake Behavioral Hospital be postponed to a
later date. As you know there is a surge in Covid cases with this highly transmissible variant and there
are neighbors who have expressed their concern attending. I myself would not be attending on the Jan
11th date and risking exposure as I have small children at home not eligible to receive the vaccine. This
hearing is important to me and I would like to attend but I feel uncomfortable attending with the
current state of emergency.
Additionally, it’s my understanding that the issue with Republic trash will be heard on the same date.
Please separate these two major issues and give them both their own hearing dates.
Respectfully,
Bibi Luko
Bibi Luko
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:bibiluko@g
mail.com
mailto:mkachadoorian@chul
avistaca.gov
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:SamanthaT@chul
avistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 258 of 1221
From: FishermansLady <jofishes@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:38 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps
Health and Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not kept
pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the inpatient
beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region. Behavioral
health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will
provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge you to
reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
INSERT YOUR NAME HERE***
Johanna Duriano
As a parent with Untreated ADHD I have been struggling all my life. My daughter diagnosed at a early
aged with ADHD as well. Untreated and unable to get her appropriate Behavior and Cognitive
treatment. Please send all therapist to all schools. There should be Mental Health Classes for kids to
outcome Anxiety, Depression,suicidal thoughts. No academic retention is possible with all this
symptoms going on. I'm currently waiting for my daughter to see someone. Not acceptable. Once she
found a therapist last year covid ended her first ever appointment. And no help since. Please help my
Daughter and any others struggling in silence.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:jofishes@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 259 of 1221
From: Robin Madaffer <robin@sdlandlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:04 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black <lblack@chulavistaca.gov>; Todd Philips
Tphilips@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital - Appeal Response Letter to City Council - Hearing January
25, 2022 - Agenda Item 7.2
Importance: High
Please see attached appeal response letter for the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital.
Robin Madaffer, Esq.
1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92101
Mobile (619) 985-0940
Office (619) 239-7603
robin@sdlandlaw.com
www.SDLandLaw.com | www.Madaffer.com
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 260 of 1221
January 21, 2022
Mayor Mary Casillas Salas and Members of the Chula Vista City Council
c/o City Clerk Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC – VIA EMAIL - cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Mayor Casillas Salas and City Councilmembers,
Our firm represents Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC, (“EBH”), a joint venture
between Acadia San Diego JV Holdings, LLC (“Acadia”) and Scripps Behavioral Health
Venture, LLC (“Scripps”). EBH is the applicant for a conditional use permit to develop a
behavioral health hospital on Showroom Place in Eastlake, Chula Vista (“Eastlake Hospital”
or “Project”).
The project was originally submitted to the City in March 2019. It has been
reviewed by the City’s professional staff for nearly three years. During that time, EBH has
presented the project to numerous community stakeholders and received broad support.
The project was approved by the City’s Planning Commission on November 10, 2021. It
comes before you because of an appeal filed by a project opponent. The appeal was
originally scheduled for City Council consideration on December 7, 2021, consistent with
the City’s Municipal Code requirement that it be heard within 30 days of the appeal filing.
However, the appellant requested it be delayed. EBH agreed and the hearing was
rescheduled to January 11, 2022. Prior to the rescheduled hearing date, the appellant
again requested another delay and once again EBH agreed with the understanding it would
go forward on January 25, 2022, time certain with no further delays.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 261 of 1221
The appeal is based on five grounds, as stated on the appeal form as follows:
1.Findings Not Supported: The Report does not provide sufficient support as
required by California Public Resources Code 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a). The
report fails to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed.
2.Factual Error: The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact
that were factually in error.
3.New Information: Applicant had Ex parte communication with the Council that
was not disclosed or made public.
4.Findings Not Supported: The Applicant prepared the EIR but failed to address
and answer community questions and input.
5.New Information: Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
This letter will refute each of these five appeal issues to support denying the appeal
at your City Council meeting on January 25, 2022. Before discussing each of the five appeal
issues, it is important to consider some threshold matters.
It is without question that behavioral health issues are at crisis levels both locally
and across the country. They often lead to catastrophic consequences for families. The
pandemic has significantly exacerbated the dire effects on communities, including Chula
Vista. As described in the City’s staff report, both Federal and State laws are in place to
encourage and protect facilities that provide services to patients experiencing behavioral
health disabilities. Here is a paraphrased excerpt from the City’s staff report:
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, disability discrimination is
prohibited in all activities of local government entities, including zoning decisions.
This nondiscrimination mandate requires the City to provide equal services,
programs, and activities to entities that serve individuals with disabilities and to
ensure that the City’s zoning decisions do not discriminate against individuals with
disabilities and entities associated with them. The City is further prohibited from
utilizing criteria that have the effect of discriminating against individuals with
disabilities or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out
individuals with disabilities.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 262 of 1221
Additionally, both Title II of the ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
42 U.S.C. §3601) protect the rights of both providers and clients of residential
treatment programs and prohibits the exclusion or otherwise denial of equal
services, programs, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known
actual or perceived) disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity
has a known relationship or association. See 28 C.F.R. 35.108(f)(1).
Thus, the law prohibits the City from applying its zoning to discriminate against
individuals with behavioral health disabilities and entities associated with them.
For all the reasons stated in this letter, we urge you to follow City staff’s
recommendation and support the City Planning Commission’s decision to approve the
project and deny the appeal.
APPEAL ISSUE #1
Findings Not Supported: The Report does not provide sufficient support as required by
California Public Resources Code 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a). The report fails to describe
the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed.
EBH RESPONSE:
California Public Resources Code (“CEQA”) section 21100(b)(4) states:
The environmental impact report shall include a detailed statement
setting forth all of the following:
Alternatives to the proposed project.
Further CEQA section 21002.1(a) states:
The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the
significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 263 of 1221
to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects
can be mitigated or avoided.
This appeal issue focuses on the project alternatives evaluated in the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the Project (“EIR”). CEQA requires evaluation of a reasonable
range of alternatives, including a No Project alternative.
First, the city did not require an EIR be prepared, relying on the existing Final EIR for
the Specific Plan Area which considered what could be built on the site. Nevertheless, EBH
chose to prepare an EIR, at significant time and expense, in anticipation of opposition even
though there are no significant impacts.
A brief review of the history of planning in this area is important to understand.
Planning in Eastlake started in the 1980s. The site has long been designated for Research
and Limited Manufacturing uses and zoned for hospital use with approval of a conditional
use permit. The Eastlake II SPA Plan was adopted on November 16, 1999, by Resolution
19666. It was amended on December 18, 2007, by Resolution 2007-299, and August 23,
2005. Today, the planning and zoning remains the same.
Consistent with CEQA’s alternative evaluation requirements, the EIR analyzed a
reduced project alternative with half the number of beds. This alternative was rejected
because it did not meet the project objectives, nor did it reduce any impacts. The
EIR also analyzed a No Project Alternative which essentially evaluates what could be built
by-right on the site. That includes a 200,000 square foot medical office building.
It has been suggested that the EIR is somehow biased because EBH commissioned
it. That is simply false. Not only is it the common practice of the city of Chula Vista and
most cities in the state of California for the applicant to commission the EIR, but the city
also thoroughly reviews the draft EIR and ultimately adopts it as its own.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 264 of 1221
Notwithstanding the fact that this Project did not require preparation of an EIR, it
nevertheless evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives in compliance with CEQA.
APPEAL ISSUE #2
Factual Error: The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were
factually in error.
EBH RESPONSE:
As part of EBH’s presentation to the Planning Commission, we stated that the
Project would generate tax revenue in excess of $1 million annually. This is a factual
statement supported by the report from Property Valuation Services showing estimated
tax revenue of over $1.2 million. Thus, there was no factual error in EBH’s statements
about the Project’s economic impact. The tax estimate report is attached to this letter as
Exhibit 1.
APPEAL ISSUE #3
New Information: Applicant had Ex parte communication with the Council that was not
disclosed or made public.
EBH RESPONSE:
It is accurate that members of the EBH team communicated and met with Mayor
Casillas Salas and Councilmember McCann. Those meetings were at their request and
should be disclosed by the Mayor and Councilman at the appeal hearing. The EBH team
did not have any communications with Planning Commissioners, thus no disclosures were
necessary at the Planning Commission hearing. We also understand that many of the
opponents communicated with the Mayor and/or Councilmembers, and even reached out
to Planning Commissioners based on disclosures made by Commissioners at the Planning
Commission hearing. All those disclosures should also be made public at the appeal
hearing, rendering this issue moot. We assume the City Attorney will weigh in further on
this issue if necessary.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 265 of 1221
APPEAL ISSUE #4
Findings Not Supported: The Applicant prepared the EIR but failed to address and answer
community questions and input.
EBH RESPONSE:
Once again, the applicant chose to prepare an EIR even though it was not technically
required. The EIR process provided maximum opportunity for public disclosure and input.
Throughout the review process, EBH met with or offered to meet with anyone who wanted
to discuss the project and met with many groups to do just that. The city received over 400
public comments on the EIR after it was circulated for public review. Each one of the public
comments were responded to and those comments and responses are part of the final EIR.
Notably, most of the comments were related to the types of patients EBH will serve and
did not address any environmental issues.
EBH in cooperation with the city also hosted a community open house in September
2019 during which we had experts present to answer questions about matters such as
approvals, security, operations, traffic, and other issues. Over 200 people attended and
submitted written comments which EBH responded to as part of the city’s review process.
Those responses are attached to this letter as Exhibit 2. Also attached as Exhibit 3 is the
Operational Plan that EBH offered and was made a condition of the Planning Commission’s
approval. EBH also hosted a website with ongoing Project updates, videos, and
opportunities for comment.
The evidence clearly shows that EBH made significant efforts to outreach to the
public and respond to issues. As a result, there are numerous supporters of the Project.
Thus, this appeal issue is without merit.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 266 of 1221
APPEAL ISSUE #5
New Information: Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
EBH RESPONSE:
The city requires an Ownership Disclosure be filed with the original application at
the time the Project is submitted. We complied with this requirement in 2019. The city
also requires the Ownership Disclosure be updated to reflect any changes during the review
process. In this case, nothing changed between 2019 and now. Thus, no update was
necessary. Notwithstanding, EBH has since provided a replacement Ownership Disclosure
with the only changes being the date and the signature on the form. As such, this appeal
issue lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
The intent of this letter is to refute each of the specific issues raised in the appeal
of the Planning Commission’s approval. We are also attaching as Exhibit 4 a copy of the
letter submitted to the Planning Commission which provides more detailed background
and information about the Project. As outlined above, we believe the appeal is without
merit and this letter and the attachments provide substantial evidence to deny the appeal
and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of this important Project.
Sincerely,
Robin Madaffer, Esq.
cc: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Mike Shirey, Deputy City Attorney
Tiffany Allen, Development Services Department, Director
Laura Black, Development Services Department, Assistant Director
D. Todd Philips, Development Services Department, Planning Manager
Stan Donn, Development Services Department, Senior Planner
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 267 of 1221
Exhibit 1
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 268 of 1221
Acadia Healthcare Company Inc
JW Scripps JV Chula Vista,CA Facility
Parcels:595 710 11 00 595 710 12 00
Tax Estimate
PVS has been provided with total JW Scripps JV Chula Vista project costs of 73,945,000.The
most recent 2021 tax rate for parcels 595 710 11 00 595 710 12 00 is 1.6287%.Applying the most
recent tax rate to the total project costs creates estimated PP/RE taxes of 1,204,356.The estimate
covers both parcels.
This is a rough estimate due to the limit information known about JW Scripps JV Chula Vista project.
Once more information is known about the cost breakdown,we can narrow down the estimate.It is
likely nontaxable items are included in the 73,945,000 total project costs.
Thank you,
Blake Cynor
Property Valuation Services
Real Estate Tax Consultant
14400 Metcalf Avenue
Overland Park,KS 66223
913 563 3572
bcynor@propertyvaluationservices.net
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 269 of 1221
Exhibit 2Exhibit 3
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 270 of 1221
1
EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
9/26/19 Informational Open House
Summary and Responses to Comments
2/12/20 Update
EVENT SUMMARY
On Thursday, September 26, 2019, Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare hosted an informational
open house for interested members of the public to learn more about their plans to develop a
120-bed inpatient behavioral health hospital on a vacant 10.5-acre parcel in the commercial
district of Eastlake. The event was held in the Multi-Purpose Room at Montevalle Recreation
Center from 6:00-8:00 p.m. Approximately 85 people signed in at the check-in station. However,
not all attendees elected to sign in. Based on visual estimates, approximately 200 people attended
the workshop.
The open house format provided the opportunity for Scripps and Acadia to share far more
information about the project than would have been possible in a single presentation. It also
allowed for members of the public to speak directly with subject matter experts on a variety of
focused topics related to the project. Information was provided at the following information
stations:
Project Overview and Project Review Process
Traffic and Transportation
Architecture and Design
Operations and Security
Patient Care
Scripps/Acadia Partnership
Prevention and Outreach
Copies of the informational displays at each station are attached for reference.
Executives and subject matter experts from Scripps, Acadia and their consultant teams staffed
these information stations and were available to interact directly with open house attendees. The
following staff were present at the workshop:
Scripps Health
Tom Gammiere, FACHE, Corporate Senior Vice President, Regional Chief Executive - South
Jerry Gold, Ph.D., Administrator, Scripps Behavioral Health
Debra McQuillen, RN, MAS, Vice President, Chief Operations Executive, Scripps Mercy Hospital
Amy Roark, RN, MSN, Manager, Patient Care, Psychiatric Acute
Melvin Lumagui, RN, Supervisor, Patient Care, Psychiatric Liaison Team
Melody Thomas, Manager, Case Management and Social Services
David King, Manager, Security, Scripps Mercy Hospital
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 271 of 1221
2
Pam Gholson, Supervisor, Scripps Behavioral Health Unit Access/Discharge
Monica Montaño, Director, Community Relations
Nallely Valdivia, Executive Assistant (Spanish translation)
Acadia Healthcare
Michael Genovese, M.D., J.D., Chief Medical Officer
Andy Hanner, Chief Strategy Officer
Anne Kelly, BSN, Ed.D., Chief Compliance Officer
Richard Clark, FACHE, President, Western Group
Dwight Lacy, President, Western Division
Debbie Strzlecki, Senior Vice President, Business Development
Saad Niazi, CEO, Pacific Grove Hospital (an Acadia facility)
Whitney Chavez, RN, Chief Nursing Officer, Pacific Grove Hospital (an Acadia facility)
Randall Goldberg, Military Support Services
Technical Consultants
John Boarman, PE, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (Traffic Consultant)
Stephen Wen, AIA, SWA Architects (Project Architect)
Tina Go, AIA, SWA Architects (Project Architect)
Chip Hill, AIA, LEED AP, Stengel Hill Architects (Program Architect)
Brad Lenahan, ASLA, Ground Level San Diego (Landscape Architect)
Robin Madaffer, San Diego Land Lawyers (Land Use Counsel)
Farah Mahzari, San Diego Land Lawyers (Project Manager)
Kristen Byrne, Byrne Communications (Community Outreach)
Workshop attendees were given the opportunity to submit written comments on the project. A
total of 130 comment cards from 110 individuals were received. Responses to comments received
are provided below. Because many duplicate comments were received, the responses are
provided to comment topics rather than each individual comment.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Issue Response
1. Residents are concerned that the facility
will be a danger to them because it is
located in close proximity to homes,
schools, family-friendly businesses, etc.
The Eastlake behavioral health hospital is
proposed for a 10.5-acre site within a
commercial district in Eastlake. The site’s
zoning allows for a hospital use with a
Conditional Use Permit. While there is a
residential neighborhood nearby, it is
separated from the property by both
topography and infrastructure, and there is
no legal direct access between the
property and the adjacent neighborhood.
The closest residences are approximately
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 272 of 1221
3
Issue Response
140 feet away from the building and
approximately 90 feet from the property
line. In addition, the property is at a
significantly higher elevation than the
homes. The proposed project also includes
a perimeter wall and significant
landscaping that will provide an additional
buffer between the facility and the nearby
neighborhood.
It is common for behavioral health facilities
to be located in close proximity to homes,
schools, houses of worship, and
businesses, including Acadia facilities in
other parts of California. In San Diego
County, Aurora Behavioral Health in
Rancho Bernardo, Bayview Behavioral
Health Hospital in Chula Vista, and Sharp
Mesa Vista in Kearny Mesa are located in
commercial areas in close proximity to
residences, schools, parks, etc. Please see
attached exhibits for locations of other
similar facilities.
Because hospital policy will ensure that
discharge plans include secure
transportation for patients to their home or
next care site, loitering and trespassing in
close proximity to the hospital is not
anticipated to be an issue. In addition, a
number of security measures will be
incorporated, including controlled access
to the facility and between units, one public
entry and exit, 24-hour monitoring of
common areas, minimum 15-minute
patient checks, and design features to
encourage safety. Security personnel will
be on site 24-hours a day to monitor the
hospital and the surrounding area.
It's worth noting that Pacific Grove
Behavioral Health Hospital and San Jose
Behavioral Health Hospital, Acadia facilities
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 273 of 1221
4
Issue Response
in Riverside and San Jose respectively, are
both located in commercial areas in close
proximity to residences, schools, family-
friendly business, childcare centers, houses
of worship and more, and they both enjoy
positive relationships with their neighbors
see attached exhibits highlighting
locations). In fact, the Riverside Planning
Commission recently approved a new
Conditional Use Permit for Pacific Grove to
expand and they removed the requirement
for on-site security because they felt it was
not needed.
2. Residents suggested that the facility be
relocated to a more remote location, away
from residents, schools, etc. Suggestions
included a location south of Main Street or
near the prison in Otay Mesa.
Hospitals are best located in areas where
they are proximate to the populations
served, so locating this facility in a remote,
hard to access area is not in the best
interests of patients. The Eastlake behavioral
health hospital will not be a forensic hospital
treating patients in the criminal justice
system, so locating it near a prison is not
appropriate.
3. Residents suggested that the facility be
relocated to a site in western Chula Vista or
to downtown San Diego, closer to the
population it will serve.
The need for behavioral health services
crosses all socio-economic and geographic
boundaries, and all communities include
residents with behavioral health needs.
Based on national estimates of the incidence
of mental illness in the adult population,
nearly 90,000 people in South County will
have a mental health need. And there are
not nearly enough beds – countywide or in
South County – to meet current needs.
Based on recommendations from the
California Hospital Association that there be
50 inpatient behavioral health beds for every
100,000 population, South County should
have 246 inpatient beds, but only 103 beds
are available (the City of Chula Vista should
have 134 beds, but currently has only 64
beds available). The Eastlake behavioral
health hospital will significantly expand
behavioral health treatment capacity and
will be an important step towards addressing
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 274 of 1221
5
Issue Response
the mental health epidemic and significant
unmet behavioral health treatment needs in
the community.
4. Residents asked how this site was
determined to be the best location and
what other sites were considered.
Scripps and Acadia considered a number of
potential sites throughout the county. The
Eastlake site best met the criteria that the
healthcare organizations were seeking
including:
Location in an area underserved by
inpatient beds (based on
recommendations from the
California Hospital Association that
there be 50 inpatient behavioral
health beds for every 100,000
population, the city of Chula Vista
should have 134 inpatient beds, but
only 64 beds are available. Proximity
to major road network)
Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped
acres) to construct a one-story
facility
Zoning that allows for a hospital use
5. Residents were concerned that there was
no input from the community in the
selection of the site.
It is not customary, nor is it required by the
City of Chula Vista Public Participation Policy,
for a project applicant to seek public input
before selecting a property for a proposed
project. There are, however, a number of
opportunities to provide public input
throughout the project review process
including the open house, the public review
period for the CEQA environmental review,
and public hearings. All plans and
information submitted to the City of Chula
Vista are publicly available and members of
the public are free at any time to submit
comments to city staff that will be included
in the public record for review and
consideration by decision makers before
they vote on the project. Additionally, a
thorough public review and approval process
was conducted when the plans for the
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 275 of 1221
6
Issue Response
Eastlake Commercial District were approved.
This plan included the zoning that includes a
hospital as an allowable use on the site.
6. Residents felt that locating this facility in
South Bay was discriminatory and that
South Bay gets undesirable facilities
because they have a higher proportion of
lower income and minority communities
than other areas of the county.
The Eastlake behavioral health hospital will
be a new, state-of-the-art facility providing
an important public health service for the
community. Contrary to this being a burden
on the community, it is addressing an urgent
unmet need in the community and will
provide behavioral health treatment to
members of the community that are in need
of care. Just like an acute care hospital,
emergency services, law enforcement, and
utilities, facilities of this type are an
important part of a community’s
infrastructure. While the number of
available beds in San Diego County is not
nearly enough to meet the existing need,
inpatient behavioral health facilities are
located throughout the county including in
Rancho Bernardo, Escondido, Kearny Mesa,
La Mesa, and Hillcrest.
There have been questions asked about
whether this will be a facility like the County
Mental Health hospital on Rosecrans in San
Diego. Both the Eastlake Hospital and the
County Mental Hospital (CMH) will be/are
free standing LPS-designated hospitals
allowing for involuntary detention of
patients. Both hospitals will be or are
accredited by The Joint Commission and
certified by the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS). Both are or will be
licensed by the California Department of
Public Health as an acute psychiatric
inpatient facility. The Eastlake Hospital will
serve the adolescent, adult, and senior
populations. It will be able to accept all
payors - commercial and government
funded - while CMH focuses on the
underfunded or unfunded population. CMH
also only serves the adult population.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 276 of 1221
7
Issue Response
While the Eastlake Hospital will have an
intake department and allow for some walk-
in patients, walk-ins will be less significant
than at CMH. Patients admitted to the
Eastlake hospital will primarily be brought in
after medical clearance at other facilities or
after they have been seen and cleared by a
medical professional or, in some cases, by an
EMT. CMH has an Emergency Screening Unit
to triage patients that either walk in or are
brought in by law enforcement. CMH also
operates a Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) that
allows for patients to stay for up to, but not
to exceed, 24 hours. Once stabilized they are
referred to another level of care. The
Eastlake hospital does not plan to have a CSU
attached to their facility. CMH provides
psychiatric clearance for the incarcerated
population that are released from the jail
and tends to receive many forensic patients.
The Eastlake Hospital will not include a
forensic unit.
The Eastlake hospital will also have robust
outpatient mental health offerings such as
intensive outpatient and partial
hospitalization programs while CMH has
limited outpatient offerings and uses
community resources to complete the
continuum of care.
7. Residents expressed concern that there
was no public transit available for patients,
employees, or visitors.
SDMTS Route 707 serves the Eastlake area
and the closest bus stop to the site is at
Boswell Road and Lane Avenue. However,
patients (both inpatient and outpatient) will
arrive and depart by coordinated, secure
private transportation so access to public
transportation will not affect patient access.
A draft traffic impact analysis is being
conducted to assess the potential traffic
impacts of the project, taking into account
trips generated by patients, employees,
visitors, and others.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 277 of 1221
8
Issue Response
8. Residents expressed concern that there
was already traffic in Eastlake and that this
project will make it worse.
All intersections and road segments within
the traffic study area, with one exception,
currently operate at acceptable levels of
service (between LOS A and D). The
exception is the intersection at Harold Place
and Fenton Street, which currently operates
at LOS F during the p.m. peak period. A draft
traffic impact analysis is being conducted to
assess the potential traffic impacts of the
project on all road segments and
intersections within the traffic study area.
It is important to note that other allowed
uses for the property could result in
significantly higher traffic impacts than a
behavioral health hospital. A general
medical/surgical hospital has a trip
generation rate of 20 trips per bed, while
similar behavioral health hospitals have
shown a trip generation rate of less than five
trips per bed. A manufacturing use (allowed
by right under the zone) would generate four
trips per 1,000 square feet and would have
significantly greater peak period impacts
than the proposed use. The attached trip
generation table provides more details
about anticipated trip generation rates.
9. Residents commented that this is not an
appropriate location because it is not near
an acute care hospital or other support
services.
Because patients will be admitted to the
Eastlake hospital to receive inpatient and
intensive outpatient treatment for
behavioral health conditions not requiring
intensive, simultaneous medical treatment
of the type undertaken at integrated
medical/surgical (i.e. acute care) facilities, it
is not necessary for it to be located adjacent
to an acute care medical hospital. Like all
licensed hospitals, the Eastlake hospital’s
clinical staff will have the full ability to safely
provide for the needs of its behavioral health
patients (including in-house pharmacy and
medication dispensing), who in some cases
may also be living with chronic but stable
medical conditions such as diabetes, heart
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 278 of 1221
9
Issue Response
disease, hypertension and those affecting
mobility. Therefore, the lack of co-location
with or immediate proximity to a
medical/surgical hospital or related acute
care treatment sites will not negatively
impact the hospital’s ability to provide high
level, quality care to its patients.
Support services such as daily medical visits
by an internist, nutrition support, and
physical therapy will be provided at the
hospital. Outpatient services will also be
provided for inpatients ready for step down
care.
Social workers will also be employed by the
hospital to facilitate referrals and transfers
to follow-on care facilities and housing for
those that need it.
10. Residents are concerned that emergency
response is already slow in Chula Vista due
to a shortage of police officers and that this
facility will result in increased calls to
police.
Inpatient behavioral health hospitals are
secure, locked facilities with highly trained
staff who are specifically equipped to deal
with the unique needs of behavioral health
patients. Because of this, emergency calls
from these facilities, including those for
police assistance, are uncommon. At Acadia
inpatient hospitals for the period between
January 2016 and December 2018 there
were a total of 1,079 calls for service that
occurred. During this time there were nearly
456,000 patient admissions, meaning that
emergency service calls occurred at a rate of
about one-quarter of one percent of all
patient admissions. Given these facts,
potential emergency service calls, whether
to police, fire or EMS, are not expected to
produce any appreciable affect nor “drain”
on these public resources.
11. Residents asked what happens when
patients are released from the facility.
They are concerned that patients released
from the hospital will wander in their
neighborhood, loiter, increase
In the overwhelmingly majority of cases,
behavioral health inpatients continue to
receive care until the attending psychiatrist
in consultation with the other members of
the clinical team determines that safe
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 279 of 1221
10
Issue Response
homelessness and public drunkenness,
and commit crimes in the neighborhood.
They also wondered what happens if
patients don’t have a ride when they leave
the facility or refuse transportation. They
also asked if patients who haven’t
completed treatment could check
themselves out and be a danger to the
community.
discharge is clinically indicated based on the
patient’s treatment progression and
individual circumstances. Prior to discharge,
patients must have a detailed discharge plan
that outlines the specifics of the transition to
and location of their next stage of care (e.g.
nursing home, residential treatment center,
long term rehabilitation, transitional or
temporary housing, personal residence). It is
Acadia’s policy to include arranged
transportation to the specific post treatment
care location for all patients upon discharge,
either by hospital personnel or in some cases
by the patient’s family, legal guardians, or
other authorized individuals such as military
base commanding officers or their
designees. The lack of such a post discharge
plan (including the arranged transportation
component) will likely comprise an
important determining factor on whether
discharge is clinically appropriate. Therefore,
the fear of patients loitering in the
neighborhood is unlikely to be an issue.
It is rare for a voluntary status patient to
request discharge before treatment is
complete. The vast majority of patients
admitted proceed through their clinically
recommended course of treatment,
including full discharge and post care
planning. In the unlikely event that a
voluntary patient was admitted but wished
to be discharged before treatment is
completed, California law allows for patients
that request discharge against medical
advice (AMA) to be reassessed to determine
if, in the clinical opinion of the psychiatrist,
they pose a danger to themselves or others.
If they are deemed to pose a danger to
themselves or others, they will not be
discharged. If they are deemed not to be a
risk, then they can be discharged per their
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 280 of 1221
11
Issue Response
request and will be provided secure
transportation to their next destination.
With respect to whether patients could be a
danger to the community, contrary to
sensationalized, often outdated and largely
debunked stereotypes and misconceptions,
most patients experiencing behavioral
health conditions are neither dangerous nor
inherently prone to violence, particularly
when receiving professional, compassionate
treatment in structured and therapeutic
inpatient or outpatient settings.
12. Residents are concerned that patient
elopement will be a common occurrence
and that patients who elope will be a
threat to public safety. They wanted to
know if residents will be notified of
elopements and what happens when an
elopement occurs.
Elopement is a commonly used behavioral
health industry term to indicate that a
patient receiving inpatient care has departed
the hospital (for any length of time) without
the consent or knowledge of the facility’s
clinical staff and in the absence of a formal
discharge determination and plan.
Elopements can encompass a wide range of
scenarios ranging from largely innocuous
e.g. voluntary patient electing to end
treatment but not signing formal AMA
discharge paperwork, short duration
elopements with immediate return) to more
serious (e.g. involving minors, involuntary
patients, longer duration incidents). Acadia
adheres to strict protocols and policies to
limit the number and severity of elopements.
These include detailed assessment and
screening for such behaviors at admission,
seen and unseen security features at all
facilities (physical barriers, video surveillance
of exterior and common areas, boundary
and verbal de-escalation techniques,
minimum of 15 minute patient welfare
checks, secured units for involuntary
patients, etc.), and immediate response in
the uncommon instances when they do
occur.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 281 of 1221
12
Issue Response
Overall, elopements at Acadia facilities are
exceedingly rare. Over the period from
January 2016 through December 2018, there
were a total of 643 elopements that
occurred at Acadia inpatient hospitals. Over
this same period there were nearly 456,000
patient admissions, meaning that elopement
occurred at a rate of about 1/10 of one
percent of all patient admissions. More than
99% of these incidents were of a short
duration (less than 24 hours) and did not
involve any injuries to patients or staff,
criminal activity, property damage, nor
disturbances to any surrounding business or
residential communities.
Acadia consistently endeavors to adopt and
refine its policies and procedures to further
reduce the prevalence of elopements. The
Eastlake hospital will utilize the latest design
features, including those intended to
diminish the frequency and severity of
elopements. We also believe it is very
important to place the issue of elopements
in an appropriate and objective context,
including balancing these highly isolated,
rarely detrimental events with the overall
positive public heath value and benefit that
the Eastlake hospital will provide to
thousands of patients in need and their
families.
13. Residents are concerned that their home
values will be reduced because of the
proximity of the facility.
Residential property values are
dynamic and influenced by a large number
of factors, including supply and demand,
economic outlook, location, proximity to
and quality of schools, unemployment
rates, and mortgage interest rates, among
many others. It is therefore very difficult if
not impossible to attribute one specific
factor (including nearby commercial
property development) to an increase or
decrease in property values.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 282 of 1221
13
Issue Response
A variety of studies have been conducted
about how various community facilities may
affect property values. Some have identified
small negative correlations, while others
have not identified any statistically valid
negative correlations. For example, a 2019
study published by the National Bureau for
Economic Research conducted by
researchers at the University of New Mexico
and Temple University and covering a period
of 13 years, found no negative property
value changes as a result of substance abuse
treatment facilities located within residential
neighborhoods (See MarketWatch
article and Barron's article on the study
findings).
14. The project drawings do not show a 12-
foot fence.
There are two different types of fence
proposed for this project. One is the 12’-0”
security fence around the outdoor activity
yards adjacent to four of the six-patient
wings. The other two patient wings’ outdoor
activity yards are completely enclosed by the
building structure in the center of the facility
hence no fence is required.
The other fence is the campus perimeter
fence on the east, north and south borders
of the property. The city zoning regulation
stipulates that all property perimeter fences
shall be limited to 6’-0” in height. However,
if the city permits, the project is willing to
consider increasing the perimeter fence
height from 6’-0” up to 8’-0”. The 8’-0” fence
around the perimeter of the property is
shown on the site section rendering as well
as the birds eye view color rendering looking
south at the back side of the facility.
15. A resident stated that there was an
inaccuracy on one of the informational
displays that showed that the closest
school was 1,013 feet from the proposed
site, when there is a school on Showroom
The distance from the proposed hospital site
to the closest school on one of the
informational displays cited an estimated
distance to the closest public school
Eastlake Middle School). The commenter is
correct that there is a private school and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 283 of 1221
14
Issue Response
Place along with businesses that cater to
children.
businesses that cater to children located on
Showroom Place, approximately 850 feet
from the property line .
16. Is this a temporary facility until the
reconstruction of Scripps Mercy Hospital
San Diego is complete?
The Eastlake behavioral health hospital
would be a permanent facility that would
provide more than three times the number
of inpatient behavioral health beds than
Scripps Mercy San Diego currently has
available.
17. A concern was expressed that technical
studies would be biased because they
were funded by the project applicant.
All technical studies requested by the City to
analyze the potential impacts of a private
project are paid for by the applicant. City of
Chula Vista staff and third party technical
experts review all studies prepared and must
sign off on them before they are accepted by
the city.
18. Some residents expressed support for the
facility due to the unmet need in the
community.
Behavioral health is one of the most
significantly underfunded and under
addressed issues we have nationally and in
the state of California. Nearly 1 in 4 California
adults has a mental health need (equating to
about 10 million people) yet half of them do
not get the treatment they need. The
California Hospital Association recommends
that 50 inpatient behavioral health beds be
available for every 100,000 population.
Based on this information South County
should have the City of Chuls Vista should
have 246 beds to meet its behavioral health
care needs but presently only has 103 beds
available. The Eastlake behavioral health
hospital will be an important step towards
addressing these unmet behavioral health
needs in the community.
19. Some residents did not favor the open
house meeting format and were
disappointed that city officials were not
there to hear their comments.
According to the City of Chula Vista Public
Participation Policy, a Community Meeting is
required for projects that result in a
significant response to the Notice of
Application. This meeting is required to be
held early in the process, after the project
application has been deemed complete
and the first internal review of the project
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 284 of 1221
15
Issue Response
has been completed. The meeting is
required to be held early enough in
the process to allow for public comments to
be considered by the applicant and staff
and appropriate changes made to
the project. The policy states that while staff
will help facilitate the Community Meeting,
the Applicant will have the primary
role since this is their opportunity to
dialogue with potential future neighbors.
The policy states that City staff’s role is to
help set meeting locations
and be available to answer questions about
the process, policies and regulations
affecting the project. The policy further
states that “An ‘Open House’ format will
be used at the Community Meeting.”
The purpose of the open house meeting was
to provide detailed information about the
project and seek comments from the public.
It was held early in the process, after the first
set of comments on the project had been
received on the first project submittal. The
open house format allowed Scripps and
Acadia to present far more information
about the various aspects of the project than
would have been possible in a single
presentation. Members of the public had the
opportunity to speak directly with the nearly
30 subject matter experts in attendance
from both Scripps and Acadia to ask
questions and discuss concerns. Participants
were also given the opportunity to submit
their comments in writing, and 130
comment cards from 110 individuals were
received. These comments have been
shared with the City of Chula Vista. Several
staff members from the City of Chula Vista
were in attendance and available to speak
with attendees.
20. Some residents expressed concern about a
recent civil investigation regarding
In May of 2019, Acadia fully resolved a civil
investigation by the West Virginia U.S.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 285 of 1221
16
Issue Response
Medicare billing fraud in West Virginia that
resulted in a $17 million settlement.
Attorney’s office involving technical and
complex state and federal billing and coding
procedures governing reimbursement for
lab testing services. The settlement, which
did not include any formal findings on the
merits nor admissions of liability by
Acadia, related to alleged practices
originating years prior to Acadia’s acquisition
and operational control of a small number of
medication-assisted treatment clinics
formerly operated by CRC Health
Group. Importantly, there were zero
allegations or issues identified with the level
of quality of care provided to patients or the
medical necessity of such care. To provide
context on settlements of this type, in 2018
aggregate U.S. Department of Justice
healthcare industry legal settlements
including False Claims Act) totaled more
than $8 billion, involving hundreds of
medical/surgical, specialty and behavioral
health hospital operators, including non-
profit, for-profit, academic medical centers,
and government-owned operators.
Acadia and its subsidiaries cooperated fully
with all involved parties during the entire
course of the investigation and was pleased
to have reached this resolution and continue
to dedicate attention and resources towards
serving the needs of patients and their
families.
21. Residents submitted a number of
questions about specific incidents and
allegations involving Acadia facilities.
The individual incidents cited on comment
cards appear to fall into three categories: 1)
allegations of abuse/negative patient
incidents, 2) elopement, and 3) allegations of
corporate/civil fraud and litigation. Rather
than responding to each individual incident
which may implicate privacy, litigation
and/or subject to factual debate as they are
likely pulled from media reports, our
responses below focus on the performance
of Acadia and its facilities in the aggregate,
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 286 of 1221
17
Issue Response
rather than individual incidents. The
information below provides important
context to the overall quality of care Acadia
provides to millions of patients each year.
ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE/NEGATIVE PATIENT
INCIDENTS
No large health or hospital system providing
treatment to millions of patients across
hundreds of facilities, whether behavioral
health or medical-surgical, will ever be
completely immune from isolated incidents
or sporadic undesirable patient experiences.
By its nature, the healthcare industry carries
inherent risk as its “customers” – the
patients – seek services because they are
sick. Notwithstanding the large numbers of
patients treated across hundreds of care
sites, the rate of grave and serious incidents
at Acadia’s inpatient hospitals is small. Over
the period from January 2016 through
December 2018, there were a total of 2,496
incidents that occurred over nearly 456,000
patient admissions, a rate of about one half
of one percent of all patient admissions.
Serious incidents include major injuries or
impairments, patient death, and allegations
or occurrences of abuse, negligence, error,
or omission that affects rendering of
professional services). While the comments
submitted highlight individual incidents in an
effort to question Acadia’s quality of care,
the fact is that nearly 99.5% of Acadia’s
inpatient admissions do not result in
negative incidents and Acadia provides
desperately needed care to patients
suffering from behavioral health illnesses.
In the rare instance where an outcome or
event at an Acadia treatment facility
deviates from our high standards and
expectations, we fully investigate the
situation to determine lessons learned and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 287 of 1221
18
Issue Response
whether updates to procedures and policies
are warranted, including holding employees
fully accountable for any improper actions
that depart from employee training and
Acadia’s values. Acadia’s overall focus during
these uncommon situations is to provide
support to anyone negatively impacted and
to work expeditiously to diminish the
possibility of similar matters re-occurring.
Ensuring that we can maintain a consistently
safe, therapeutic and compassionate care
environment for all patients is and will
always remain a top priority of Acadia.
Acadia facilities strictly adhere to all
reporting requirements and maintain strong
track records on multiple independently
administered, evidence-based clinical quality
performance tracking and measurement
programs. These include The Joint
Commission’s HBIPS (Hospital Based
Inpatient Psychiatric Services) Core
Measures and CMS’ Inpatient Psychiatric
Facility Quality Reporting Program (IPFQR)
used by over 1,600 psychiatric hospitals to
measure clinical accountability metrics
linked to improved patient outcomes. In
aggregate, Acadia’s behavioral health
facilities meet and often surpass the national
and state average in the majority of
measured categories, including those
related to patient safety. Acadia consistently
endeavors to improve its aggregate scores as
part of its overall quality assurance initiatives
and clinician training programs.
ELOPEMENT
Elopement is a commonly used behavioral
health industry term to indicate that a
patient receiving inpatient care has departed
the hospital (for any length of time) without
the consent or knowledge of the facility’s
clinical staff and in the absence of a formal
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 288 of 1221
19
Issue Response
discharge determination and plan.
Elopements can encompass a wide range of
scenarios ranging from largely innocuous
e.g. voluntary patient electing to end
treatment but not signing formal discharge
paperwork, short duration elopements with
immediate return) to more serious (e.g.
involving minors, involuntary patients,
longer duration incidents).
While the incidents cited in comments make
it seem as though elopement is a frequent
occurrence, elopements at Aadia’s inpatient
hospitals are rare. Over the period from
January 2016 through December 2018, there
were a total of 643 elopements that
occurred at Acadia inpatient hospitals. Over
this same period there were nearly 456,000
patient admissions, meaning that elopement
occurred at a rate of about 1/10 of one
percent of all patient admissions. More than
99% of these incidents were of a short
duration (less than 24 hours) and did not
involve any injuries to patients or staff,
criminal activity, property damage, nor
disturbances to any surrounding business or
residential communities..
Acadia adheres to strict protocols and
policies to limit the number and severity of
elopements. These include detailed
assessment and screening for such behaviors
at admission, seen and unseen security
features at all facilities (physical barriers,
video surveillance of exterior and common
areas, boundary and verbal de-escalation
techniques, minimum of 15 minute patient
welfare checks, secured units for involuntary
patients, etc.), and immediate response in
the uncommon instances when they do
occur.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 289 of 1221
20
Issue Response
Acadia consistently endeavors to adopt and
refine its policies and procedures to further
reduce the prevalence of elopements. The
Eastlake hospital will utilize the latest design
features, including those intended to
diminish the frequency and severity of
elopements. We also believe it is very
important to place the issue of elopements
in an appropriate and objective context,
including balancing these highly isolated,
rarely detrimental events with the overall
positive public heath value and benefit that
the Eastlake hospital will provide to
thousands of patients in need and their
families.
ALLEGATIONS OF CORPORATE/CIVIL FRAUD
AND LITIGATION
Acadia Healthcare disputes any allegation or
contention that it or its subsidiary hospitals
have knowingly engaged in civil fraud.
Nevertheless, in light of the large amount of
federal and state reimbursements providers
receive from government payor programs
coupled with the increasing complexity of
billing and coding protocols, government-
initiated inquiries, information requests,
audits and recoupment actions,
investigations are common occurrences
across the industry and in no way unique to
Acadia. In 2018, aggregate U.S. Department
of Justice healthcare industry legal
settlements (including False Claims Act)
totaled over $8 billion, involving hundreds of
medical/surgical, specialty, nursing home
and behavioral health hospital operators
including non-profit, for-profit academic
medical centers and government owned
operators. None involved Acadia or any of its
subsidiary facilities.
Acadia cooperates fully with all government
inquiries, even when we strongly disagree
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 290 of 1221
21
Issue Response
and dispute the factual basis and legal merits
of the allegations being investigated. Upon
learning of any allegation of fraud, we work
transparently and collaboratively with all
interested parties, including providing
verifiable evidence, internal clinical
documentation, medical records and
supporting data that refutes and disproves
potential claims of fraudulent conduct. We
continuously work with our clinicians to
improve our documentation evidencing the
critically important care that we provide to
our patients. It is also important to note that
none of the currently disclosed, pending
inquiries have resulted in any formal
demands for payment, government-initiated
lawsuits, or charges of any kind against
Acadia Healthcare or any of its subsidiary
facilities. Contrary to nearly all of our
similarly-sized hospital provider peers,
Acadia’s historical False Claim Act-related
lawsuit settlements are extremely small,
comprising a single resolution in our entire
14-year history.
While we are unable to offer detailed
comment on any specific pending litigation,
we hope some important context and
clarifications are helpful. Lawsuits against
Acadia inpatient behavioral health facilities
by patients, their families, former staff and
others are very rare but, as with all large
hospital systems and operators, they do
invariably occur. Nevertheless, Acadia’s
aggregate litigation claims rate is far lower
than the national average, equating to less
that one tenth of one percent of all
admissions between 2016 and 2019 YTD.
Importantly, many of these matters were
ultimately dismissed due to lack of merit
and/or were resolved for de minimis,
nuisance values far less than the likely cost of
defense.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 291 of 1221
22
Issue Response
The mere filing of, and even settlement of, a
lawsuit typically does not constitute any
formal findings of fact or admissions of
liability or even reflect the overall merit of a
case. Nearly all companies (including
Acadia) routinely choose to settle defensible
cases due to the high cost of litigation,
unpredictability of juries and a desire to
remain focused on their core mission.
Similarly, like many large publicly traded
companies, Acadia, its board and executives
may occasionally be named in securities
lawsuits filed by opportunistic trial attorneys
alleging potential improper conduct. These
filings often occur surrounding any
significant downward movement in a
company’s stock price (which can and often
does occur for a multitude of uncontrollable
and innocuous factors not involving any
wrongdoing) and may be accompanied by
settlement demands even prior to the filing
of a formal lawsuit and discovery. Acadia
strongly disputes any contention that it, its
subsidiaries or any of its directors or officers
have engaged in any civil or criminal fraud
including related to securities matters) and
we will continue to vigorously defend the
company from any such claims.
It is important to reiterate that the mere
filing of lawsuits and unsubstantiated,
uncorroborated and often false allegations
absolutely do not and should not be
conflated with actual, substantiated
improper or illegal actions on the part of
Acadia.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 292 of 1221
Exhibit 3
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 293 of 1221
EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Operational Profile
11/09/21
Overview
Scripps Health has entered into a joint venture with Acadia Healthcare to significantly expand its ability
to provide quality behavioral health services to patients. The two health care organizations are
proposing to develop and jointly operate a new, state-of-the-art 120-bed inpatient behavioral health
hospital in the Eastlake community of Chula Vista, CA. Consistent with behavioral health best practices,
the hospital will be constructed as a one-story facility to promote patient safety, a therapeutic,
nurturing and structured treatment environment and operational efficiency. The hospital will provide
safe, quality care and critically needed inpatient bed capacity and intensive outpatient services.
Hours of Operation
The hospital will operate 24 hours per day with three employee shifts. The shifts are anticipated to be
7:00 am–3:00 pm, 3:00 pm-11:00 pm, and 11:00 pm-7:00 am.
Employees
A total of 150 employees are anticipated to be on site, led by a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Medical
Officer, and Chief Nursing Officer. Employees will include physicians, nurses, mental health technicians,
intake directors, administrators, maintenance staff, and more.
Ratio of Patients to Employees
All Acadia facilities meet or exceed all state laws and statutes related to patient care, including the ratio
of patients to clinical care staff. Other Acadia behavioral health hospitals in the state staff at a minimum
1:6 ratio of clinical staff to patients (please note that the ratio is clinical staff to patients, not all staff).
This number can vary, and staff can be added based on the acuity of the patient’s condition, but it will
never be lower than one clinical staff member per six patients.
Number of Patients
There will be a maximum of 120 inpatients. The number of outpatients is projected to range from 20 to
50 patients per day.
Types of Patients
The proposed Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital will be an inpatient treatment facility providing care
for a variety of patients in our area. It will serve adolescent, adult, and geriatric populations and will
include specialized programs for distinct patient segments, such as members of the military and
veterans. Patients coming to the facility may be referred by their medical providers, emergency
departments, community partners (e.g., schools, senior homes, churches, military installations, public
and government service providers), or self/family referral. Intensive outpatient treatment services will
also be offered at the hospital.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 294 of 1221
Current plans include six separate units with 20 beds each. Consistent with behavioral health best
practices, patient populations are housed by age group (geriatric, adolescent, adult) and acuity but with
individualized treatment based on the patient’s condition and current functioning.
Length of Stay
The average stay for patients admitted to the hospital will be 7-10 days.
Visiting Hours
Visiting hours are typically from 6 pm to 7 pm to accommodate work schedules of visitors. On some
occasions, the clinical staff may meet with the patient and their family to describe the treatment,
medication, and discharge plan. This also gives the opportunity for family members to ask questions of
the doctor and clinical staff. Visiting hours are distinct from other family interactions that may occur as
part of specific inpatient and outpatient treatment programs.
Patient Drop Off and Transportation Plan
Transportation to the hospital will vary depending on the type of referral. If a patient is referred by a
primary care physician, community, public health or safety partner, or is a self/family referral they
would likely arrive by private automobile. If a patient is referred from an acute hospital emergency
department, they would arrive by ambulance or other professional medical transport service. Sirens
would typically not be needed since the transport to the facility would not be deemed an acute medical
emergency.
All decisions to admit or discharge a patient will be made by the attending psychiatrist and other
members of the clinical treatment team based on the patient’s current condition and treatment
progress. Upon discharge, all patients must have a detailed safe discharge plan guiding their ongoing
care and overall well-being including continuity of care (ongoing medication and treatment) and
housing. This plan will include pre-arranged private transportation from the hospital to the patient’s
next destination.
Are patients held involuntarily?
Each state proscribes specific legal protocols for involuntarily committing an individual into inpatient
care if he or she is determined (based on the opinion of one or more designated clinical or public safety
experts) to constitute a legitimate risk to themselves or others. It is the current expectation that
Eastlake will provide specialized, compassionate behavioral health service to both voluntary and
involuntary status patients in full accordance with all legal, ethical, and regulatory requirements.
Are any patients allowed to leave on their own?
In the overwhelmingly majority of cases, behavioral health inpatients (whether involuntary or voluntary)
continue to receive care until the attending psychiatrist in consultation with the other members of the
clinical team determines that safe discharge is clinically indicated based on the patient’s treatment
progression and individual circumstances. Prior to discharge, patients must have a detailed discharge
plan that outlines the specifics of the transition to and location of their next stage of care (e.g. nursing
home, residential treatment center, long term rehabilitation, transitional or temporary housing,
personal residence). It is Acadia’s policy to include arranged transportation to the specific post
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 295 of 1221
treatment care location for all patients upon discharge, either by hospital personnel or in some cases by
the patient’s family, legal guardians, or other authorized individuals such as military base commanding
officers or their designees. The lack of such a post discharge plan (including the arranged transportation
component) in many cases comprises an important determining factor on whether discharge is clinically
appropriate.
Security Plan
Protecting the safety and security of patients, staff, and the surrounding community is of paramount
importance to Scripps and Acadia and a responsibility we take very seriously. The hospital’s design and
operations will integrate countless seen and unseen patient safety and security measures. These include
but will not be limited to:
Fencing and landscaping barriers
24-hour security patrols
Controlled access in and out of the facility
Single entrance/exit on Showroom Place
Closed circuit security camera monitoring of the exterior and common areas (e.g. lobby,
cafeteria, visiting area, outside areas)
15-minute patient safety checks (maximum, as some patients may require more frequent
checks)
Contrary to sensationalized, often outdated and largely debunked stereotypes and misconceptions,
most patients experiencing serious behavioral health conditions are neither dangerous nor inherently
prone to violence, particularly when receiving professional, compassionate treatment in structured and
therapeutic inpatient or outpatient settings. We can provide links to a number of studies and reports
that address this issue, upon request.
Oversight and Accountability
The Scripps/Acadia behavioral health hospital will be fully licensed by the state of California and
accredited by The Joint Commission, an independent non-profit organization with a 60-year track record
conducting robust inspections, accreditation and quality care clinical assessment surveys on behalf of
the federal government. It will also be fully certified and in good standing with all major government
e.g. Medicare/Medi-Cal, Tricare) and commercial payers prior to and at all times after its opening. In
the entire 12-year history of Acadia Healthcare and the more than 100 year history of Scripps Health,
none of its inpatient or outpatient facilities have ever failed to be accredited, re-accredited, lost its state
hospital license or been de-certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or any
other government program.
Acadia facilities strictly adhere to all reporting requirements and maintain strong track records on
multiple independently administered, evidence-based clinical quality performance tracking and
measurement programs. These include The Joint Commission’s HBIPS (Hospital Based Inpatient 4
Psychiatric Services) Core Measures and CMS’ Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program
IPFQR) used by over 1,600 psychiatric hospitals to measure clinical accountability metrics linked to
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 296 of 1221
improved patient outcomes and are published on CMS Hospital Compare website. In aggregate, Acadia’s
behavioral health facilities meet or surpass (in some cases by large margins) the national and state
average in multiple categories, including those related to patient safety. Acadia consistently endeavors
to improve its aggregate scores as part of its overall quality assurance initiatives and clinician training
programs.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 297 of 1221
Exhibit 4
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 298 of 1221
November 4, 2021
Chair Max Zaker and Members of the Chula Vista Planning Commission
c/o Patricia Salvacion, Secretary – VIA EMAIL - psalvacion@chulavistaca.gov
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Chair Zaker and Members of the Planning Commission,
Our firm represents Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC, (“EBH”), a joint venture
between Acadia San Diego JV Holdings, LLC (“Acadia”) and Scripps Behavioral Health
Venture, LLC (“Scripps”). EBH is the applicant for a conditional use permit to develop a
behavioral health hospital on Showroom Place in Eastlake, Chula Vista (“Eastlake Hospital”
or “Project”).
It is without question that behavioral health issues are rampant and often lead to
catastrophic consequences for families. The pandemic has significantly exacerbated the
dire effects on communities. As described in the City’s staff report, both Federal and State
laws are in place to encourage and protect facilities that provide services to patients
experiencing behavioral health disabilities. Here is a paraphrased excerpt from the City’s
staff report:
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, disability discrimination is
prohibited in all activities of local government entities, including zoning decisions.
This nondiscrimination mandate requires the City to provide equal services,
programs, and activities to entities that serve individuals with disabilities and to
ensure that the City’s zoning decisions do not discriminate against individuals with
disabilities and entities associated with them. The City is further prohibited from
utilizing criteria that have the effect of discriminating against individuals with
disabilities or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out
individuals with disabilities.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 299 of 1221
Additionally, both Title II of the ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
42 U.S.C. §3601) protect the rights of both providers and clients of residential
treatment programs and prohibits the exclusion or otherwise denial of equal
services, programs, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known
actual or perceived) disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity
has a known relationship or association. See 28 C.F.R. 35.108(f)(1).
Thus, the law prohibits the City from applying its zoning to discriminate against
individuals with behavioral health disabilities and entities associated with them.
This project will be before the Planning Commission for decision on November 10,
2021. We urge you to follow the recommendation of City staff and approve this important
project for all the reasons stated in this letter.
THE PROJECT
The Eastlake Hospital is a proposed one-story hospital with 120 inpatient beds that
will help address the significant unmet need and increasing demand for high quality
behavioral health treatment for patients in our community. It will be a new, modern
behavioral health hospital utilizing the latest design elements and state-of-the-art safety
and security features to maximize patient comfort and clinical outcomes. Acadia and
Scripps will be working to help ensure that the new facility meets and exceeds patients’
behavioral health needs and is a good neighbor and asset to the community.
Hospitals are allowed at this site with the approval of a conditional use permit which
is what is before the Planning Commission. It meets all the land use planning requirements
and development regulations outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. The Project is also
supported by a full EIR, despite no significant unmitigated impacts.
To enhance your understanding of the project, we had hoped to host the public and
Planning Commissioners on a tour of a similar behavioral health hospital owned by Acadia
in Riverside, Pacific Grove Hospital. Unfortunately, this was impossible given restrictions in
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 300 of 1221
place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, we produced a “virtual tour” video for
review. This video showcases both Pacific Grove Hospital and San Jose Behavioral Health
Hospital, another facility owned by Acadia. You can access the tour video here:
https://youtu.be/sjRUULWqOZg.
As you may know, there have been several questions raised about the project by
neighbors about the location of the Eastlake Hospital in the adjacent commercial district.
While we understand the community’s concern, the fact is that inpatient behavioral health
hospitals like the Eastlake Hospital peacefully coexist with residents all over the country.
Acadia has a commitment to providing high quality, compassionate care for its patients.
The goal is to have zero negative patient outcomes. However, by its nature, the
healthcare industry carries inherent risk as its “customers” – the patients – seek services
because they are sick. No large hospital system, whether behavioral health or medical-
surgical, will ever be completely immune from isolated incidents or undesirable patient
experiences. But the rate of serious incidents at Acadia’s inpatient hospitals is very small.
From 2016 through 2020, there were nearly 581,000 patient admissions, and the rate of
serious incidents over that time was about 0.8%. This means that more than 99% of patient
outcomes go according to plan and we have helped hundreds of thousands of patients get
the care they need to help them recover.
Below are answers to some of the concerns that have been raised during the project
review process.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC
1. Why is it appropriate to locate a facility like this near a residential neighborhood?
Healthcare facilities, like hospitals, need to be located within communities near the people
they will serve to ensure that patients and their families have convenient access. For this
reason, hospitals, including behavioral health hospitals, are most often located near
homes, schools, houses of worship, and businesses. In San Diego County, Aurora Behavioral
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 301 of 1221
Health in Rancho Bernardo, Bayview Behavioral Health Hospital in Chula Vista, and Sharp
Mesa Vista in Kearny Mesa are located in commercial areas in close proximity to residences.
Acadia’s two hospitals in California, Pacific Grove in Riverside and San Jose Behavioral
Health in San Jose, are in close proximity to homes, childcare facilities, churches, and more.
Both hospitals enjoy positive relationships with their neighbors. In fact, the Riverside
Planning Commission recently approved a new Conditional Use Permit for Pacific Grove to
expand the hospital and they removed the requirement for on -site security because they
felt it was not needed.
The Eastlake Hospital is proposed for a 10.5-acre site within a commercial district in
Eastlake. The site’s zoning allows for a hospital use with a Conditional Use Permit. While
there is a residential neighborhood nearby, it is separated from the property by both
topography and infrastructure, and there is no legal direct access between the property
and the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed project also includes a perimeter wall and
significant landscaping that will provide an additional buffer between the facility and the
nearby neighborhood.
2. What are the procedures implemented when patients are discharged?
Patients will receive care until the attending psychiatrist, in consultation with the other
members of the clinical team, determines that safe discharge is clinically indicated based
on the patient’s treatment progression and individual circumstances. Prior to discharge, all
patients must have a detailed discharge plan that outlines the specifics of the transition to
and location of their next stage of care (e.g. nursing home, residential treatment center,
long term rehabilitation, transitional or temporary housing, personal residence).
The Eastlake Hospital will follow Acadia’s policy that all patients be provided with arranged
transportation to the specific post treatment care location upon discharge. The lack of such
a post discharge plan - including the arranged transportation component - will likely
comprise an important determining factor on whether discharge is clinically appropriate.
While a patient that is deemed medically fit for discharge cannot be forced to accept
transportation, the experience at Acadia’s two inpatient behavioral health hospitals in
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 302 of 1221
California (that are similar to the proposed Eastlake hospital) demonstrate that this rarely,
if ever happens. Records at Pacific Grove Hospital in Riverside and San Jose Behavioral
Health Hospital in San Jose indicate that two patients have refused transportation to their
next destination after discharge over the last three years.
3. Will the patients in the Eastlake hospital pose a safety risk to the surrounding
community?
No. Contrary to sensationalized stereotypes and misconceptions, the vast majority of
people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else.
Most people with mental illness are not violent and only 3%–5% of violent acts can be
attributed to individuals living with a serious menta l illness. In fact, people with severe
mental illnesses are ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general
population. It is more than likely that we all know someone with a mental health problem
and do not even realize it, because many people with mental health problems are highly
active and productive members of our communities.
4. What security measures will be in place at the Eastlake hospital?
Protecting the safety and security of patients, staff, and the surrounding communit y is of
paramount importance to Scripps and Acadia and a responsibility we take very seriously.
The hospital’s design and operations will integrate many patient safety and security
measures. These include, but will not be limited to, fencing and landscaping barriers, 24-
hour security patrols, closed circuit security camera monitoring including exterior and
common areas (e.g. lobby, cafeteria, visiting area), 15-minute patient safety checks
minimum, as some patients may require more frequent checks), and keycard-controlled
access to and from the facility and between units.
5. What happens if a patient escapes or leaves without authorization?
Elopement is a common behavioral health industry term to indicate that a patient receiving
inpatient care has departed the hospital without the consent or knowledge of the facility’s
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 303 of 1221
clinical staff and in the absence of a formal discharge determination and plan. Elopements
from secure, inpatient behavioral health hospitals are rare occurrences. At Acadia’s
inpatient behavioral health hospitals over a five-year period from 2016-2020, a total of
1,128 elopements occurred over nearly 581,000 patient admissions, a rate of less than 0.2%
of all patient admissions. More than 99% of these elopements were of a short duration
less than 24 hours) and did not involve any injuries to patients or staff, criminal activity,
property damage, nor disturbances to any surrounding business or residential
communities.
Acadia adheres to strict protocols and policies to limit the number and severity of
elopements. These include detailed assessment and screening for such behaviors at
admission, significant security features at all facilities and immediate response in the
uncommon instances when they do occur (police, family/next of kin, and attending
physician are immediately notified).
Acadia consistently endeavors to adopt and refine its policies and procedures to further
reduce the prevalence of elopements. The Eastlake hospital will utilize the latest design
features, including those intended to diminish the frequency and severity of elopements.
We also believe it is important to place the issue of elopements in an appropriate and
objective context, including balancing these isolated, rarely detrimental events with the
overall positive public heath value and benefit that the Eastlake hospital will provide to
thousands of patients in need and their families.
6. Do behavioral health hospitals result in more calls for emergency service (police,
fire, etc.)?
Emergency calls (including for police assistance) from inpatient behavioral health hospitals,
including those in the Acadia Healthcare network, are uncommon. Over a five -year period
from 2016-2020 at Acadia’s inpatient hospitals there were a total of 2,084 calls for service
that occurred over nearly 581,000 patient admissions, a rate of about 0.35% of all patient
admissions. This is in large part due to the training and expertise of the hospitals’ clinical
staff who specifically equipped to deal with the unique needs of behavioral health patients
including advanced de-escalation and in rare cases, safe restraint techniques). Given these
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 304 of 1221
facts, potential emergency service calls whether to police, fire, or EMS are not expected to
produce any appreciable effect on these public resources.
In fact, behavioral health hospitals are seen as a resource by many law enforcement
professionals. Many of these facilities are authorized to be police drop-off locations, which
allows police to drop off people that are potentially in need of psychiatric care that have
not been involved in a crime and are not in need of medical care. With our region’s current
shortage of inpatient behavioral health beds, police must take potential patients to the
nearest Emergency Department – whether they need medical care or not – and wait until
that patient can be seen by a physician, a process that takes officers out of service for an
average of four to six hours. By contrast, when law enforcement has the ability to take a
patient directly to an authorized behavioral health hospital that has an available bed, they
are typically out of service for 30 to 60 minutes because the patients can be assessed much
more quickly.
7. Does a standalone inpatient behavioral health hospital need to be located near a
medical acute care hospital and other services?
No. Patients will be admitted to the hospital to receive treatment for behavioral health
conditions not requiring intensive, simultaneous medical treatment of the type undertaken
at a medical/surgical facility. Like all licensed hospitals, the Eastlake Hospital’s clinical staff
will have the full ability to safely provide for the needs of its behavioral health patients who
in some cases may also be living with chronic but stable medical conditions such as
diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and those affecting mobility. Therefore, the lack of
co-location with or immediate proximity to a medical/surgical hospital or related acute care
treatment sites will not negatively impact the hospital’s ability to provide high level, quality
care to its patients.
Support services such as having an internist on site daily, nutrition support, and physical
therapy will be provided at the hospital. Outpatient services will also be provided for
inpatients ready for step down care, and social workers will be employed by the hospital
to facilitate referrals and transfers to follow -on care facilities and housing for those that
need it.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 305 of 1221
WE URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS IMPORTANT LIFESAVING FACILITY IN EASTLAKE
We hope that the virtual tour video and answers to concerns about the location of
the Eastlake Hospital are helpful. We look forward to presenting this important project
before you on November 10, 2021.
For all these reasons we urge you to follow City staff’s recommendation, federal
and state law and approve this important lifesaving facility, the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital.
Sincerely,
Robin Madaffer, Esq.
cc: Michael De La Rosa, Vice Chair, Chula Vista Planning Commission
Jerome Torres, Chula Vista Planning Commissioner
Gabe Gutierrez, Chula Vista Planning Commissioner
Krista Burroughs, Chula Vista Planning Commissioner
Jon Milburn, Chula Vista Planning Commissioner
Mike Shirey, Deputy City Attorney
Tiffany Allen, Development Services Department, Director
Laura Black, Development Services Department, Assistant Director
D. Todd Philips, Development Services Department, Planning Manager
Stan Donn, Development Services Department, Senior Planner
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 306 of 1221
From: Perla Arroyo <perlarroyo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:02 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
As a mental health clinician, I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project,
proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare. It is important that the city maintains up to
date with treatment needs. There are multiple issues that our community is dealing with and it has
a lot to do with the fears and uncertainty around COVID 19 as well as the significant increase in use
and overdose of fentanyl. Our children, our friends, our neighbors and even sometimes ourselves
are dealing with some form in mental health need.
This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health treatment capacity in the
South County region.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Perla Arroyo-Morales LMFT
1037 Guatay Ave
Chula Vista CA 91911
7605049510
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 307 of 1221
From: bill stellin <billstellin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:35 AM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas
MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Brad Davis Appeal
Dear Council Members,
I am officially requesting that each and every note of concern listed on the appeal from Brad
Davis (attached for your convenience) be thoroughly and completely addressed at this Tuesday's
meeting.
Failure to thoroughly address ALL concerns will be viewed as a breach of your fiduciary duties as an
elected official.
Sincerely,
Bill Stellin
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 308 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 309 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 310 of 1221
From: Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 5:48 PM
To: Mayor <mayor@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Glen Googins
GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Tuesday meeting mental health facility
Dear members
This meeting should be delayed in the name of public health and safety. I have been participating in the
debate for three years but cannot attend this meeting due to Omicron. Further, it is adverse to public
health and safety to continue with this meeting when our hospitals are on disaster mode.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2022-01-18/south-bay-hospitals-declare-
internal-disasters-as-patient-crush-continues
Thank you
T Petros
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 311 of 1221
From: bibi luko <bibiluko@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; Maria Kachadoorian
mkachadoorian@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Natalie Flores
NFlores@chulavistaca.gov>; johnmccanncouncilmember@gmail.com
Subject: Moving Psych Hospital Meeting
Hello,
I’m writing to respectfully request that the meeting for the proposed psychiatric hospital be suspended
or rescheduled to a later date. Chula Vista is surging right now and MANY members of our community
are sick, or high risk and will not be able to attend.
We are literally at the peak of the omicron surge this week. Please consider the health and safety of our
various community members especially since online comments were not read at the previous planning
commission meeting.
https://www.newskudo.com/california/san-diego/government/7399075-san-diego-hospital-leaders-
predict-end-of-omicron-surge-is-near
Thanks,
Bibi
Bibi Luko
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 312 of 1221
From: Tessa Walkup <juare004@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 6:58 PM
To: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; Maria Kachadoorian
mkachadoorian@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Request
Warning: External Email
Hello,
I’m writing to respectfully request that the meeting for the proposed psychiatric hospital be
suspended or rescheduled to a later date. Chula Vista is surging right now and MANY members of
our community are sick, or high risk and will not be able to attend.
We are literally at the peak of the omicron surge this week. Please consider the health and safety of
our various community members especially since online comments were not read at the previous
planning commission meeting.
Respectfully,
T. Walkup
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 313 of 1221
From: bill stellin <billstellin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 6:14 PM
To: Maria Kachadoorian <mkachadoorian@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Covid Concerns
Good evening,
I would like to request a postponement for discussing the Psychiatric Hospital this Tuesday. I
have covid and am unable to attend the meeting. As a concerned neighbor within close proximity, I
would like my voice to be publicly heard.
I am also extremely concerned about the high number of Covid cases in our area, and do not feel
holding an open forum for such a heavily debated topic is a safe decision at this time. You will have a
higher than average turnout, and being indoors with such a large population during the peak of Covid
poses as too much of a risk. I implore you to postpone this topic to a later date for the safety of all
parties involved.
Sincerely,
Bill Stellin
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 314 of 1221
From: Molly Crawford <mollybcrawford@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:08 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary
Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Acadia Health Center
Warning: External Email
Good afternoon,
As a citizen and community member of Chula Vista and a parent with children who attend many
classes, parties and patronize many businesses the Eastlake Design District I am troubled by the
lack of information that seems to be available in regards to the proposed Acadia health site. Not
only does it seem to be a highly inappropriate area for a mental health facility, but it does not seem
that the city has done their due diligence on the proposal. I ask that you please answer the
questions as stated in the appeal from Brad Davis. Even better would be to postpone tomorrows
meeting until we get through the latest pandemic surge to allow voice of the community to be
heard. Many of us are in quarantine at home due to possible exposures or sickness.
Please listen to the voices in your community that you are representing. This is not a decision that
should be made with most researching each and every outcome and possibility.
Thank you for your time,
Molly Crawford
Sent from my iPhone
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 315 of 1221
From: bibi luko <bibiluko@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Natalie Flores <NFlores@chulavistaca.gov>; Samantha Trickey <SamanthaT@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Resident Opposed to the Eastlake Psychiatric Hospital - Please vote NO
Hello Mayor Salas,
I'm writing to you as a concerned citizen whose quality of life would be impacted by the
proposed hospital. I've had more than 2 years to research Acadia Healthcare and I do not believe they
are a suitable partner for Chula Vista due to their history of alleged patient abuse and mistreating
workers. If Chula Vista does move forward with Acadia then this type of facility should be co-located
with supportive services like an Emergency Room.
Before moving to approve this hospital I implore you to ask that Acadia answer a few basic questions.
They are as follows: Why were additional sites for the hospital not vetted and presented per the CUP
process even though it's required? What does the staffing plan for the facility look like? Why did Acadia
say that wages would be $30per/hr when nurses make a base pay of $46 here in San Diego
County? Where is the official management agreement between Acadia & Scripps?
To the city I would ask the following: Why was an independent safety analysis not done by the
CVPD? In Rocklin California a similar size psychiatric hospital was slated to be built but after an
independent PD investigation Police found that the proximity of the Hospital to schools would
not allow schools to properly lock down due to an incident of a patient leaving the premises
without permission (elopement). The difference between Rocklin and Eastlake is that Rocklin's
school was 700ft away from the proposed site and Eastlake's is only 400ft. Secondly, since the
nurses at Scripps are non-unionized how does the city propose we preserve worker's rights? Acadia
healthcare has a history of legal woes that include issues with their own staff and patients.The
most recent publicized issue with Acadia and their staff was a 3.5 month nurse strike due to
unsafe working conditions caused by understaffing. “When I heard about a violent patient
escaping and injuring 11 of my coworkers, including one who left the facility on a stretcher, I
was terrified — but sadly, not surprised.” -Meseret Amare, Nurse What contingency plans will CV
have for a potential work outage given that this is such a large high security campus and in close
proximity to residents?
In recent months, the city has had issues arising from contracts with multi-billion dollar
companies, like Acadia, that put residents last. An example of this would be the Republic
Services trash debacle that left the city no recourse due to a poorly written contract as the
mayor noted in a recent SDUT editorial piece. However, that contract was constructed by the
city. Another recent fumble is the Motorola contract. “San Diego ACLU lawyer Mitra Ebadolahi
contends the overall contract so lopsidedly favors Motorola Solutions that she wonders whether
Chula Vista city officials understood the stakes or were simply outfoxed by the company’s high -
priced lawyers.” ~KPBS What will make the contract with Acadia healthcare any different?
I ask that before moving to approve this location the city takes its time in making sure the above issues
are settled and questions answered. At the very least, the city should conduct an independent
Warning:
External
Email
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 316 of 1221
investigation regarding safety for residents, patients and staff as this will be the only high security facility
for miles and it happens to border residential neighborhoods and businesses geared towards children. It
behooves the city to leverage their vote to have all issues mitigated before moving forward and get
Acadia to agree to conditions residents are comfortable with. I for one would like to request that any
elopements be reported to the city manager, city attorney and chief of police. Also, if the hospital has 5
or more persons elope that their CUP would automatically be revoked.
I'd like to share with you some research I did through FOIA requests and searching headlines online.
Please see that HERE. Included are headlines and metrics on elopements from hospitals within the
county of San Diego. Surely, Chula Vista does not want to be one of these headlines.
Respectfully,
Bibi Luko
619-504-2229
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 317 of 1221
From: Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:32 PM
To: Sheree Kansas <skansas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Procedure for 1/25 council meeting
Respectfully, I watched the meeting on Republic Services online where people were not
wearing masks, and when they were, they were encouraged by the mayor to remove them
when they spoke. We have many community members with COVID or at severe risk and
cannot attend and this decision will impact our community for decades.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sheree Kansas <skansas@chulavistaca.gov> wrote:
The community is welcome to attend and make public comments at the January 25, 2022 City Council
meeting. Due to the surge in COVID cases, public seating and capacity will be reduced. Masks are
required in Council Chambers and all City buildings. Socially distanced seats will be available in Council
Chambers. For this meeting, overflow seating will also be available in the main City Hall lobby where
attendees can view the meeting live on a screen and audio of the meeting will be available outside.
Those who wish to address Council in-person can fill out a request to speak card and will be able to hear
their name called when it is their turn to speak at any of these locations. Additionally, eComments can
be submitted at www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings. eComments can be submitted during the
meeting until the close of the public commenting period for each item and are immediately available for
City Council and members of the public to view.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
mailto:skansas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:skansas@chula
vistaca.gov
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/
councilmeetings
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 318 of 1221
From: Erin Burgar <erin.burgar@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:52 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas
MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Behavioral Hospital
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a resident of Chula Vista and am writing to ask that you oppose the Eastlake Behavioral
Hospital project at tomorrow night's council meeting. Acadia is a multi billion dollar, for-profit company
with a horrible track record in other cities and I believe they have had an unfair influence in the
planning process. Please take into consideration the flaws of this proposed project and listen to the
concerns of the residents of this community.
Thank you,
Erin Burgar
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:erin.burgar@
gmail.com
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.govmailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 319 of 1221
From: Miss M <aquaeyez@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Project
I know you have already made up your mind on whether to approve or deny this
project. I know there is nothing I can say that will sway you to change your mind. I
know by opposing this project, I will be seen as a NIMBY. But that is not the case; I wouldn't
mind a facility in my neighborhood if it meets certain criteria.
I have spent more hours than I care to remember researching the effects this facility will have
on the City, the various lawsuits associated with Acadia in both their treatment of patients and
staff, in the requirements needed to approve a CUP and the cities historical documents for the
area, on appellate court decisions related to various aspects of this project and the like. Given
this, I want you to know...
1. The CUP requirements are clear (Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.14.080) and this project fails
to meet those requirements.
2. One such requirement is: "That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity"
Acadia can use creative language to try to sway you, but the data I have provided on several
similarly situated facilities owned by Acadia shows there will no doubt be an increase in calls for
emergency services.
Public safety is the responsibility of the City officials... YOU... and I have proven with numberous
emails, graphs, articles, raw data, and testimonials that a facility such as this will need a number
of resources the City does not have available.
In short, approving this facility while providing space for those in need will also be providing
poor services for those seeking help, a less than satisfactory work environment for its
employees, and a shortage of police and ambulance for Chula Vista residents.
3. Another requirement of Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.14.080 is "that the granting of this
conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any
governmental agency". A review of City documents shows this area was never meant to house
a 24/7 facility. The original plans actually had this area slotted for medical research. Look at all
the business in the general area, none of which have more than approximately 40 employees.
Now, in the beginning I said I wouldn't mind a facility in my neighborhood. Let me elaborate on
that. I wouldn't mind a facility in my neighborhood if done correctly. Does Chula Vista need
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:aquaeyez@ho
tmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 320 of 1221
more mental health - yes. However, after all the research I have done, I believe...
1. The facility should be run by a reputable company
2. We should beef up our emergency services so we can adequately maintain call times with the
inevitable increase in calls.
3. The facility should be similarly sized to other businesses in the area as to not adversely affect
the landscape of the area. (With no more than 60 employees - which would equate to a 60 bed
facility - which coincidentally also fulfills the bed to population ratio suggested by the
department of health)
4. Have a large section of the bedspace dedicated to PTSD and military needs to fit the
demographics of the area.
5. The emergency component of the facility should be placed near Scripps hospital where those
in dire need will have adequate resources (police, hospital) to be addressed properly.
The City does not have to accept the project as it is presented and is allowed to suggest
changes that will better serve our community. Don't be fooled by high priced lawyers.
As someone who worked in equal employment and the discrimination unit, I am familiar with
ADA violations. There is absolutely no ADA violation by denying or amending the project due to
its failure to meet city requirements.
Thank you for your time,
Monica
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 321 of 1221
From: Carrie Boyko <cariboyko@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:55 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas
MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; ecardenas@chulavistaca.gov
Subject: Eastlake Behavioral Hospital - Request for Answers to be addressed at City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Salas, City Council members and City Attorney Googins,
Please address the following questions at tomorrow's (1/25/2022) City Council Meeting
regarding the Eastlake Behavioral Hospital:
Why was an independent safety study not done?
Why was no alternate Site Study completed?
Why was there no Economic Impact Analysis completed?
What is Acadia's staffing plan?
Why did Acadia state that their jobs would bring in $30/hour in wages when nurses base
pay in San Diego is $46?
Where is the official management agreement between Acadia & Scripps?
What is the city doing to make sure the Conditional Use Permit protects our community?
Thank you,
Roy and Carrie Boyko
Eastlake residents OPPOSED to Acadia's proposed Eastlake location
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:cariboyko@y
ahoo.com
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.govmailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:ecardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 322 of 1221
Warning:
External
Email
From:Aileen
To:Mary Salas
Subject:Eastlake Behavioral Hospital - request to address questions in the attached letter
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 8:51:42 PM
I would like to request for the questions in the attached letter be answered and addressed
during tomorrow’s City Council Hearing for the appeal to oppose the Eastlake Behavioral
Hospital. Thank you!
Aileen Jarina
Homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
mai
lto:
aile
en
an
dal
ptr
p@
yah
oo.
co
m
mailto
:MSal
as@c
hulavi
staca.
gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 323 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 324 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 325 of 1221
From:Manuelito Jarina
To:John McCann; Jill Galvez; Mary Salas; Steve C. Padilla; Andrea Cardenas
Subject:Opposing the Eastlake Behavioral Health Facility
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 8:59:04 PM
Warning: External Email
To the council members,
There are questions in this letter that is very important to be addressed and answered with regards to this facility.
I strongly oppose this facility to be built.
Please hear our voices.
Please hear our concerns.
This area in Chula vista is not the approriate location for this kind of a facility.
Respectfully,
Manuelito Jarina
mailto:li
tojarina
ptrp@y
ahoo.co
m
mailto:
jmcca
nn@c
hulavi
staca.
gov
mailt
o:jm
galv
ez@
chul
avist
aca.
gov
mailt
o:MS
alas
@ch
ulavi
staca
.gov
mailto:s
padilla
@chula
vistaca.
gov
mailto:a
cardena
s@chul
avistaca
.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 326 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 327 of 1221
Sent from my iPhone
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 328 of 1221
From:Marylupe Flores
To:Mary Salas
Subject:I vehemently oppose the Eastlake Psychiatric Hospital
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 9:35:41 PM
Attachments:IMG_7427.png
IMG_9367.png
Warning: External Email
mailto:s
kunkgirl
67@ya
hoo.co
m
mailt
o:MS
alas
@ch
ulavi
staca
.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 329 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 330 of 1221
From: webmaster@chulavistaca.gov <webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:45 PM
To: Mayor <mayor@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: City of Chula Vista: Contact Us - Notification for Mayor Casillas Salas
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Mayor Casillas Salas
Date & Time: 01/25/2022 12:45 PM
Response #: 1809
Submitter ID: 102642
IP address: 2600:8801:ac02:3a00:bc32:4864:41cc:fba6
Time to complete: 10 min. , 34 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below.
First Name Joycelyn
Last Name Thomas
Email Address joycelyn3646@yahoo.com
Comments
Not only do I oppose the proposed psychiatric hospital site, I am wondering WHY, with all the research my
Rolling Hills Ranch neighbors have done… AND PRESENTED TO YOU, THE PLANNING COMMISSION and the
rest of the council regarding what a HORRIBLE partner Acadia is and the danger this poses to my
community…is this still in the works?
Do you think if you keep stalling, instead of denying this approval, you will wear us out?
I am 72 years old. I have poor eyesight and can not drive at night.
I can not attend tonight’s meeting because of this…BUT I STILL OPPOSE THE HILL BEHIND MY HOUSE as a
potential site for this facility.
Thank you,
City of Chula Vista
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:mayor@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:joycelyn3646
@yahoo.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 331 of 1221
From: Hazel Pangan <hpangan@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Hospital Project in Eastlake
Dear Mayor Salas and Councilmembers McCann, Galves, Padilla, and Cardenas:
I am a Chula Vista resident residing in the Eastlake area with my husband and two children. I have lived
in the South Bay for nearly 30 years. I write to renew my continuing opposition to the proposed hospital
project at Showroom Place in Eastlake. The proponents of this project have wrongly dismissed the
residents' opposition to the project as one of "NIMBYism" or bias against mental illness. This
characterization could not be further from the truth. No one disputes the need for mental
healthcare. The crux of my and my fellow residents' opposition is the poor execution of the
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), which neither fairly evaluates the proposed site for suitability nor
reflects the impact of a project of this size and scale on the community given the location of the
proposed hospital in the middle of an inland residential area dotted with grade schools, without a law
enforcement substation or integrated hospital system nearby. Notably, the proponents' narrative that
this project is for the benefit of Chula Vista residents is false, as the proposed hospital is intended to
serve patients from all parts of the county. I fail to see how the proposed location serves the interests
of our community or those seeking mental healthcare--a hospital located far inland in a residential area,
away from major highways, and away from direct and reliable public transportation, is hardly accessible
to those in need of mental health services.
The illogical placement of the proposed hospital is underscored by the January 25, 2022 City Council
Staff Report ("Report"), which clearly sidesteps the issues raised by resident Brad Davis in his appeal on
behalf of the community. The Report does not meaningfully or directly respond to any of the issues
raised in the appeal. Tellingly, the Chula Vista Police Department has not stated that it supports the
project. The EIR documents state the reasons for the selection of the proposed site as simply that the
lot is flat and graded, and has the desired size. These reasons cannot and do not justify the location nor
do they outweigh the concerns and objections of the community.
The opinions of the community's residents, who have to live with the proposed hospital and are your
constituents, are the ones that should matter the most to you as our elected representatives. The
residents are the most important stakeholders with respect to this project. More than 5000 people
have signed a petition against this project's site, and hundreds have sent emails or posted public
comments in opposition. The persons who have voiced their "support" based on a templated letter
some still including the language "insert your name here") fed to them do not appear to even be Chula
Vista residents but rather people recruited by the corporations behind the project.
On behalf of my community and neighbors, I implore you not to cede to the interests of an out-of-state
corporation with a highly questionable track record, which indeed has prompted a letter from Senator
Ben Hueso expressing his concerns on our behalf. Please listen to your constituents and represent their
best interests by voting "no" on the project.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:hpangan@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 332 of 1221
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Hazel M. B. Pangan, Esq.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 333 of 1221
On Jan 25, 2022, at 12:51 PM, Joycelyn Thomas <joycelyn3646@icloud.com> wrote:
Not only do I oppose the proposed psychiatric hospital site, I am wondering WHY, with all the
research my Rolling Hills Ranch neighbors have done… AND PRESENTED TO YOU, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION and the rest of the council regarding what a HORRIBLE partner Acadia is and the danger this poses to
my community…is this still in the works?
Do you think if you keep stalling, instead of denying this approval, you will wear us out?
I am 72 years old. I have poor eyesight and can not drive at night.
I can not attend tonight’s meeting because of this…BUT I STILL OPPOSE THE HILL BEHIND MY HOUSE as a potential
site for this facility.
Joycelyn Thomas
Sent from my iPad
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:joycelyn3646@i
cloud.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 334 of 1221
From: Miss M <aquaeyez@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:18 PM
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Re: ecomments
Requests were made to postpone the Behavioral Health agenda item. The City refused amid
a covid surge. Now the only way to comment for those that cannot attend are through
Ecomments which are not working. Our rights are being violated every which way.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:aquaeyez@ho
tmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 335 of 1221
From: Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:31 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>; Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Subject: Mental Health Hospital
Dear Council and Mayor:
We've fought this as a community for almost three years now. Over 5,000 signatures opposed on a
petition. Myriad reasons why these are not good partners and this is not a good location for this
facility.. Letters written. Meetings attended, yet here we are. And I cannot be there tonight due to
COVID, nor can my husband.
I just had to send one more email to tell you I am opposed to this facility being built 90 feet from my
house. I find it unconscionable that you would do this to this quaint neighborhood when all the experts
say this should be near infrastructure, a full service hospital, and it should be further away than a few
feet from homes, schools, parks and churches.
Further, I do wonder about all of the work done to approve this pre covid that do not apply now given
the significant essential workers shortage. The nursing and other healthcare worker shortage. The
difficulty hiring police officers. All of the uncertainties in this new normal render all of the pre COVID
research invalid and even then, we were not satisfied with police staffing, response times, etc.
To even attempt to sell our homes right now with the largest psych hospital in San Diego County pretty
literally in our backyard would be foolish, so we're at your mercy. Please don't approve this in this
location
Theresa Petros
873 Esperanza Place
CV CA 91914
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 336 of 1221
From: Lisa Johnson (ljohnson@ntcfoundation.org) <ljohnson@ntcfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:05 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health treatment
capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not kept
pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the inpatient
beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region. Behavioral
health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will
provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge you to
reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Needs like this are growing exponentially, especially post-COVID, so this is timely. Your leadership on
this important project is so important.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa C. Johnson
619.392.6106
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:ljohnson@ntcfoun
dation.org
mailto:ljohnson@ntcfoun
dation.org
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 337 of 1221
From: Beltran Daniela <dbeltran@elcamino.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:10 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill
Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea
Cardenas <acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany
Allen <TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
INSERT YOUR NAME HERE***
Daniela Beltran
Program Coordinator, Computer Science
El Camino College
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:dbeltran@elca
mino.edu
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chulavi
staca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chulavi
staca.govmailto:acardenas@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chulavi
staca.govmailto:TAllen@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chulavi
staca.govmailto:lblack@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 338 of 1221
From: fstreightiff@yahoo.com <fstreightiff@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Glen Googins <GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Tiffany Allen
TAllen@chulavistaca.gov>; Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Laura Black
lblack@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Hello, my name is Francis Streightiff and I support the EBHH Project. I have never given
mental health the time of day or have never much made the effort to be more aware of
mental illness in people growing up. There have always been signs with my little sister who is now 19,
and was 17 at the time of her first manic attack. She suffers from Bipolar and Schizophrenia and has
been in and out of hospitals since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been very hard to find a
good help when dealing with this situation, not just for the sake of my sister, but for the whole family.
Having help close to home means everything. Thank you, Frank.
Sent from my Metro by T-Mobile 4G LTE Android device
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:fstreightiff@y
ahoo.com
mailto:fstreightiff@y
ahoo.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.govmailto:GGoogins@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:MShirey@chula
vistaca.govmailto:TAllen@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Sdonn@chula
vistaca.govmailto:lblack@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 339 of 1221
From: Deyanira Mendivil <dnrmendivil1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving this project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Deyanira Mendivil
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:dnrmendivil1@g
mail.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 340 of 1221
From: christina orozco <mizzxtiina@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:44 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Warning: External Email
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health
treatment capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not
kept pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the
inpatient beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region.
Behavioral health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare
will provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge
you to reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tina orozco
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:mizzxtiina@icl
oud.com
mailto:MSalas@chulav
istaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 341 of 1221
Dear Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council:
I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and
Acadia Healthcare. This project will significantly expand critically needed behavioral health treatment
capacity in the South County region.
The need for behavioral health treatment facilities has grown significantly and our region has not kept
pace in meeting this demand. It is truly a crisis in our community. We have less than half the inpatient
beds that are needed to adequately address the behavioral health needs in our region. Behavioral
health affects us all.
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project, proposed by Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will
provide care to our families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
The Chula Vista Planning Commission made the right decision in approving the project, and I urge you to
reject the appeal that the project opponents have filed.
Needs like this are growing exponentially, especially post-COVID, so this is timely. Your leadership on
this important project is so important.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa C. Johnson
619.392.6106
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 342 of 1221
From: Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:32 PM
To: Sheree Kansas <skansas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Procedure for 1/25 council meeting
Respectfully, I watched the meeting on Republic Services online where people were not
wearing masks, and when they were, they were encouraged by the mayor to remove them
when they spoke. We have many community members with COVID or at severe risk and
cannot attend and this decision will impact our community for decades.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sheree Kansas <skansas@chulavistaca.gov> wrote:
The community is welcome to attend and make public comments at the January 25, 2022 City Council
meeting. Due to the surge in COVID cases, public seating and capacity will be reduced. Masks are
required in Council Chambers and all City buildings. Socially distanced seats will be available in Council
Chambers. For this meeting, overflow seating will also be available in the main City Hall lobby where
attendees can view the meeting live on a screen and audio of the meeting will be available outside.
Those who wish to address Council in-person can fill out a request to speak card and will be able to hear
their name called when it is their turn to speak at any of these locations. Additionally, eComments can
be submitted at www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings. eComments can be submitted during the
meeting until the close of the public commenting period for each item and are immediately available for
City Council and members of the public to view.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
mailto:skansas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:skansas@chula
vistaca.gov
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/
councilmeetings
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 343 of 1221
From: Erin Burgar <erin.burgar@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:52 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas
MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Behavioral Hospital
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a resident of Chula Vista and am writing to ask that you oppose the Eastlake Behavioral
Hospital project at tomorrow night's council meeting. Acadia is a multi billion dollar, for-profit company
with a horrible track record in other cities and I believe they have had an unfair influence in the
planning process. Please take into consideration the flaws of this proposed project and listen to the
concerns of the residents of this community.
Thank you,
Erin Burgar
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:erin.burgar@
gmail.com
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.govmailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 344 of 1221
From: Miss M <aquaeyez@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Project
I know you have already made up your mind on whether to approve or deny this
project. I know there is nothing I can say that will sway you to change your mind. I
know by opposing this project, I will be seen as a NIMBY. But that is not the case; I wouldn't
mind a facility in my neighborhood if it meets certain criteria.
I have spent more hours than I care to remember researching the effects this facility will have
on the City, the various lawsuits associated with Acadia in both their treatment of patients and
staff, in the requirements needed to approve a CUP and the cities historical documents for the
area, on appellate court decisions related to various aspects of this project and the like. Given
this, I want you to know...
1. The CUP requirements are clear (Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.14.080) and this project fails
to meet those requirements.
2. One such requirement is: "That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity"
Acadia can use creative language to try to sway you, but the data I have provided on several
similarly situated facilities owned by Acadia shows there will no doubt be an increase in calls for
emergency services.
Public safety is the responsibility of the City officials... YOU... and I have proven with numberous
emails, graphs, articles, raw data, and testimonials that a facility such as this will need a number
of resources the City does not have available.
In short, approving this facility while providing space for those in need will also be providing
poor services for those seeking help, a less than satisfactory work environment for its
employees, and a shortage of police and ambulance for Chula Vista residents.
3. Another requirement of Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.14.080 is "that the granting of this
conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any
governmental agency". A review of City documents shows this area was never meant to house
a 24/7 facility. The original plans actually had this area slotted for medical research. Look at all
the business in the general area, none of which have more than approximately 40 employees.
Now, in the beginning I said I wouldn't mind a facility in my neighborhood. Let me elaborate on
that. I wouldn't mind a facility in my neighborhood if done correctly. Does Chula Vista need
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:aquaeyez@ho
tmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 345 of 1221
more mental health - yes. However, after all the research I have done, I believe...
1. The facility should be run by a reputable company
2. We should beef up our emergency services so we can adequately maintain call times with the
inevitable increase in calls.
3. The facility should be similarly sized to other businesses in the area as to not adversely affect
the landscape of the area. (With no more than 60 employees - which would equate to a 60 bed
facility - which coincidentally also fulfills the bed to population ratio suggested by the
department of health)
4. Have a large section of the bedspace dedicated to PTSD and military needs to fit the
demographics of the area.
5. The emergency component of the facility should be placed near Scripps hospital where those
in dire need will have adequate resources (police, hospital) to be addressed properly.
The City does not have to accept the project as it is presented and is allowed to suggest
changes that will better serve our community. Don't be fooled by high priced lawyers.
As someone who worked in equal employment and the discrimination unit, I am familiar with
ADA violations. There is absolutely no ADA violation by denying or amending the project due to
its failure to meet city requirements.
Thank you for your time,
Monica
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 346 of 1221
From: Carrie Boyko <cariboyko@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:55 PM
To: John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez <jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas
MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; ecardenas@chulavistaca.gov
Subject: Eastlake Behavioral Hospital - Request for Answers to be addressed at City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Salas, City Council members and City Attorney Googins,
Please address the following questions at tomorrow's (1/25/2022) City Council Meeting
regarding the Eastlake Behavioral Hospital:
Why was an independent safety study not done?
Why was no alternate Site Study completed?
Why was there no Economic Impact Analysis completed?
What is Acadia's staffing plan?
Why did Acadia state that their jobs would bring in $30/hour in wages when nurses base
pay in San Diego is $46?
Where is the official management agreement between Acadia & Scripps?
What is the city doing to make sure the Conditional Use Permit protects our community?
Thank you,
Roy and Carrie Boyko
Eastlake residents OPPOSED to Acadia's proposed Eastlake location
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:cariboyko@y
ahoo.com
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.govmailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:ecardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 347 of 1221
Warning:
External
Email
From:Aileen
To:Mary Salas
Subject:Eastlake Behavioral Hospital - request to address questions in the attached letter
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 8:51:42 PM
I would like to request for the questions in the attached letter be answered and addressed
during tomorrow’s City Council Hearing for the appeal to oppose the Eastlake Behavioral
Hospital. Thank you!
Aileen Jarina
Homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
mai
lto:
aile
en
an
dal
ptr
p@
yah
oo.
co
m
mailto
:MSal
as@c
hulavi
staca.
gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 348 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 349 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 350 of 1221
From:Manuelito Jarina
To:John McCann; Jill Galvez; Mary Salas; Steve C. Padilla; Andrea Cardenas
Subject:Opposing the Eastlake Behavioral Health Facility
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 8:59:04 PM
Warning: External Email
To the council members,
There are questions in this letter that is very important to be addressed and answered with regards to this facility.
I strongly oppose this facility to be built.
Please hear our voices.
Please hear our concerns.
This area in Chula vista is not the approriate location for this kind of a facility.
Respectfully,
Manuelito Jarina
mailto:li
tojarina
ptrp@y
ahoo.co
m
mailto:
jmcca
nn@c
hulavi
staca.
gov
mailt
o:jm
galv
ez@
chul
avist
aca.
gov
mailt
o:MS
alas
@ch
ulavi
staca
.gov
mailto:s
padilla
@chula
vistaca.
gov
mailto:a
cardena
s@chul
avistaca
.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 351 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 352 of 1221
Sent from my iPhone
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 353 of 1221
From:Marylupe Flores
To:Mary Salas
Subject:I vehemently oppose the Eastlake Psychiatric Hospital
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 9:35:41 PM
Attachments:IMG_7427.png
IMG_9367.png
Warning: External Email
mailto:s
kunkgirl
67@ya
hoo.co
m
mailt
o:MS
alas
@ch
ulavi
staca
.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 354 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 355 of 1221
From: webmaster@chulavistaca.gov <webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:45 PM
To: Mayor <mayor@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: City of Chula Vista: Contact Us - Notification for Mayor Casillas Salas
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Mayor Casillas Salas
Date & Time: 01/25/2022 12:45 PM
Response #: 1809
Submitter ID: 102642
IP address: 2600:8801:ac02:3a00:bc32:4864:41cc:fba6
Time to complete: 10 min. , 34 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below.
First Name Joycelyn
Last Name Thomas
Email Address joycelyn3646@yahoo.com
Comments
Not only do I oppose the proposed psychiatric hospital site, I am wondering WHY, with all the research my
Rolling Hills Ranch neighbors have done… AND PRESENTED TO YOU, THE PLANNING COMMISSION and the
rest of the council regarding what a HORRIBLE partner Acadia is and the danger this poses to my
community…is this still in the works?
Do you think if you keep stalling, instead of denying this approval, you will wear us out?
I am 72 years old. I have poor eyesight and can not drive at night.
I can not attend tonight’s meeting because of this…BUT I STILL OPPOSE THE HILL BEHIND MY HOUSE as a
potential site for this facility.
Thank you,
City of Chula Vista
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:mayor@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:joycelyn3646
@yahoo.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 356 of 1221
From: Hazel Pangan <hpangan@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>; John McCann <jmccann@chulavistaca.gov>; Jill Galvez
jmgalvez@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve C. Padilla <spadilla@chulavistaca.gov>; Andrea Cardenas
acardenas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Hospital Project in Eastlake
Dear Mayor Salas and Councilmembers McCann, Galves, Padilla, and Cardenas:
I am a Chula Vista resident residing in the Eastlake area with my husband and two children. I have lived
in the South Bay for nearly 30 years. I write to renew my continuing opposition to the proposed hospital
project at Showroom Place in Eastlake. The proponents of this project have wrongly dismissed the
residents' opposition to the project as one of "NIMBYism" or bias against mental illness. This
characterization could not be further from the truth. No one disputes the need for mental
healthcare. The crux of my and my fellow residents' opposition is the poor execution of the
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), which neither fairly evaluates the proposed site for suitability nor
reflects the impact of a project of this size and scale on the community given the location of the
proposed hospital in the middle of an inland residential area dotted with grade schools, without a law
enforcement substation or integrated hospital system nearby. Notably, the proponents' narrative that
this project is for the benefit of Chula Vista residents is false, as the proposed hospital is intended to
serve patients from all parts of the county. I fail to see how the proposed location serves the interests
of our community or those seeking mental healthcare--a hospital located far inland in a residential area,
away from major highways, and away from direct and reliable public transportation, is hardly accessible
to those in need of mental health services.
The illogical placement of the proposed hospital is underscored by the January 25, 2022 City Council
Staff Report ("Report"), which clearly sidesteps the issues raised by resident Brad Davis in his appeal on
behalf of the community. The Report does not meaningfully or directly respond to any of the issues
raised in the appeal. Tellingly, the Chula Vista Police Department has not stated that it supports the
project. The EIR documents state the reasons for the selection of the proposed site as simply that the
lot is flat and graded, and has the desired size. These reasons cannot and do not justify the location nor
do they outweigh the concerns and objections of the community.
The opinions of the community's residents, who have to live with the proposed hospital and are your
constituents, are the ones that should matter the most to you as our elected representatives. The
residents are the most important stakeholders with respect to this project. More than 5000 people
have signed a petition against this project's site, and hundreds have sent emails or posted public
comments in opposition. The persons who have voiced their "support" based on a templated letter
some still including the language "insert your name here") fed to them do not appear to even be Chula
Vista residents but rather people recruited by the corporations behind the project.
On behalf of my community and neighbors, I implore you not to cede to the interests of an out-of-state
corporation with a highly questionable track record, which indeed has prompted a letter from Senator
Ben Hueso expressing his concerns on our behalf. Please listen to your constituents and represent their
best interests by voting "no" on the project.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:hpangan@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:jmccann@chula
vistaca.govmailto:jmgalvez@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:spadilla@chula
vistaca.govmailto:acardenas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 357 of 1221
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Hazel M. B. Pangan, Esq.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 358 of 1221
On Jan 25, 2022, at 12:51 PM, Joycelyn Thomas <joycelyn3646@icloud.com> wrote:
Not only do I oppose the proposed psychiatric hospital site, I am wondering WHY, with all the
research my Rolling Hills Ranch neighbors have done… AND PRESENTED TO YOU, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION and the rest of the council regarding what a HORRIBLE partner Acadia is and the danger this poses to
my community…is this still in the works?
Do you think if you keep stalling, instead of denying this approval, you will wear us out?
I am 72 years old. I have poor eyesight and can not drive at night.
I can not attend tonight’s meeting because of this…BUT I STILL OPPOSE THE HILL BEHIND MY HOUSE as a potential
site for this facility.
Joycelyn Thomas
Sent from my iPad
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:joycelyn3646@i
cloud.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 359 of 1221
From: Miss M <aquaeyez@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:18 PM
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Re: ecomments
Requests were made to postpone the Behavioral Health agenda item. The City refused amid
a covid surge. Now the only way to comment for those that cannot attend are through
Ecomments which are not working. Our rights are being violated every which way.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:aquaeyez@ho
tmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 360 of 1221
From: Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:31 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>; Teri Peters <iamhipechik@gmail.com>
Subject: Mental Health Hospital
Dear Council and Mayor:
We've fought this as a community for almost three years now. Over 5,000 signatures opposed on a
petition. Myriad reasons why these are not good partners and this is not a good location for this
facility.. Letters written. Meetings attended, yet here we are. And I cannot be there tonight due to
COVID, nor can my husband.
I just had to send one more email to tell you I am opposed to this facility being built 90 feet from my
house. I find it unconscionable that you would do this to this quaint neighborhood when all the experts
say this should be near infrastructure, a full service hospital, and it should be further away than a few
feet from homes, schools, parks and churches.
Further, I do wonder about all of the work done to approve this pre covid that do not apply now given
the significant essential workers shortage. The nursing and other healthcare worker shortage. The
difficulty hiring police officers. All of the uncertainties in this new normal render all of the pre COVID
research invalid and even then, we were not satisfied with police staffing, response times, etc.
To even attempt to sell our homes right now with the largest psych hospital in San Diego County pretty
literally in our backyard would be foolish, so we're at your mercy. Please don't approve this in this
location
Theresa Petros
873 Esperanza Place
CV CA 91914
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:iamhipechik@
gmail.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 361 of 1221
From: Nancy Bettger <nancybettger@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 4:01 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Hospital at Eastlake
Warning: External Email
Please reconsider putting the mental hospital at Eastlake !
The location is detrimental to the safety of our children It would be located on the hill right above
where the school bus picks and lets off children The value of our properties is going to go downhill
This cannot be put through Please think if it was your neighborhood!!!!!
The hospital would be a stones throw from our houses!!!!!!
Be human and consider the
Consequences !!!!!!!!!!!!
Nancy Bettger. 750 Creekside Place. Chula Vista Ca. 91914
619 548 1181
Sent from my iPhone
mailto:nancybettger@y
ahoo.com
mailto:CityClerk@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 362 of 1221
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
January 25, 2022
Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Email: cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov
Steve Power
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Email: TPhilips@chulavistaca.gov
RE: Agenda Item 7.2: Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Dear Mayor Salas and Honorable Council Members,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on Agenda Item
No. 7.2 for the City’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Environmental Impact Report
(EIR20-0001)(“EIR”) (SCH No. 2021030087) for the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital which would include construction of a new single-story behavioral health
acute psychiatric hospital with 120 beds in a 97,050 square-foot structure (“Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 363 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 2 of 19
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
to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by
other parties).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency 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 Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. 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:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 364 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 3 of 19
[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.
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
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
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 365 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 4 of 19
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 366 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 5 of 19
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.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE SWRCC NOTICE OF THE
NOVEMBER 10, 2021 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SWRCC maintains that the EIR for the Project remains deficient for all the reasons
outlined below. The City Council should also not approve a resolution denying
Appellant’s appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the
Applicant’s requested entitlements and the EIR for this Project because the City has
not addressed significant deficiencies in the Project’s EIR.
SWRCC was not afforded an opportunity to comment on the City Planning
Commission’s approval of the Project despite repeated requests for notice of any and all
public hearings relating to the Project. SWRCC requested notice of any future hearings
on March 19, 2021 (PRA Request), April 1, 2021 (Comments on Notice of Preparation
of a DEIR) and June 25, 2021 (Comments on DEIR). Despite these repeated requests
for notice—none was given. The City should grant the appeal and remand this item
back to the City Planning Commission to be properly noticed and heard.
II. THE CITY FAILED TO RESPONSE TO SWRCC’S TIMELY
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
After review of the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission Agenda and the Final
Environmental Impact Report, it does not appear that the City responded to SWRCC’s
Comments on the DEIR attached hereto as Exhibit D. A lead agency must
consider comments on the draft EIR received during the public review period and
prepare a written response for inclusion in the final EIR. PRC §21091(d); CEQA
Guidelines §§15088(a), 15132. The response must also be detailed and must provide a
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 367 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 6 of 19
reasoned, good faith analysis. CEQA Guidelines §15088(c). The City should now
provide an adequate and good faith response to SWRCC’s comments.
III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when
possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency
may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are
regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA.
(Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except
when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015)
62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 368 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 7 of 19
unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding
concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these
goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the
project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal. 4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 369 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 8 of 19
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
For all of the reasons described below, the EIR needs to be revised and recirculated
for additional public comment.
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 370 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 9 of 19
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED,
available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-
sites.aspx.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 371 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 10 of 19
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 372 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 11 of 19
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that
all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being
allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
SWRCC has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”)
training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and
control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others
during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.11
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect
patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.
ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary
infections in patients at hospital facilities.
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building
Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S
Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/
NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
11 For details concerning SWRCC’s ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 373 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 12 of 19
The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA
protocols.
D. The EIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence and
Omits Information
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance
and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or thresholds of
significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an
exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 3 Cal. App.
5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.
App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an
EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along
with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento
(2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a
statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks
to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply
presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance
with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had
assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to
assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).
CEQA requires that an environmental document identify and discuss the significant
effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a).) A Court
“[w]hen reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, . . . the EIR (1)
includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to
understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises
[citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a
project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (Sierra Club v. County of
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 374 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 13 of 19
Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 510 [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.]; see also PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 21003(b).)
The Court may determine whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently
discloses information required by CEQA de novo as “noncompliance with the
information disclosure provisions” of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner
required by law. (PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th
502, 515; CEQA Guidelines.)
i. The EIR’s Cumulative Impacts Analysis Fails to Account for Other
Projects.
The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative
impacts analysis requirement: the list-of-projects approach and the summary-of-
projections approach. Under either method, the EIR must summarize the expected
environmental effects of the project and related projects, provide a reasonable analysis
of cumulative impacts, and examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding the
project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines
§§15130(b)(1)(A)–(B), 15130(b)(4)–(5).
An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts when the project will make a "cumulatively
considerable" incremental contribution to a significant cumulative effect. CEQA
Guidelines §15130(a). A project's incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable
if it is significant when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, current,
and probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3). Under these provisions
of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may determine that the project will not have a
significant cumulative impact because its incremental contribution to a cumulative
effect is not cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a).
The EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis begins on page 6-2 and continues through page
6-8. The EIR progresses through each impact category but with only a brief discussion
that summarizes the Project’s impacts. There is no analysis of the Project’s cumulative
impacts that takes other nearby projects into account. The EIR merely summarizes its
other analyses of impacts it provided elsewhere in the EIR.
The EIR needs to be revised to include a cumulative impacts analysis that takes into
account other nearby projects, using either the summary projections or list method
approaches to analyze those impacts.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 375 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 14 of 19
ii. The EIR’s Biological Resources Analysis Does Not Contain Sufficient
Information and is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The EIR does not contain sufficient detail or analysis of potentially significant
biological resources impacts as required by CEQA. Although the Project site is not
located in a protected area under the applicable Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) for Chula Vista and was previously graded, this does mean the EIR
can then assume there would be no potentially significant biological resources impacts
without any site-specific analysis. The EIR does not contain any analysis whether
sensitive plant or animal species may exist on the Project site.
Although the Project site was previously graded, it is not developed and it still retains a
rugged character as evidenced by photographs of the Project site provided in Figure
5.2-1. The Project site was graded nearly twenty years ago. (DEIR, 3-1.) The
photographs depict a very large open space with shrubs, grasslands, and trees present.
It is likely that this habitat could support a number of bird species.
The EIR needs to include a site survey of habitat to assess whether there are biological
resources present and if any mitigation measures would be required to reduce
potentially significant impacts.
iii. The EIR’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials Analysis Does Not Contain
Sufficient Information and is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
First, the EIR discusses what should be labeled as a potentially significant impact
relating to operational hazardous materials transport, use, and storage. (DEIR, 5.7-7.)
The EIR states that the day-to-day operations could expose staff, patients, and visitors
to hazardous materials—which the EIR fails to identify—but that there would be no
significant impacts because “the behavioral health hospital is mandated to
appropriately manage, handle, use, transport, store, and dispose of all hazardous
materials and waste according to applicable [laws]…” (Id.) This is simply a conclusory
statement that relies on future compliance with regulations but fails to provide any
project-specific analysis of how compliance would mitigate potentially significant
impacts. Furthermore, any steps to become compliant to ensure a less than significant
impact should be incorporated into the EIR as a mitigation measure.
Second, the EIR further identifies potentially significant impacts related to
construction hazards and handling of hazardous materials. (DEIR, 5.7-8~9.) The EIR
states that construction would involve transport of hazardous materials but, again,
relies on compliance statements with applicable regulations to ensure a less than
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 376 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 15 of 19
significant impact. And again, any steps to become compliant to ensure a less than
significant impact should be incorporated into the EIR as a mitigation measure.
Third, the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts relating to Thresholds 2 and
3—hazards from risk of upset and accident conditions, and hazards located near a
school. The EIR provides no project-specific analysis of these impacts and simply,
once again, makes conclusory statements relating to compliance with applicable
regulations. (Id.) This is not a sufficient or adequate analysis under CEQA. For
instance, for Threshold 2 impacts, the EIR states that the risk of upset and accident
conditions would be “managed and contained” through preparation of plans required
by the City General Plan and “City chapter in the MJHMP.” There is no analysis of the
potential risks and the EIR merely tries to cover this by stating, if there are risks, they
will likely be mitigated by regulatory compliance. The EIR needs to analyze the
project-specific risks and explain how regulatory compliance would mitigate these
impacts.
The EIR also states that the Project would be located near three existing schools. The
Threshold 3 analysis relies again on conclusory compliance statements with applicable
regulations. (DEIR, 5.7-9.) There is no project-specific analysis or explanation how
regulatory compliance will mitigate any potentially significant impacts.
iv. The EIR’s Noise Analysis Relies Upon Vague Compliance Statements
with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code Regulations.
The EIR admits that construction noise would greatly exceed the City’s General Plan
Noise Element for exterior noise levels. (DEIR, 5.9-7; 5.9-17.) Sensitive residential
receptors exist at both the north and east side of the Project site as shown in Figure
5.9-2 of the DEIR. Although the City code allows construction during specified hours,
the Project would also need to comply with “City zoning regulations for
construction…” to mitigate construction noise impacts (DEIR, 5.9-9.) The EIR states
that compliance with these unspecified City zoning regulations for construction would
mitigate construction noise to less than significant. (Id.)
Not only does the EIR fail to specify what these zoning regulations are, the EIR
completely fails to specify how it would comply with them and subsequently how that
compliance would mitigate any impact. The EIR assumes a less than significant impact
based upon future compliance. This is not an adequate analysis and fails to provide
sufficient information required under CEQA.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 377 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 16 of 19
v. The EIR’s Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis is Not Based Upon
Substantial Evidence and Relies on Vague Regulatory Compliance
Statements.
The EIR states that the Project could potentially “generate pollutants and storm water
runoff” from fertilizers, hazardous waste, trash debris, oil and grease, and pesticides.
(DEIR, 5.8-10.) However, the EIR fails to justify its conclusion that impacts would be
less than significant without mitigation measures. The EIR identifies a potentially
significant impact which would only be less than significant if the Project complies
with the City’s General Plan policies relating to water quality. (Id.) The EIR does not
explain how compliance will minimize the impact.
The EIR also states that implementation of a site design, source control, and structural
pollutant control measures would “preclude any violations of applicable standards…”
(Id.) Again, there is no analysis included of the Project’s own plans and how regulatory
compliance will mitigate impacts.
The EIR needs to be revised to include a Project-specific analysis which includes
specific measures that will be taken and how they will ensure less than significant
impacts.
vi. The EIR’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Does Not Justify its Use
of a Significance Threshold.
The EIR concludes that the Project would have a less than significant impact with
respect to GHG emissions largely based upon its selection of a bright-line 3,000 MT
CO2e/year threshold. (DEIR, 5.6-17.) The EIR estimated that annual GHG project
emissions would be 2,986 MT CO2e/year and would not exceed this threshold.
(DEIR, 5.6-14.)
First, AQMD has advised that the EIR’s chosen threshold should apply to mixed-use
residential projects.12 The proposed Project is commercial in nature and should apply a
lower GHG threshold.
Second, the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (and 1,400 MT CO2e/year)
is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project. The SCAQMD developed this
threshold when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB
32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires
12 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold (Sept. 28, 2010). Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 378 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 17 of 19
California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.13 As such, the SCAQMD
bright-line threshold is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the
EIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.
Furthermore, in September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32, enacting
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 38566.12 This statute (“SB 32”) requires California to
achieve a new, more aggressive 40% reduction in GHG emissions over the 1990 level
by the end of 2030. As a result, the Project should comply with SB 32, which requires a
more aggressive GHG threshold. Thus, the Project should rely upon the SCAQMD
efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/year for the year 2035, which was calculated
based on a 40% reduction from the 2020 GHG efficient target.14
IV. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995)
9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future
development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. App. 3d
531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” (See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704.) A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal. App. 4th
13 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_
displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=38550.
14 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold (Sept. 28, 2010). Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 379 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 18 of 19
at 796 fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal. App. 3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies
and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.
App. 3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
B. The EIR is Required to Review the Project’s Consistency with
SANDAG’s Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional
Transportation Plans
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that an environmental impact report
“discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
plans, specific plans and regional plans. See also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of
San Diego (2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 467, 543.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 380 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
January 25, 2022
Page 19 of 19
The EIR should thoroughly evaluate the consistency of this Project with SANDAG’s
Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. There is no
discussion or analysis in the EIR of consistency with this Plan.15
The EIR needs to be revised and recirculated with a consistency analysis of all
applicable plans and policies found in the SANDAG 2050 RTP Plan.
V. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s environmental
impact report to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or
concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
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); and
E-mail from Leon Ramsey Jr, Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law to Steve Power, City
of Chula Vista (June 25, 2021) RE: Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital.
15 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, available at https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?
projectid=349&fuseaction=projects.detail.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 381 of 1221
EXHIBIT A
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 382 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 383 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 384 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 385 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 386 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 387 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 388 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 389 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 390 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 391 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 392 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 393 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 394 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 395 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 396 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 397 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 398 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 399 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 400 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 401 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 402 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 403 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 404 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 405 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 406 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 407 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 408 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 409 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 410 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 411 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 412 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 413 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 414 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 415 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 416 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 417 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 418 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 419 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 420 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 421 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 422 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 423 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 424 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 425 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 426 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 427 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 428 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 429 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 430 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 431 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 432 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 433 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 434 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 435 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 436 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 437 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 438 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 439 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 440 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 441 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 442 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 443 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 444 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 445 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 446 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 447 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 448 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 449 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 450 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 451 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 452 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 453 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 454 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 455 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 456 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 457 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 458 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 459 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 460 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 461 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 462 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 463 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 464 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 465 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 466 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 467 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 468 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 469 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 470 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 471 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 472 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 473 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 474 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 475 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 476 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 477 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 478 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 479 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 480 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 481 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 482 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 483 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 484 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 485 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 486 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 487 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 488 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 489 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 490 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 491 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 492 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 493 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 494 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 495 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 496 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 497 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 498 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 499 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 500 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 501 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 502 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 503 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 504 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 505 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 506 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 507 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 508 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 509 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 510 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 511 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 512 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 513 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 514 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 515 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 516 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 517 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 518 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 519 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 520 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 521 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 522 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 523 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 524 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 525 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 526 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 527 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 528 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 529 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 530 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 531 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 532 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 533 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 534 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 535 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 536 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 537 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 538 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 539 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 540 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 541 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 542 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 543 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 544 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 545 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 546 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 547 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 548 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 549 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 550 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 551 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 552 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 553 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 554 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 555 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 556 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 557 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 558 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 559 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 560 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 561 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 562 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 563 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 564 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 565 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 566 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 567 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 568 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 569 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 570 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 571 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 572 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 573 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 574 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 575 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 576 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 577 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 578 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 579 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 580 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 581 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 582 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 583 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 584 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 585 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 586 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 587 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 588 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 589 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 590 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 591 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 592 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 593 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 594 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 595 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 596 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 597 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 598 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 599 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 600 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 601 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 602 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 603 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 604 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 605 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 606 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 607 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 608 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 609 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 610 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 611 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 612 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 613 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 614 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 615 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 616 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 617 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 618 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 619 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 620 of 1221
EXHIBIT B
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 621 of 1221
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil:
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 622 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 623 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 624 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 625 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 626 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 627 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 628 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 629 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 630 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 631 of 1221
EXHIBIT C
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 632 of 1221
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);
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 633 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 634 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 635 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 636 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 637 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 638 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 639 of 1221
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 at 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 640 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 641 of 1221
EXHIBIT A
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 642 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 643 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 644 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 645 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 646 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 647 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 648 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 649 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 650 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 651 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 652 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 653 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 654 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 655 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 656 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 657 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 658 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 659 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 660 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 661 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 662 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 663 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 664 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 665 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 666 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 667 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 668 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 669 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 670 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 671 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 672 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 673 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 674 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 675 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 676 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 677 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 678 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 679 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 680 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 681 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 682 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 683 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 684 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 685 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 686 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 687 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 688 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 689 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 690 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 691 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 692 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 693 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 694 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 695 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 696 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 697 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 698 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 699 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 700 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 701 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 702 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 703 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 704 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 705 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 706 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 707 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 708 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 709 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 710 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 711 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 712 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 713 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 714 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 715 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 716 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 717 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 718 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 719 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 720 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 721 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 722 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 723 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 724 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 725 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 726 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 727 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 728 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 729 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 730 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 731 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 732 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 733 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 734 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 735 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 736 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 737 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 738 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 739 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 740 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 741 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 742 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 743 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 744 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 745 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 746 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 747 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 748 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 749 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 750 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 751 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 752 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 753 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 754 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 755 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 756 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 757 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 758 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 759 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 760 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 761 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 762 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 763 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 764 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 765 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 766 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 767 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 768 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 769 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 770 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 771 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 772 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 773 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 774 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 775 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 776 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 777 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 778 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 779 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 780 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 781 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 782 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 783 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 784 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 785 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 786 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 787 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 788 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 789 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 790 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 791 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 792 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 793 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 794 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 795 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 796 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 797 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 798 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 799 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 800 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 801 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 802 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 803 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 804 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 805 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 806 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 807 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 808 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 809 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 810 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 811 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 812 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 813 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 814 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 815 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 816 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 817 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 818 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 819 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 820 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 821 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 822 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 823 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 824 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 825 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 826 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 827 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 828 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 829 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 830 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 831 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 832 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 833 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 834 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 835 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 836 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 837 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 838 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 839 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 840 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 841 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 842 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 843 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 844 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 845 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 846 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 847 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 848 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 849 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 850 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 851 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 852 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 853 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 854 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 855 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 856 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 857 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 858 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 859 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 860 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 861 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 862 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 863 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 864 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 865 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 866 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 867 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 868 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 869 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 870 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 871 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 872 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 873 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 874 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 875 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 876 of 1221
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 877 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 878 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 879 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 880 of 1221
EXHIBIT B
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 881 of 1221
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil:
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 882 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 883 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 884 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 885 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 886 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 887 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 888 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 889 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 890 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 891 of 1221
EXHIBIT C
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 892 of 1221
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);
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 893 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 894 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 895 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 896 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 897 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 898 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 899 of 1221
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 at 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 900 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 901 of 1221
EXHIBIT D
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 902 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 903 of 1221
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
June 25, 2021
Steve Power
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Email: SPower@chulavista.gov
RE: Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Dear Mr. Power,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City’s
(“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) (SCH
No. 2021030087) for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital which would include
construction of a new single-story behavioral health acute psychiatric hospital with 120
beds in a 97,050 square-foot structure (“Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states 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.
Commenters 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.
Commenters 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 904 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 2 of 18
to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by
other parties).
Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency 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 Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. 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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 905 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 3 of 18
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . 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
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
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 906 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 4 of 18
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
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 907 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 5 of 18
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.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when
possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are
regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA.
(Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except
when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015)
62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 908 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 6 of 18
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency
may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any
unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding
concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these
goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the
project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal. 4th 412, 449–450).
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 909 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 7 of 18
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
For all of the reasons described below, the DEIR needs to be revised and recirculated
for additional public comment.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 910 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 8 of 18
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED,
available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-
sites.aspx.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 911 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 9 of 18
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 912 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 10 of 18
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that
all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being
allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
SWRCC has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”)
training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and
control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others
during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.11
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April
27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at
https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic,
available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
11 For details concerning SWRCC’s ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 913 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 11 of 18
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect
patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.
ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary
infections in patients at hospital facilities.
The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA
protocols.
D. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence and
Omits Information
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance
and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or thresholds of
significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an
exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 3 Cal. App.
5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.
App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an
EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along
with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento
(2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a
statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks
to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply
presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance
with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had
assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to
assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).
CEQA requires that an environmental document identify and discuss the significant
effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a).) A Court
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 914 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 12 of 18
“[w]hen reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, . . . the EIR (1)
includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to
understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises
[citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a
project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (Sierra Club v. County of
Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 510 [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.]; see also PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 21003(b).)
The Court may determine whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently
discloses information required by CEQA de novo as “noncompliance with the
information disclosure provisions” of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner
required by law. (PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th
502, 515; CEQA Guidelines.)
i. The DEIR’s Cumulative Impacts Analysis Fails to Account for Other
Projects.
The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative
impacts analysis requirement: the list-of-projects approach and the summary-of-
projections approach. Under either method, the EIR must summarize the expected
environmental effects of the project and related projects, provide a reasonable analysis
of cumulative impacts, and examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding the
project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines
§§15130(b)(1)(A)–(B), 15130(b)(4)–(5).
An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts when the project will make a "cumulatively
considerable" incremental contribution to a significant cumulative effect. CEQA
Guidelines §15130(a). A project's incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable
if it is significant when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, current,
and probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3). Under these provisions
of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may determine that the project will not have a
significant cumulative impact because its incremental contribution to a cumulative
effect is not cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a).
The DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis begins on page 6-2 and continues through
page 6-8. The DEIR progresses through each impact category but with only a brief
discussion that summarizes the Project’s impacts. There is no analysis of the Project’s
cumulative impacts that takes other nearby projects into account. The DEIR merely
summarizes its other analyses of impacts it provided elsewhere in the DEIR.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 915 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 13 of 18
The DEIR needs to be revised to include a cumulative impacts analysis that takes into
account other nearby projects, using either the summary projections or list method
approaches to analyze those impacts.
ii. The DEIR’s Biological Resources Analysis Does Not Contain Sufficient
Information and is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The DEIR does not contain sufficient detail or analysis of potentially significant
biological resources impacts as required by CEQA. Although the Project site is not
located in a protected area under the applicable Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) for Chula Vista and was previously graded, this does mean the EIR
can then assume there would be no potentially significant biological resources impacts
without any site-specific analysis. The DEIR does not contain any analysis whether
sensitive plant or animal species may exist on the Project site.
Although the Project site was previously graded, it is not developed and it still retains a
rugged character as evidenced by photographs of the Project site provided in Figure
5.2-1. The Project site was graded nearly twenty years ago. (DEIR, 3-1.) The
photographs depict a very large open space with shrubs, grasslands, and trees present.
It is likely that this habitat could support a number of bird species.
The DEIR needs to include a site survey of habitat to assess whether there are
biological resources present and if any mitigation measures would be required to
reduce potentially significant impacts.
iii. The DEIR’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials Analysis Does Not
Contain Sufficient Information and is Not Supported by Substantial
Evidence.
First, the DEIR discusses what should be labeled as a potentially significant impact
relating to operational hazardous materials transport, use, and storage. (DEIR, 5.7-7.)
The DEIR states that the day-to-day operations could expose staff, patients, and
visitors to hazardous materials—which the DEIR fails to identify—but that there
would be no significant impacts because “the behavioral health hospital is mandated to
appropriately manage, handle, use, transport, store, and dispose of all hazardous
materials and waste according to applicable [laws]…” (Id.) This is simply a conclusory
statement that relies on future compliance with regulations but fails to provide any
project-specific analysis of how compliance would mitigate potentially significant
impacts. Furthermore, any steps to become compliant to ensure a less than significant
impact should be incorporated into the DEIR as a mitigation measure.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 916 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 14 of 18
Second, the DEIR further identifies potentially significant impacts related to
construction hazards and handling of hazardous materials. (DEIR, 5.7-8~9.) The
DEIR states that construction would involve transport of hazardous materials but,
again, relies on compliance statements with applicable regulations to ensure a less than
significant impact. And again, any steps to become compliant to ensure a less than
significant impact should be incorporated into the DEIR as a mitigation measure.
Third, the DEIR identifies potentially significant impacts relating to Thresholds 2 and
3—hazards from risk of upset and accident conditions, and hazards located near a
school. The DEIR provides no project-specific analysis of these impacts and simply,
once again, makes conclusory statements relating to compliance with applicable
regulations. (Id.) This is not a sufficient or adequate analysis under CEQA. For
instance, for Threshold 2 impacts, the DEIR states that the risk of upset and accident
conditions would be “managed and contained” through preparation of plans required
by the City General Plan and “City chapter in the MJHMP.” There is no analysis of the
potential risks and the DEIR merely tries to cover this by stating, if there are risks, they
will likely be mitigated by regulatory compliance. The DEIR needs to analyze the
project-specific risks and explain how regulatory compliance would mitigate these
impacts.
The DEIR also states that the Project would be located near three existing schools.
The Threshold 3 analysis relies again on conclusory compliance statements with
applicable regulations. (DEIR, 5.7-9.) There is no project-specific analysis or
explanation how regulatory compliance will mitigate any potentially significant impacts.
iv. The DEIR’s Noise Analysis Relies Upon Vague Compliance Statements
with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code Regulations.
The DEIR admits that construction noise would greatly exceed the City’s General Plan
Noise Element for exterior noise levels. (DEIR, 5.9-7; 5.9-17.) Sensitive residential
receptors exist at both the north and east side of the Project site as shown in Figure
5.9-2 of the DEIR. Although the City code allows construction during specified hours,
the Project would also need to comply with “City zoning regulations for
construction…” to mitigate construction noise impacts (DEIR, 5.9-9.) The DEIR
states that compliance with these unspecified City zoning regulations for construction
would mitigate construction noise to less than significant. (Id.)
Not only does the DEIR fail to specify what these zoning regulations are, the DEIR
completely fails to specify how it would comply with them and subsequently how that
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 917 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 15 of 18
compliance would mitigate any impact. The DEIR assumes a less than significant
impact based upon future compliance. This is not an adequate analysis and fails to
provide sufficient information required under CEQA.
v. The DEIR’s Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis is Not Based Upon
Substantial Evidence and Relies on Vague Regulatory Compliance
Statements.
The DEIR states that the Project could potentially “generate pollutants and storm
water runoff” from fertilizers, hazardous waste, trash debris, oil and grease, and
pesticides. (DEIR, 5.8-10.) However, the DEIR fails to justify its conclusion that
impacts would be less than significant without mitigation measures. The DEIR
identifies a potentially significant impact which would only be less than significant if
the Project complies with the City’s General Plan policies relating to water quality. (Id.)
The DEIR does not explain how compliance will minimize the impact.
The DEIR also states that implementation of a site design, source control, and
structural pollutant control measures would “preclude any violations of applicable
standards…” (Id.) Again, there is no analysis included of the Project’s own plans and
how regulatory compliance will mitigate impacts.
The DEIR needs to be revised to include a Project-specific analysis which includes
specific measures that will be taken and how they will ensure less than significant
impacts.
vi. The DEIR’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Does Not Justify its Use
of a Significance Threshold.
The DEIR concludes that the Project would have a less than significant impact with
respect to GHG emissions largely based upon its selection of a bright-line 3,000 MT
CO2e/year threshold. (DEIR, 5.6-17.) The DEIR estimated that annual GHG project
emissions would be 2,986 MT CO2e/year and would not exceed this threshold.
(DEIR, 5.6-14.)
First, AQMD has advised that the DEIR’s chosen threshold should apply to mixed-
use residential projects.12 The proposed Project is commercial in nature and should
apply a lower GHG threshold.
12 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold (Sept. 28, 2010). Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 918 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 16 of 18
Second, the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (and 1,400 MT CO2e/year)
is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project. The SCAQMD developed this
threshold when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB
32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires
California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.13 As such, the SCAQMD
bright-line threshold is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the
DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.
Furthermore, in September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32, enacting
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 38566.12 This statute (“SB 32”) requires California to
achieve a new, more aggressive 40% reduction in GHG emissions over the 1990 level
by the end of 2030. As a result, the Project should comply with SB 32, which requires a
more aggressive GHG threshold. Thus, the Project should rely upon the SCAQMD
efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/year for the year 2035, which was calculated
based on a 40% reduction from the 2020 GHG efficient target.14
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995)
9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future
development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. App. 3d
531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
13 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=38550.
14 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold (Sept. 28, 2010). Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 919 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 17 of 18
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” (See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704.) A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal. App. 4th
at 796 fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal. App. 3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies
and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.
App. 3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
B. The DEIR is Required to Review the Project’s Consistency with
SANDAG’s Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional
Transportation Plans
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that an environmental impact report
“discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
plans, specific plans and regional plans. See also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of
San Diego (2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 467, 543.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 920 of 1221
City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
June 25, 2021
Page 18 of 18
The DEIR should thoroughly evaluate the consistency of this Project with
SANDAG’s Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. There
is no discussion or analysis in the DEIR of consistency with this Plan.15
The DEIR needs to be revised and recirculated with a consistency analysis of all
applicable plans and policies found in the SANDAG 2050 RTP Plan.
III. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s environmental
impact report to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or
concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
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).
15 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, available at
https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=349&fuseaction=projects.detail.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 921 of 1221
EXHIBIT A
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 922 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 923 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 924 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 925 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 926 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 927 of 1221
EXHIBIT B
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 928 of 1221
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil:
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 929 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 930 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 931 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 932 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 933 of 1221
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.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 934 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 935 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 936 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 937 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 938 of 1221
EXHIBIT C
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 939 of 1221
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);
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 940 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 941 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 942 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 943 of 1221
• 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 944 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 945 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 946 of 1221
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 at 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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 947 of 1221
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
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 948 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 1 of 40
Name Position Comment
Cindy Oppose As a resident of Eastlake since 2014, my family and I have
enjoyed this friendly and safe community and it will be
unfortunate and a disappointment that a psychiatric
hospital be built so close to the proximity of elementary,
middle, and high schools, assisted living facilities, hotels,
children activity sites. The safety of our children and the
residents did not choose Eastlake as their home to possibly
learn that their safety may be in danger. I urge our council
members and planners to find a place in their heart to put
safety first and relocate this hospital. Thank you.
Catherine Zordell Oppose I am opposed to this site for this facility. I support the need
for improved mental health facilities and programs for all of
California and Chula Vista. But I have several concerns
regarding this site.
--There is only one way in and out of this site. It is located
at the end of a cul-de-sac. This violates the City code for
egress. A major safety issue.
--The infrastructure in this area does not support a facility
of this type. The facility will have patients deemed a
potential danger to themselves and others. There are no
emergency room services near by. There is no MTS
available near by for patients upon release. There is
insufficient police services for the added requirements of
this type of facility.
--The 80% owner, Acadia, has a horrible track record. Their
business model includes an insufficient staffing plan for
their facilities.
--Acadia and Scripps have a high higher than standard
record of escapes from their facilities. This effects the
safety and quality of life for the residents, schools,
businesses in the area.
From the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management
Program Implementation Manual: "Preservation of quality
of life lies at the heart of the citys Growth Management
Program" The objective of the GMOC is to assure quality of
life for residents of Chula Vista. This has not been done and
is urgently needed in the case of this project. The city has
failed to carry out due process In evaluating this project.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 949 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 2 of 40
Marylupe Flores Oppose I vehemently oppose Scripps building a psychiatric hospital
in Eastlake, for the safety of our children. I am an advocate
for behavioral health and in fact Ive been a Licensed Clinical
Social Worker for over 20 years. I strongly support the
expansion of comprehensive mental health services in
downtown Chula Vista, near Scripps Hospital, CV Police
Department, integrated mental health substance abuse
disorder outpatient services to provide the high acuity
severe and persistently mental ill population the care and
support they need to successfully reintegrate in to the
community.
Joycelyn Thomas Oppose As a senior citizen and retired PERT officer who lives down
the sidewalk from this site, the city nor the planning
commission has not done its due diligence to address MY
SAFETY. Also, with the amount of child/family friendly
businesses in this area, not to mention SCHOOLS, this psych
facility has no business being built at this location!
Kevin Jankowski Oppose Im a resident of Rolling Hills Ranch. I am also a law
enforcement officer in the County of San Diego. My wife is
a teacher.
Together, we know first hand how psychiatric facilities can
impact surrounding areas. To place a psychiatric facility in
this location would not only cause an increase in police
service, but would DRAMATICALLY decrease the quality of
life for the good people who live and work in this area. To
believe anything to the contrary would violate the
principles of common sense.
If such a facility were to be established, I would not only
vote against any representative(s) who approved of this
facility in the future, but I would also consider relocating my
family.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 950 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 3 of 40
John Teevan Oppose There are multiple reasons to oppose this project,
including:1. Public safety infrastructure: there is only 1
point of ingress/egress (street) in/out of this dead-end
location in violation of CV municipal code requirements and
inconsistent with recommended best practices of 2+
entrances. Also, the closest hospital is 6+ miles away if
there is a medical emergency and such facilities are usually
located on or near an established medical campus for
patient safety. Statistics show similar facilities generate
numerous services calls for missing persons (elopements)
as well as violence-related offenses, with no physical police
presence (i.e. substation) in eastern CV, and suboptimal
response times.2. Release concerns: patients admitted
involuntarily can refuse further treatment, leave without a
treatment plan in place or can demand a premature
discharge. Profit driven operators, such as Acadia, have
been known to release patients when their insurance runs
out. With the proposed suburban location, where will
patients go and what environmental or other damage will
be caused to the area during that time?3. Noise/light
pollution: a facility such as this, with its inherent noise and
light pollution from incoming/outgoing emergency
response vehicles, compound lighting, alarms and other
activities, in the proposed location adjacent to residential
and business properties, has the potential to disrupt
residential neighborhoods and schools and drive business
away from nearby businesses.
John Teevan Oppose In addition to my 3 prior reasons to oppose this project,
there are the following additional factors:
4. Public infrastructure decline: homeowners and the
general community were never informed of, or anticipated,
living near an inpatient mental health/drug treatment
facility which will tax current resources, infrastructure and
environment. The proposed facility is also directly adjacent
to, and in some cases sharing a fence-line with, residential
properties.
5. Unsafe operator: Acadia will be 80% majority owner. In
2019 Acadia, 11 days before they filed an application with
the City to build the proposed facility, agreed to a $17m
healthcare fraud settlement resulting from a scheme to
defraud Medicaid. They have also been named in lawsuits
claiming sexual abuse of patients, failure to adhere to
professional standards of care, and dismissing employees
for reporting criminal/illegal or otherwise unsafe operations
or activities.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 951 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 4 of 40
Theresa Petros Oppose I've lost count how many times I have written to oppose
this facility in this location. It's too close to homes,
churches, schools, parks, daycare, elder care etc. It is a
mere 90 feet from my home that we saved our entire lives
to buy. It will be on a hill overlooking my backyard. It will
forever change the landscape, safety and ambience of our
suburb. It will negatively affect the lives of all of our
residents. We're a happy, diverse community and I'm still
appalled that this is the place the city chose to build a
facility for extremely mentally ill and drug addicted people.
The partner company is terrible with severe and ongoing
documented problems. We have policing issues, further
complicated by COVID. The infrastructure is not here to
support this facility. Our research, and our previous
entreaties have documented how the professionals say that
free standing psych hospitals should be near full service
acute care hospitals. And that has obviously not resonated.
So if it is not important to the city that this facility be near
an acute care hospital, why can it not be built on vacant
land, anywhere else in the south bay?. And my
understanding is that there is a ton of land that could be
used down here. Or elsewhere. Which leaves my final point.
This is a diverse suburb, likely predominately Hispanic. And
it does not escape me that this is the place that was chosen
to build this necessary but completely misplaced mental
facility. Please reconsider. Best, Theresa Petros
Lena pradel Oppose I am seriously concerned about the plan to build a
behavioral health hospital in the neighborhood of Eastlake
and strongly oppose it. The operator Acadia health has a
long track record of poor patient care as well as the horrible
location. Generally, psych hospitals such as this are much
closer to an established hospital in case there are medical
issues that need to be addressed. The area it would be
situated in is far away from transit, on a dead end street,
near a variety of children's activities and schools. Since
apparently, the city does not deem it necessary to have it
near a hospital, surely there is a vacant lot without these
issues. When we purchased our home we did so with an
understanding of what the neighborhood was like and what
we could expect. This would fundamentally change where
we live. There is no police substation nearby to deal with
potential issues that may arise. This plan was poorly
thought out and should not continue. Mental health is
needed but this is not the location or the operator.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 952 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 5 of 40
Greg Oppose I strongly oppose to the building of this hospital to our
friendly community. It should be relocated in a rural area
completely out of residential, school and business
vicinities. The decision to locate this facility here in Chula
Vista should not be based on future revenue but based on
the tax payers input. Please do not endanger our school
children, resident, and businesses. Thank you for your kind
consideration.
Dan Oppose There is a preschool 400 ft away from this proposed
location and there are many other schools within walking
distance. Given the track record of the applicant, there are
serious safety concerns for children and families with this
facility in this location. Additionally, the quality of life for
those living in the area will be degraded through increased
traffic and 911 calls.
Ian Burgar Oppose As a resident who shares a boundary with this project I
have been very involved in the City process and done
significant research into the citys governing documents.
What I have found is disheartening. There is no plan or
planning going on for this site. It requires a CUP to make it
fit, there are no rules or regulations to oversee the
operation of a 24/7 high security facility / hospital
anywhere in the city rules and regulations. Well there is
one 19.58.100.A which the airy plans to violate. A hospitals
shall be located on thoroughfare or collector street.
Showroom place is neither. Im closing its clear the city has
no plan and no rules to manage this project. Hoping for the
best is not city planning.
Dave Oppose We need more policing instead of a behavioral hospital.
Considering the lackluster reputation of Acadias reputation,
we are putting our school children who walk back and forth
from school, the residents, and businesses at risk. A city
without safety will ultimately result in chaos and people
moving away.
Diane Oppose Safety for our children, residents, and businesses should be
the top priority.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 953 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 6 of 40
Bibi Luko Oppose The hospital is in a cul-de-sac and not on an Egress as stated
that it needs to be per city code. This alone should
disqualify it from CUP. The city has not provided the
financial disclosure that is part of the CUP. Acadia's
proposal requires significant security in an attempt to limit
potential dangerous situations with patients and residents.
The key word here is LIMIT. It does not mean these
measures will STOP all dangerous incidents from impacting
patients, residents and students nearby. The security
elements are: security doors in the lockdown ward that will
house individuals that are a danger to themselves or others,
various layers of security fencing, and a 24/7 guard. Is
building a facility requiring these measures 400ft from a
preschool and children's activities in the best interest for
all? In Rocklin, CA, a very similar proposal of a psych
hospital that would have been built next to a school got
denied based on an investigation concluding that schools
would be unable to lockdown in a timely manner should
patient from the hospital leave without permission, as well
as Jessica's Law (designed to protect potential victims and
reduce a sexual offender's ability to re-offend). (Article
here: https://bit.ly/3gTcIiZ) They made the correct decision
for all by STOPPING all potential incidents by declining the
CUP. Currently, within the CC&R's for the buildings
residential use is not allowed either. Patients could stay as
long as 6months.
Bibi Luko Oppose What fuels my concern is the facility operator (Acadia
Healthcare) who has had a long history, that has been well-
documented in the press, of failing it's patients and
communities even when having partnered with reputable
area hospitals. What makes Eastlake so special that Acadia's
history of alleged and reported abuse, sexual abuse,
negligence, patient death, elopement and fraud won't
repeat itself here? (https://bit.ly/3d44FgE) In my mind this
is not a question about whether or not this facility should
be built or if mental health care is necessary because it is.
Although I would never entrust a family member to this
company, changing operators is not on the table, so It's a
question of finding a location that meets safety criteria for
all. Eastlake and South Bay have plenty of available land.
Also, please consider that this is a for profit facility and the
operator proposing it, the landowner endorsing it and the
city will all profit from it. Take the shiny brochures with a
grain of salt and find out for yourself what this company is
capable of. Here are my findings: tinyurl.com/acadianews
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 954 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 7 of 40
Eva Oppose My family and I strongly oppose this project . I hope the city
of Chula Vista will for once so the right thing and put people
over money
Erin Burgar Oppose Acute psychiatric facilities such as the one proposed for this
site require calls for service. Between 2014-2018 County
Mental Health, which has half the beds as this proposed
hospital, had 1,478 calls for service for everything from
elder abuse, suspected sexual assault and child abuse, to
vandalism, theft and trespassing. Our police department is
already grossly understaffed and unable to respond to the
existing needs of our city. This facility could require multiple
calls for service per day, which further strains our police
department, therefore threatening public safety across the
entire city. There seems to be no plan to add a police
substation in the area to support the increased needs of
this facility and no one from the city has addressed how
certain situations involving police response could affect
potential lockdown and shelter-in-place measures at
numerous nearby schools, businesses, and residences. In
addition, this hospital will cause excessive noise (alarms,
police/emergency sirens) and light pollution (security
lighting for a 24/7 facility) in a residential neighborhood. It
will cause additional traffic and air pollution as it is not co-
located with an existing hospital or support facilities (as is
typical and desirable for psychiatric hospitals) and it is
located far from a major freeway and not easily accessible
by public transportation. Please listen to Chula Vista
RESIDENTS, not developers and for-profit companies, and
oppose this project.
Jason Carpenter Oppose Please DONT allow this project to move forward in this
community! This is in a residential area with 2 grade
schools and 1 middle school in very close proximity.
We moved to this area to provide a safe environment for
our children and this facility will destroy that dream of ours.
Im not questioning the need for mental health services but I
cannot support this project in this area.
The email and Instagram feeds say Chula Vista residents
back this project but that is a lie. Ask anyone who resides in
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 955 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 8 of 40
the surrounding area and youll get a resounding NO.
Please dont endanger our children, our community, our
need for safety and security. Please listen to the residents
and not focus on the tax dollars generated by approving
this project. Imagine if you were raising small children next
to this proposed facility. You would feel the same as we do.
No, no, no.
Curtis Wevodau Oppose As a resident of this community and a healthcare worker i
understand the need for psychiatric services, but placing
such a facility in the midst of a suburban community is not
the place for it.
Kevin Thompson Oppose This is not the proper use for this location. It hurts the
residents of the neighborhood having this facility in this
location. It is unsafe to have this element around children
and families. It will bring down property values for the
homeowners in this neighborhood and effect quality of life
for the residents.
Ginny Meyerhuber Oppose This is not the place for this hospital which will be close to
homes, neighborhoods, numerous schools and daycares.
Nora La Salle Oppose We do not want a psychiatric hospital in a residential
neighborhood, it would make better sense to locate it near
s medical complex to serve the patients needs.Do not
disturb our peaceful, family oriented neighborhood.
Kevin Smith Oppose This is the wrong area to put this kind of a facility and will
detract from, not enhance, the businesses and community
in that area. With no police substation on the east side of
Chula Vista, the resources don't exist to support this facility
or mitigate issues that will likely arise from it.
Marvin Dael Oppose I strongly oppose the building of this project due to my
main concern for the safety of the children, residence and
businesses around this area. Not a proper establishment to
be built next to a quiet neighborhood where children
reside.
Chad Schneider Oppose Stop putting profits over the will of the people. Wrong
place near kids and neighborhoods. We are already having
an increased homeless problem in Eastlake. This only
exasperates the problem. Allowing this facility over public
dissent is a short path to either recall or loss of election.
Follow your constituents and deny this facility.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 956 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 9 of 40
Karen Swafford Oppose This is a safety issue for everyone, especially our children.
Miriam Ramirez Oppose This is no place to put a psychiatric hospital. This area is full
of of kids playing and hanging around. Eastlake is a family
community where kids can walk or bike around the area
safely.
Sarah Rathe Oppose I strongly oppose this location for an inpatient psychiatric
facility. Too close to neighborhoods schools and many
family businesses. Not nearly close enough to emergency
resources and services if needed. Surely we can find a
better location for this facility.
Ted Support Mental health and emotional health issues can severely
affect relationships, jobs, family and life goals. Psychological
disorders can be just as debilitating as physical disease.
Behavioral health hospitals and their specialists can help.
Fortunately, medicine and medical science have made
significant advances in understanding and treating
behavioral health problems. A Scripps Hospital offering
inpatient behavioral health care would benefit the entire
community.
Alyson Lauro Oppose This is a money grab. The leaders don't care about our
community. This hospital does not belong in a residential
neighborhood. The company itself has a bad reputation.
Carrie Boyko Oppose A residential neighborhood is not the right place to place a
psychiatric hospital! A more logical location would be near
an already established medical/hospital community.
Placing a psychiatric hospital in the middle of a residential
community would create safety concerns, more emergency
vehicle traffic & noise, more traffic in general, and ruin the
tranquility of our neighborhood. The residents did not sign
up for this hospital when we moved/bought here!
Lyndsay Neer Oppose Residents community is not the place for this facility.
Maritza Borunda Oppose An acute psychiatric hospital provides care for mentally ill
individuals who are in imminent danger to self or others. By
law, they cannot be held against their will. Without a police
substation in Eastlake, what would happen if a very ill
patient declines care and walks out into our community?
Richard A Roy Support I'm all for this New Psychiatric Hospital... this not in my
backyard mentality that plagues society is so over used.
Rice Elementary and a Church with daycare is right behind
Bayview Psychiatric Hospital between 3rd and 4th on Moss
Street. Shame on you for using children as shields. I urge
The City to grant the permits with oversight.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 957 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 10 of 40
Brandon McClintock Oppose Our family owns a home within feet of this proposed
facility. We have major concerns about this project:We
oppose the location of the project. My wife and I are both
educators and understand the importance and value of
health related services in schools and communities but we
question if this is the best place for them. No matter what
anyone says a facility like this is not 100% safe and when an
emergency does occur should the children living in the
surrounding homes and attending the nearby schools suffer
stress and trauma of someone who has escaped? Its not a
matter of if but when. Placing a facility so close to schools
and homes increases the likelihood of events such as
lockdowns, secure campuses, trespassing, home invasions,
and crime overall. Students, parents, and teachers shouldnt
have to live in fear and have their quality of life suffer. The
location in eastern Chula Vista is underrepresented and
underserved by Chula Vista Police Department compared
with other areas of the city. When an incident does occur
how long until there is a police presence in the area? There
are also no medical hospitals within miles when a major
incident occurs. Many of these mental care facilities are
placed on or near major health care facilities that can aid
and assist in the variety of needs of the housed patients.
There is also lack of major public transportation in accessing
the facility. There are better options out there for the
location of this facility.
William Stellin Oppose I vehemently oppose the location of this facility, as well as
the provider of this facility (Acadia).
The facility is not attached to any adjoining medical
facilities to facilitate proper, ongoing care, has no nearby
public transportation, and is in the middle of a neighbor
and child/family centered business center. This proposal
has received significant opposition from the local
community and does not meet any ongoing mental health
treatment plans in regards to local aftercare.
The due diligence regarding Acadia has been presented in
detail and in abundance, and it is the duty of this council
and residents of East Chula Vista to prohibit such a
negligent and dangerous company into our neighborhood.
Their tract record, lawsuits, and laundry list of federal,
state, and patient violations should be enough to prohibit
the building of this facility.
I am a huge proponent for mental health care, as my own
mother continues to receive frequent treatment in a
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 958 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 11 of 40
mental health institution, but I would NEVER in my life
allow her to walk foot into an Acadia run facility.
The location and provider are both poor choices, and our
most fragile family members deserve better.
Maritza Bennett Oppose I do not agree with the construction of a psychiatric
hospital in this area, there are houses, shopping centers,
schools, the streets are not prepared for emergency cars
such as ambulances, since it is a residential area with
children, families walking home. I do not want people who
are not well of their mental faculties near our homes or our
children, because it is not safe.
Mariah Chavez Oppose Please take into account the number of children who are in
the area. Many childrens activities are too close to this
location. This is not safe for them.
Elizabeth Stellin Oppose This is not the proper location for this facility. It is too close
to families and child friendly businesses. It would also put a
burden on our already understaffed first responders.
Brigitta Stellin Oppose This is not an appropriate location for a hospital such as
this. I believe this council has been given ample evidence to
support this claim. There is also TREMENDOUS community
opposition to this.
Isabel Peraza Oppose Wrong location, please keep our children safe
Humbert Peraza Oppose Strongly against
Dixon Xu Oppose The Eastlake area is not the location for the psychiatric
facility. A well supported psychiatric facility would require
prompt access to full medical care, easy access
transportation as well as discharge planning and the
aftercare. Putting the psychiatric facility in a densely
populated residential area would cause foreseeable issues
such as traffic, patients getting discharged to the streets,
safety of the patients and local residents, and depreciation
of the property values. Placing this facility in Eastern Chula
Vista is against all principles of urban planning. This council
is already failing the local residents in its failure to address
shortage of police station, schools and increasing in traffic
congestion. Please don't add another stain to the city's
history with this facility.
Nicholas Wyatt Oppose Strongly oppose the hospital being built at this location.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 959 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 12 of 40
William Stellin Oppose I vehemently oppose the location of this facility, as well as
the provider of this facility (Acadia).The facility is not
attached to any adjoining medical facilities to facilitate
proper, ongoing care, has no nearby public transportation,
and is in the middle of a neighbor and child/family centered
business center. This proposal has received significant
opposition from the local community and does not meet
any ongoing mental health treatment plans in regards to
local aftercare
Mike Denison Oppose Wrong location for this hospital. This is an area full of
families and children who should not be exposed to mental
health patients. Find a better location for the facility which
fits in with the surrounding.
Ed Stellin Oppose This is not the right location. If its safe, why does it need 20
foot tall wall for the interior recreation center, as well as 20
foot tall security walls surrounding the facility, a locked
entrance and a 24 hour security guard?
Nancy Chmiel Oppose This is not the proper location for this facility. It does not
belong in a residential area and its not fair to the patients
to be put in a facility with a track record of abuse and
neglect.
Ana C Nosal Oppose I strongly oppose tbis project. This facility will be built in a
location that is close to both an elementary school as well
as locations that are frequented by children thus posing a
public danger. While it is important to provide mental
health services, it would be detrimental to place this facility
in the proposed location.
Richard Oppose Not a good idea. Not good for the families and small
children in the area. Way to close to schools and child
friendly business center.
Jen Denison Oppose Extremely poor location choice for a facility of this type. The
fact that this location was even considered to begin with is
absurd. Psychiatric facilities have no business being in such
proximity to residential homes, daycare facilities,
elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. This
should absolutely be built elsewhere, NOT HERE!
Jean Sebastien Pradel Oppose Not right environment for a psych hospital! Lack of
transportation and law enforcement
Liz Crespo Oppose This is not the right location for this type of facility, there's
a school bus stop steps away from the land, residential
homes, parks and children activity business with walking
distance, our children's safety is at risk building a
psychiatric hospital in this area.
Teresa Walkup Oppose This is not the correct location for a psychiatric hospital.
There are too many residential homes, school bus stops and
businesses geared to children such as Neishas, Play City and
Ninja Factory within walking distance of the proposed
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 960 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 13 of 40
facility. Please do not put our children in danger and keep
them safe.
francis brua Oppose This is not the ideal location for this facility since it is not
close to other supporting facilities and its in the middle of a
residential area.
Enrique Campain Oppose City of Chula Vista has done a terrible job adjusting the
Police staffing levels to reflect the growing population of
Chula Vista. Building a mental health facility will require
additional police officer's that will need to respond to calls
that arise from the facility. I also feel having this facility so
close to multiple Elementary and preschools is outright
irresponsible and not safe for children.
Daniela La Salle Oppose Strongly Oppose.
K. Helman Oppose Mental health is important, but the state of California does
not have laws that are structured to protect its citizens
from those who are mentally ill and refuse treatment. The
patients that ultimately refuse to be treated here will spill
out into our community and negatively effect the nearby
homes, schools, businesses and residences. If this facility is
built as proposed, many residents will leave and property
values as well as their assessed taxes will plummet. There
are many areas within the city and the county that would
be a suitable alternative. Don't make the mistake of
allowing this facility here!
Brittany Fischer Oppose not against mental health facilities but this location is not
the right fit! its within walking distance from schools,
daycare and residential areas.
Laila Abdo Oppose This hospital is not in the appropriate location due to the
lack of appropriate exits/enters as it is in the cul de sac,
theres not sufficient public transportation, no police station
nearby and concerns in regards to the safety of others
when escapes occurs. Im a mental health provider who is
very familiar with the process of sending patients on a 5150
to a psychiatric hospital as well as very familiar on how
patients know how to evade treatment, play with the
psychiatric care system to get an early release and how at
many times they are released when they are still unstable.
Im NOT against mental health services but I strongly believe
this is not the appropriate location for it
Brian Madlangbayan Oppose I vehemently oppose the location of this facility. The
proposed site is near homes, schools and parks. Instead, it
should be adjacent to a hospital and other support services.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 961 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 14 of 40
Marie Zhivago Oppose I oppose the location of this facility.
Family homes, schools are too close. There are family
performing arts businesses with children there for after
school activities.
A local bar and family restaurants there.
There is a new Hotel coming in this vicinity as well as a
Hotel already built.
CVPD and CVFD handles a lot of the 911 emergency calls in
our East Chula Vista. Will this will use a lot of our
emergency services if get into issues?
The company has past issues that is managing the Mental
Hospital.
The Eastlake Business Center Board Members have not
been notified of this meeting, their board meeting is at the
end of November 24th. They had not gotten a chance to
vote on this. Some oppose.
There are other places for this type of facility away from
Family homes and hotels.
Please consider the area before making drastic decisions
that may effect a Master Planned community.
If there is a need for a Mental Hospital? Consider the future
space away from family homes and Schools.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 962 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 15 of 40
East Chula Vista is in need of a Major Hospital.
Consider a campus like UCSD La Jolla in a development that
is best suited for future expansion.
Imagine a Medical row South of 125 toll road.
University Education facility, BioMedical cancer research,
world renowned research team backed by a University
Hospital. Then a Hospital for Psychiatric Care for
community. This can also be a Military outreach center for
active and Veterans. So a VA Hospital.
Alma Madlangbayan Oppose Strongly oppose.
Martin Estrada Oppose I oppose the construction of a psychiatric hospital in the
Eastlake community. The property is surrounded by public
schools, housing communities, public parks and businesses
for children activities and entertainment.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 963 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 16 of 40
Manuelito Jarina Oppose I strongly oppose this psychiatric hospital to be built in this
community/neighborhood.First, relating to safety of our
kids is the proximity to elementary schools, middle school &
High school.Kids from these schools walk to & from school
to their homes & relating to this kind of facilitys discharge
policies, I dont think it will be a safe environment for the
kids.Second,considering that the location of the proposed
facility is not easily accessible not having any close bus
stops & it is far from the freeway. Relating to this concern,
increase in traffic, loitering, and homelessness create safety
concerns for the many schools, parks, and day care centers
that are in the neighborhoods immediately adjacent.
Thirdly, with limited Police & Resources is a fact here in our
area, adding a new facility of this scale will likely cause an
increase in call volume resulting in an increase in response
time from ambulances, fire, and police.The facility will be
directly located in our neighborhood and we are all
concerned regarding the safety of our kids & our own
safety.
Aileen Jarina Oppose Even kids know by common sense that this is NOT A SAFE
LOCATION for this facility. This is not because they know
less, but because they are free of any personal agenda.
Please BE RESPONSIBLE with your decision, as for every
injury and death that will arise from any elopement, unsafe
discharge or any unfortunate events from this facility, you
will be part of that decision and should be held
responsible. Please do not play blind with how close this
will be to family homes, business that cater to families and
kids, school bus stop, schools and so on. Please do not
ignore the already stretched and much needed police
support in the area and how far this location is from an
Acute hospital that should be close proximity. The list that
proves that this is not the right location goes on. Efforts
should be given to finding the right place for this much
needed facility and not on ignoring and changing the rules
just to make this location look like its the right one.
April George Oppose I'm am strongly opposed to the location of the proposed
psychiatric hospital. This is not an appropriate location for a
regional hospital and I oppose it being built in Showroom Pl.
This facility is being built nestled within a residential
neighborhood, 20 miles away from Scripps Mercy Hospital
in Hillcrest, far removed from much of the population it
currently serves, with limited access to public
transportation and only quickly accessible via toll road,
which equates to limited access for patients. Luke
Bergmann, director of behavioral health for San Diego
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 964 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 17 of 40
County, stated "he is concerned when a stand-alone facility
is built many miles away from a hospital, that such a facility
be connected to the integrated system of care that includes
outpatient resources."
Such an inaccessible location will not be successful in
successfully treating patients.
My understanding is that you are only required to notify
people within 500ft of the site, leaving immediate schools
and neighborhoods vulnerable.
CARLOS GOMEZ Oppose Not the correct location for this venue.1 Far from
emergency hospitals. 2 Public transportation access is
practically non-existent. 3. Venue is surrounded by many
business involving kids activities (if security is no provided
as promised it may be a major burden for local CV police.
CARLOS GOMEZ Oppose Not the correct location for this venue.1 Far from
emergency hospitals. 2 Public transportation access is
practically non-existent. 3. Venue is surrounded by many
business involving kids activities (if security is no provided
as promised it may be a major burden for local CV police.
Brianda Marin Oppose I oppose. This is a private community and a calm one. Lets
keep it that way and keep the children safe.
Zack Rattray Oppose This site is not an appropriate location for a psychiatric
hospital. I strongly oppose this site of which they are so
many schools and children facilities within short 1 mile
radius. I see no surrounding support hospitals nor
supporting outreach health centers nearby. Its also a
business district with multiple family themed
establishments.
1100 homes are also within 1 sq mile. Its clearly the wrong
location.
Eric B Moss Support I am in support of bringing local mental health services to
east Chula Vista. With close proximity to residents who
may someday need the service, the advantage of accessing
counselling services near them may encourage those who
would otherwise act out to instead seek help when in crisis.
The legion of NIMBYists who fear that this facility will be a
threat to the community have forgotten that we are all
situated mere single digit miles from a state penitentiary,
from which we have not been threatened by an escapee or
riot there due to adequate security precautions. To push
back against the construction of a behavioral Health facility
in our neighborhood because of the remote possibility of a
patient being able to leave the grounds prior to a
competently adjudicated release is a fiction intended to
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 965 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 18 of 40
perpetuate fear of those who are undergoing treatment for
mental heath--a position which I find as inhumane and
lacking empathy. I am most disappointed that my own
HOA, Rolling Hills Ranch, submitted a letter last year signed
by the association president opposing this facility without
ever conducting a full referendum of residents to justify this
position. This letter was SOLELY the position of the HOA
president of two of the loudest voices on the council, NOT
THE VIEW OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. Let this facility go
forward and do good work in our community.
Monica Oppose My comments are being emailed as they are longer than
1500 characters.
Belinda Rojas García Oppose Please please ! Consider the best location for this facility for
the people that will attend and for the safe of the families
that live in the area where you are planning to built it
Michelle Macawili Oppose I oppose this plan. It is common knowledge there are NO
support services for this type of facility in this residential
area. Hospital support services are necessary for this type
of facility.
I strongly suggest that the planning commission research
County Mental Health facility in the Midway district to see
how many calls SD police (western division) receive on a
daily basis from that facility and the neighboring
community. Approving placement of this facility in a family
residential area would be a disaster for both residents and
the people who need these services.
Carla Villa Oppose STRONGLY OPPOSE no actual
Security and legally a patient can leave at will and puts our
community at risk. My home is directly behind this place,
no fence, barrier or security
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 966 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 19 of 40
Laura Penilla Oppose I oppose to the building of a Psychiatric Hospital in my
peaceful, quiet, and tranquil neighborhood. It will affect my
personal quality of life that I have worked very hard to
obtain ,the quality of life that I have enjoyed for over 20
years. When I purchased my home in 2001 this proposal
was not disclosed.I have been able to reside in a highly safe
suburban community surrounded by elementary schools, a
middle school ,high schools, several day care facilities ,and
elderly living facilities as well be up to now ! This is a
residential neighborhood with parks for its residents such
as children of all ages.It is a threat to my well-being and
that of my neighbors especially with the business
reputation of Arcadia , the company that is to run such
facility . I am a very strong advocate of mental health, an
individual cannot have good overall health with out good
mental health . This also applies to me , my family, and my
neighbors. I do not want our own mental health and
physical health at risk by having this proposed hospital in
our neighborhood! This is not the correct location for many
legal reasons ! This also will bring more unwanted
businesses and transients into our community . Our police
force is not set up or prepared to take on more calls . This
will also bring noice and light pollution . Have this pro profit
proposed poor managed business placed elsewhere . I
would like an answer to what is my communitys benefit to
having this Psychiatric facility built here ?
V habib Oppose Please reject this conditional use permit and oppose any
psychiatric facility this close to a vast residential area.
History has shown us these facilities only bring more crime
when people are released with no where to go. We already
have a policing issue and can not afford more crime in our
backyard. This is not to say we are opposed to people
getting help, just pick a location that better suits both
parties and does not put more of a load on our police.
Thank you.
Dianna B. Oppose Inappropriate location for such a facility. Please think about
our childrens safety.
Vinz I. Oppose Find a more suitable location. Neither the patients nor the
residents living around the facility will benefit from this
placement.
Christine C. Oppose Think about the children! Do what is right for patient and
neighborhood safety, and not just for money!
Molly Oppose As a local business owner and parent I do not support this
facility in this location. We do not have the support services
in place to make the facility successful without adversely
affecting the surrounding community business. In addition,
the high number of child centric organizations that are
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 967 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 20 of 40
located just steps away in addition two large elementary
school witching blocks make it a poor choice for the
location. It should be placed next to other medical centers
where there is also a clear set of support services.
Jennifer Oppose I believe we do need more mental health support, but the
location chosen for this hospital is absolutely NOT the right
place to have one. Not in our backyard!! And the reputation
of this facility is horrible!
Sofia Oppose I don't want crazy people by my house! Where will they go
when they get discharged?? It's not safe in our community
with all the kids!
Olivia Oppose It will cause more comotion in the area than necessary and
there's not enough police to keep it under control.
Martha A Esparza Oppose Please re-consider the location. Why would anyone choose
a residential area where you have a residential area and
nearby schools and daycare facilities? You would be
endangering our families our community. These types of
facilities should be built in areas where there is nothing
nearby that endangers the safety of a community. Also for
security reasons this facility puts our families in danger
since legally a patient can leave at will the facility leaving
our community/children at risk. I strongly OPPOSE
Craig Oppose Mental health is a public crisis to be sure and these types of
facilities are necessary. The issue with this facility is what
happens when a patient completes their stay? The
management will merely open the door and escort the
patient out. That means this patient is now left to fend for
themselves in a residential community. Which means a
potential rise in crime, homeless encampments and
assaults. Please do not approve this facility.
Karla D Oppose Strongly oppose due to the proposed location. Too close to
many schools, esp elementary schools, and young family
neighborhoods. It doesnt belong in this area. These
facilities are definitely needed, but should be in an area
with the majority of medical offices and a hospital.
Holly Valdivia Oppose I strongly oppose this location for many reasons. Mental
health is definitely a problem and needs attention.
However, in the middle suburban area that doesnt have any
other resources close by does not make sense. Also, this is
a very family friendly neighborhood that kids are allowed a
bit more freedom to roam independently from their
parents and when there is no public transportation
anywhere near the hospital site where are the patients
going to go when they are properly discharged? Or even
leave before being properly discharged? There is a large
number of homeless that need help with mental illness and
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 968 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 21 of 40
where are they supposed to go? We dont have resources,
shelters, etc for them close by. Besides the available space,
I would like to hear why anyone thinks this location os a
good idea.
Donald Stafford Oppose Please consider placing such a needed facility away from
homes and schools.
Kimi Atchason Oppose Facility does not belong in the area that is next to homes
and close to schools.
Martin Vandekerkhove Oppose I strongly oppose to this location. You will build a hospital
in a recreational area, schools around it and a residential
community. Not acceptable taking into account that there
are multiple better locations around Chula Vista that are
much better suited for this kind of operation. I strongly
recommend to reconsider and find another location.
Jessica Schuster Oppose This not the right area for a facility like this!
Jessica Merideth Oppose I oppose
Brendon J Merideth Oppose I oppose
Charlyne Oppose I oppose
Laura Chan Oppose It needs to be at a different location for the patients to
receive more appropriate care and this is a residential area
with school age kids. It is not safe for our community to
have such hospital.
Karen Oppose This is not the ideal location for this type of facility being
close to homes and schools.
Dianne Bliven Oppose I moved to Rolling Hills Ranch because it is a quiet
residential community. I live directly across from the
proposed site and I believe that the quality of life for me,
my family and my neighbors will soon be altered if this
proposed hospital goes through. The noise from such a
proposed business is not in keeping with the residential
neighborhood, neither should a hospital be in this type of
area with zero services available to it. Please consider
another site with better access to services for this type of
business.
Brian L Oppose Acadia Healthcare has a long history of issues with their
poorly run facilities. The stand-alone facility will too far
away from a hospital, the facility should be connected to
the integrated system of care that includes outpatient
resources and not in the middle of a residential area.
Kristen Hailey Oppose I am opposed to the location of this facility. The proximity
to schools and bus stops, businesses catering to children,
distance from the nearest hospital, and lack of
infrastructure make this a poor choice.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 969 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 22 of 40
Alfonso Oppose This is absolutely not the right location for a facility like this
especially with the track record this company has!!
Maria Loaiza Oppose Oppose to location.
Michael Jensen Oppose Like the overwhelming majority of my community I also
oppose to the location of this project. We have a beautiful
walking path down behind Eastlake Middle that families
enjoy with a sense of safety. This could easily become a
welcoming spot for frequent homeless patients of a facility
like this. Why anyone would entertain this location in the
middle of a residential neighborhood, next to schools and
parks, is beyond me. Are facilities like this needed? Yes, but
not in the proposed location. We are the people who voted
for you to represent US. Please hear us on this. Thank you.
Harold Watson Oppose Not in a residential area. Find some place else. Old Chula
Vista, lots of industrial areas, lower costs.
Marlene Oppose Strongly oppose this facility in our neighborhoods!
T. Gomez Oppose I and the majority of my community adamantly oppose this
facility. This is absolutely not the ideal location for this
project being in such close proximity to family homes,
parks, schools, and many businesses catering to children
and our elderly community.
Don Dizon Oppose Needs to be located in a more remote area.
Francisco Hernandez Oppose Please only consider a location that has lesser population
and without an immediate neighborhood next door.
Hazel Pangan Oppose I learned last night through a community post that there is
a meeting with the City Planning Commission this evening
to discuss the EIR and CUP for this psychiatric hospital
project. Its curious because I had signed up for
alerts/notifications on this proposed development but have
received none. Apparently this in-person meeting that was
not publicized is still proceeding, notwithstanding the
pandemic, which undoubtedly will deter or prevent other
community members from attending. I am a concerned
resident and parent of children who attend schools in our
area. I reviewed the City Planning Commissions report and
recommendations. The Commission is recommending the
approval of the CUP for this project despite the community
outcry against this project, as evidenced by the thousands
of petition signatures and hundreds of directed
messages/calls to city officials. Page 2 of the commission's
report purports to analyze the propriety of the CUP under
CVMC Section 19.14.080 but that report fails to properly
apply that section, ignoring the well-documented
opposition to this project. The CUP and EIR should not be
approved.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 970 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 23 of 40
Sylvia Rosenberg Oppose I am voicing my concerns and oppose to the building of
Eastlake Psychiatric Behavioral Facility for the following
reasons:Track record of Acadia Healthcare (complaints of
abuse, negligence, harassment of patients, lawsuits,
etc..)This proposed location is very close of schools,
daycares, childrens centers, residential areas that include
HOAs neighborhood parks (not city/public parks) paid by all
of us homewoeners.Location does not have public transit to
transport patients being released or walked out of the
facility and roaming around our residences or our parks
would be a RISK to our residents.City of Chula Vista does
not have a police station on the East part of the city for a
quick response to any problems that arise from this facility
considering their awful and dangerous track record of
dealing with patients.Acadia should look for a non-
residential location to build their proposed facility.I
vehemently oppose the approval for this facility and the
City of Chula Vista should not approve it by first considering
the security and wellbeing of their residents vs. taxes paid
by this entity built in our backyard.Respectfully,Sylvia
Rosenberg
JD DeOcampo Oppose Oppose
Linda Oenning Oppose 1) This lock-down psychiatric facility should not be located
in a neighborhood on a site backing up to family residences
and within walking distance of elementary & middle
schools, as well as facilities where children congregate. 2)
The location was to serve all of San Diego County and is far
from a centrally located point served by public
transportation. 3) The proposed location lacks ancillary
health facilities for the patients it is to serve. It is miles from
the nearest hospital with psychiatric support. 4) The
company that is to staff the facility has a very poor track
record in other locations that is a matter of public record.
Council members, these issues are not a matter of opinion,
but matters of fact, and incurable defects to the proposal.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 971 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 24 of 40
Angelica Perez Oppose I am a strong believer that mental health and intervention
is important, however, a facility of this kind does not belong
in a residential area. It is irresponsible to put this type of
facility in an area in such close proximity to schools and
homes regardless of the security measures it promises to
impose. The reality is that when those who refuse
treatment will be released, they can then roam into our
neighborhoods. The building alone will impact property
values for those who chose to buy a home in the area.
There are plenty of scholarly articles (pubmed.gov) with
data that prove that psychiatric hospitals negatively impact
the surrounding areas while they also greatly benefit from
an inpatient hospital within immediate proximity. If this
truly about mental health, then why not consider a more
rural area which would benefit those who do not have
access to this kind of care? (ruralheathinfo.org) Rural areas
that do not have access to this care would greatly benefit
from this care while helping keep the staff and patients
safer knowing that patients need to be shuttled to or from
an area and not roam into residential areas (especially if
there is someone who escapes). If something is needed for
the community, then it should be something that benefits
the greater community and increases the property value
and makes Chula Vista a destination. The Olympic Training
center is an example of that.
BRAD DAVIS Oppose I strongly oppose this building of this high-risk and
dangerous psychiatric facility at the end of a cul-de-sac on
Showroom Place.1. Being located on a single access road is
a city of CV municipal code violation (19.58.110.) The street
is too small for the high levels of police and ambulatory
traffic projected.2. There is insufficient and inadequate
Police Support and no station on the east side of the city.
The PD is already undermanned. Adding the burden of
supporting this facility will adversely effect all CV
residents.3. Inadequate medical support nearby.4. No city,
county or state mental health support services near the
site.5. A questionable history of Acadia managing psych
hospitals and being sued by host cities.6. Neighbors and
local businesses were not properly notified of these
hearings.7. City required "GMOC" study not completed.8.
There are 3 large public schools with thousands of students,
the closest being 1/4 mile away, from the proposed waiting
room for police escorted psychiatric patients.This facility
will make our community less safe and put our children and
neighbors at risk. I OPPOSE!
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 972 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 25 of 40
Katy DAVIS Oppose Strongly oppose! Do not put our children at risk by building
a dangerous facility so close to their schools and
playgrounds.
Vanessa Perez Oppose I have lived in the Otay Ranch area for 14 years and just
moved to Rolling hills and I am a mother of 5 children.
Having a facility like this can cause safety concerns for many
children/minors who are walking home alone from school
and can be vulnerable. Children would not have the
capability to defend themselves physically or mentally with
any potential physical or verbal abuse. Residential areas
need to stay as such. Not opposing the need for this type of
hospital but opposing the location. Should be in a more
business area like Main Street or Otay Mesa by the 905.
MNelson Oppose People use key terms like NIMBY whenever people fight to
protect their neighborhoods. But why is pride in your
neighborhood a bad thing? They throw out these terms
without doing the research, without knowing all the facts.
The fact is a psychiatric facility will undoubtedly affect the
neighboring area. Before the pandemic, I went to Hillcrest
and spoke with the security guard located at the bank
across the street from Scripps. I asked him if he noticed
being so close to the psychiatric facility. He stared that
often he saw people that were discharged wandering the
streets and the police were called often.
The fact is that the proposed facility does not meet the
guidelines for CUP approval and may potential violate
numerous laws.
I am not against psychiatric facilities nor am I against having
one "in my backyard." Looking purely at the guidelines,
Municipal codes, and laws, it is clear this project should not
be approved.
Gabe G. Oppose Not a proper location for this type of facility. Will cause
congestion and not to mention the bad reputation that the
company has already. Much evidence has been shown that
the company lacks a proper track record to operate a
facility of this natur
ROSA Oppose I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but I oppose the
psychiatric facility.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 973 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 26 of 40
Vinit Jensen Oppose I oppose the location given its adjacency to residential and
children areas and schools. It would be more suited next to
hospitals that can provide any emergency care services,
social services etc
Steve Gilles Oppose As an Eastlake homeowner for over 33 years, I oppose the
development of the EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOSPITAL for a variety of reasons. Surrounded by hundreds
of homes, many with young children, and numerous
schools, such a facility would pose a potential danger to the
surrounding communities. Furthermore, having the name
and long-standing reputation of the Eastlake area as a
family-friendly and safe group of communities attached to
such a facility would significantly impact our property
values. There are many more appropriate locations in Chula
Vista for such a facility, away from families and schools,
which would be a much better choice.
Briana R Wyatt Oppose I am a military spouse, mother, business professor and
Chula Vista resident. I OPPOSE.
I am not against psychiatric facilities nor am I against having
one "in my backyard" nor am I against the economic
expansion of Chula Vista.
BUT by looking purely at the guidelines, municipal codes,
and laws, it is clear this project should NOT be approved for
this location.
This is a cul-de-sac location! It does not meet the CUP
requirements and does NOT have the police or transit
infrastructure to support the amount of increased vehicle
traffic and emergency call volume this type of project will
incur.
This area has limited police & transit resources. Adding a
new facility of this scale will likely cause an increase in call
volume resulting in an increase in response time from
ambulances, fire, and police. Will our tax dollars go to
increase police presence for this project? If so, the
economic burden this project will lie on us as residents!
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 974 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 27 of 40
Beyond the aforementioned issues, I oppose this project
because of the distance from integrated healthcare with
limited accessibility to specialized care. From a city planning
and patient perspective, this type of project, at this location
does not make sense for emergency nor continued patient
care.
The fact is, this proposed facility does NOT meet the
guidelines for CUP approval!! I strongly OPPOSE!
JIM OCAMPO Oppose Think of children's safety!!
JIM OCAMPO Oppose Think of children's safety!!
Mike Bliven Oppose I strongly oppose any type of business like this in a
residential area.
Rufino Magpayo Oppose I strongly oppose the construction of a Psychiatric Hospital
at this location. I have a business office at VCC Complex and
we are within the vicinity of the proposed facility. We were
not informed of this proposed project until this last stage of
the city approval. With all the businesses and commercial
facilities popping out in our area, it does not seem right to
have a mental health facility in this side of Eastlake. Aside
from it will negatively affect the value of properties in our
area, it will be detrimental to the health of businesses and
the population here in general. We totally support mental
health programs and mental health treatments but the
management should choose a better location to put up this
mental health facility. This area is already bustling with
business activities and a Psychiatric Hospital IS NOT A
HEALTHY SIGHT in this side of town. I hope that the City of
Chula Vista will not approve of the location of this facility.
Christina Oppose I strongly oppose
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 975 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 28 of 40
Barrett A Jung Oppose I purchased a home in Rolling Hills over 20 years ago. I live
one street NE of River Rock Rd. which borders the proposed
site. I moved to this development to raise my son because
the of schools and safe neighborhood. My son is grown
now, but I'm concerned for my neighbor's young children
who live here as the board the bus next to this site. The
operators of this company have a horrible reputation.
They/it do not belong in the middle of a residential area. I
strongly oppose.
Jennifer Villa Oppose I strongly oppose the location of this project. Just as other
city officials have fought against the release of violent
predators into their community our community needs your
support to protect our community from the same. A
faciltiy like this would house very seriously disturbed
individuals and requires 24 hour security. The security is
there to keep the community safe; not the residents of the
facility. That is disturbing. A facility requiring 24 hour
security has no place in a residential community with
children roaming freely around that site. Acadia has a
known track record of poor management and can't be
trusted to keep my family safe. Acadia acknowledged in
their meeting with neighbors that patients can be released
out the front doors and in to the community. We need a
better mental health solution for our communities and for
the patients who need the care and support of facilities like
this.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 976 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 29 of 40
Briana R Wyatt Oppose I am a military spouse, mother, business professor and
Chula Vista resident.
I am not against psychiatric facilities nor am I against having
one "in my backyard" nor am I against the economic
expansion of Chula Vista.
BUT by looking purely at the guidelines, municipal codes,
and laws, it is clear this project should NOT be approved for
this location.
This is a cul-de-sac location! It does not meet the CUP
requirements and does NOT have the police or transit
infrastructure to support the amount of increased vehicle
traffic and emergency call volume this type of project will
incur.
This area has limited police & transit resources. Adding a
new facility of this scale will likely cause an increase in call
volume resulting in an increase in response time from
ambulances, fire, and police.
Will our tax dollars go to increase police presence for this
project? If so, the economic burden this project will lie on
us as residents!
Beyond the aforementioned issues, I oppose this project
because of the distance from integrated healthcare with
limited accessibility to specialized care.
From a city planning and patient perspective, this type of
project, at this location does not make sense for emergency
or continued care for patients.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 977 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 30 of 40
The fact is, this proposed facility does NOT meet the
guidelines for CUP approval!! I strongly OPPOSE!
Jeffrey Phillips Oppose Mental health services are important, but the location
selected for this hospital doesn't really fit with the
established child-centric businesses, proximity to schools
and suburban residences of the surrounding area. This
location appears to be very out of place for a mental health
hospital and it seems like it would be a better fit if it were
placed closer to the other large hospital systems further
West since I would imagine there would be some referrals
from those same hospitals to this newer facility. For these
reasons, I oppose.
Emma Davis Oppose Strongly Oppose!
Evan Davis Oppose Oppose!
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 978 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 31 of 40
Jan Buddingh, Jr. Oppose I strongly oppose this project. The simple fact of the matter
is that when the South Bay was the dumping ground for the
overflow county jail and the only state prison in the county,
those were located well away from any population centers.
As a South Bay native, Im categorically opposed to the
dumping of any other less-than-desirable facilities in our
community. As a Chula Vista resident, the thought of
dumping such a facility in the middle of our city near
homes, schools and parks (west side or east side) is
completely ludicrous, and approval of this project by the
Planning Commission would constitute a clear abrogation of
their civic duty.And how does it make sense to replace a
facility serving the entire county located in Hillcrest with a
facility in Chula Vista?
John Oppose I am unable to attend the meeting but oppose the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital
Yordanna Tatoy Oppose I am unable to attend the meeting but oppose the location
of the proposed psychiatric hospital.
David C Oppose Does it meet all CUP requirements?
No it does not.
Has the GMOC been completed?
No it has not.
Would building this be in violation of CV Municipal Code
(19. 58. 110)?
Yes it would.
There should be no further debate. Do your jobs and deny
this facility!
Lena Pradel Oppose I am strongly opposed to the proposed location for the
behavioral health hospital. We do not have adequate
resources for this community, nor have I heard any
compelling plan to deal with the lack of police,
transportation, etc and it does not belong in the middle of a
highly residential kid oriented community. Furthermore I
find it disturbing that there is no option for the community
to participate online in this meeting as we are still in the
time of covid and not everyone is comfortable with the
amount of exposure a meeting like this entails.
Jo Oppose W
Denver Tatoy Oppose I oppose the location of the facility.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 979 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 32 of 40
Monica Oppose The placement of SEXUAL OFFENDERS in residential
neighborhoods has been in the news a lot lately. The
placements have been denied. Why would you approve the
placement of SEXUAL OFFENDERS within 2000 ft of
numerous schools with thousands of students? Denying this
project is not violating ADA laws because denial is not
based on patient disabilities but rather on the projects
failure to meet CUP guidelines.
Ray E. Oppose I strongly oppose this facility in this location. Too close to
homes, schools, kid friendly businesses and too far away
from any base hospitals. The operator Acadia is a horrible
company riddled with fraud, abuse and neglect allegations.
Our community deserves better.
B. Hodlik Oppose I and the majority of my community adamantly oppose this
facility. This is absolutely not the ideal location for this
project being in such close proximity to family homes,
parks, schools, and many businesses catering to children
and our elderly community.
Additionally no definitive plans have been addressed when
releasing individuals from the facility, specifically regarding
transportation or housing if needed.
Rick Richardson Oppose I live in Chula Vista and I strongly oppose the conditional
use permit for the Eastlake Behavioral Hospital. A facility of
the kind is not appropriate adjacent to a residential area
and park on the back side (River Rock Rd, Esperanza PL),
and on the front side of the facility numerous child and
family focused business establishments such as Floaties
swim school, sky zone, Ninja Factory, Speed Circuit. Acadia
Healthcare has a significant record of mismanagement
(complaints of abuse, negligence, harassment of patients,
lawsuits, etc..)City of Chula Vista does not have a police
station on the East part of the city for a quick response to
any problems that arise from this facility considering their
awful and dangerous track record of dealing with
patients.The location does not have public transit to
transport patients being released or walked out of the
facility and roaming around our residences or our parks
would be a RISK to our residents.The stand-alone facility
will too far away from a hospital, the facility should be
connected to the integrated system of care that includes
outpatient resources and not in the middle of a residential
area.Families who purchased homes years ago in this
neighborhood should not have personal risk nor financial
risk of damage to property values and enjoyment of their
neighborhood. Do not decrease the quality of life of
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 980 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 33 of 40
citizens who live in this community.Strongly oppose the
approval of this facility at this location!
Amy Wickelhaus Oppose Not an appropriate location for a psychiatric hospital.
Safety concerns for near by residence, schools and
businesses.
Maria McDuff Oppose I strongly oppose the location of this psychiatric hospital. I
am working and won't be able to attend the hearing.
Jenny Zoleta Oppose I absolutely oppose the Eastlake location of this hospital.
Lara Crabtree Oppose Im against the location of the behavioral health hospital. Its
not a right fit for the community and would pose a danger
to those who live in it.
Tim Dougherty Oppose I am very opposed to this, I understand the need for
facilities such as this one, but this area is not an optimal
location for all parties involved. Its to far from police, an
adequate hospital, and proper transit. The amount of
schools in this area, and the amount of kids that would walk
by everyday is to great to ignore as a crucial factor.
Mauricio Lopez-Hodoyan Oppose I strongly oppose the conditional use permit. Not
appropriate given the proximity to residential area.
Kolt Harris Support I support the proposed mental health facility and location.
Eastlake is in dire need of more medical services and the
reaction of many people to this proposal just further
demonstrates the need for additional mental health access.
David Crabtree Oppose As a public school teacher, placing a 120 bed lockdown unit
that close to schools is reprehensible. Children should be
protected from individuals who find themselves in mental
conditions that necessitate an inpatient stay. While I
support the creation of mental health facilities, this is not
the right location.
Julie McClintock Oppose I oppose the location of this facility.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 981 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 34 of 40
Christian Lindner Oppose I strongly oppose: There is a Highschool nearby and kids live
in close proximity. Totally inappropriate location for the
hospital.
Julieta H. Lopez Oppose I am not able to attend the meeting but am opposed to the
location.
Peter A. Lopez Oppose Opposed to the location
Linda Bryant Oppose Too close to families with young children
Blaire Fisher Oppose I am concerned about the proposal to build an inpatient
psychiatric facility on a single access road , near schools and
other child focused businesses but some distance from
police, public transportation, and an acute care medical
facility. When patients are deemed competent to make
their own medical decisions and choose to leave, what
support services do we have for them in the immediate
vicinity?
Misa Dowling Oppose As a parent, an educator and a member of the community, I
oppose this project and the company proposing it. It will
not be close to public transportation or a hospital. And the
company proposing to build and manage the facility has a
record of harming their patients in multiple instances in
multiple states.
Minnie Tandy Oppose I strongly oppose this proposed location for a mental health
inpatient and outpatient facility due to the close proximity
to schools, children's venues, activities and private
residences.
Christian Vargas Oppose I strongly oppose: I am an Eastlake homeowner as well as
commercial building owner adjacent to the proposed
location of Psychiatric hospital. I run an academy that
teaches children just feet from this potential facility where
they will house SEXUAL OFFENDERS. This is absolutely
unacceptable and Im quite surprised the city is even
considering this. Im not the only Academy either. There are
numerous dance, school, and extra curricular programs for
hundreds if not thousands of children in the adjacent
commercial building complex. This is not the location for a
Mental Hospital, it would seem absolutely obvious. Not to
mention the property value of Eastlake properties will also
be adversely affected. This whole thing is ridiculous
Robert Sparks Oppose I strongly oppose this project. Please do not approve to
move forward.
Laura Boijseauneau Oppose Strongly oppose, this is a huge family centered community
with many young children, also we do not have police force
like San Diego county to enforce individuals discharged to
the street.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 982 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 35 of 40
Rebekah edwards Oppose As a paramedic and in the medical Field for 23 years Ive
worked in districts with psychiatric facilities housing less
than 120 patients. Ive been attacked by patients released
by these medical fields holding bags of medication
untouched. We do not have the infrastructure to support a
facility like this in east Chula Vista. Its poorly planned, with
no infrastructure to provide the patients with ongoing care.
Relocate to a central location within a close proximity to
hospitals, transit, and ongoing care
Vanessa Alvarez Oppose As a behavioral health worker, I am strongly opposed to the
proposed location of a Psychiatric Hospital in Eastlake. The
hospital would be located within walking distance of our
children's school, their after school activity centers, and our
home. Without proper local resources such as timely police
action, Acadia Healthcare's poor history of medical
practices and upkeep of their healthcare facilities, and the
city of Chula Vista's inability to guarantee the continued
safety of local residence, this psychiatric hospital will be the
detriment to the Eastlake community.
A hospital of this nature needs to be located in an area that
can properly service patients, is local to adequate public
transportations and emergency services and personnel. This
is not a hospital that should reside in a family community
with young children.
Luis Alvarez Oppose I am a long-time owner of a home in the Eastlake
Community with a young family. This is not a hospital that
should be built a mile from my children's elementary
school.
Enrique Morlett Oppose Strongly opposed the placement of a psychiatric hospital in
a residential area, I live within walking distance and its
definitely not the right place for it. Not to mention the lack
of police presence (we should have a sub station in this
area).
I don't feel safe for family aftern so many well documented
cases of negligence, corruption and criminal complaints
against the company behind the proposed hospital. It's a
hard no for me!
Julio De Unamuno Oppose I strongly oppose this proposed location for a mental health
inpatient and outpatient facility. The placement of the
facility is maybe well intentioned, but poorly thought out,.
Why would you put a facility that requires heavy police
force in a residential community?
Grace Oppose Too many children around for this.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 983 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 36 of 40
TODD ROSS Oppose I oppose the LOCATION of this facility. Too close to
neighborhoods and no guarantees regarding security at the
facility. Please find a less-residential location that ensures
security for the public. We the public cannot control who is
admitted to this facility and I've seen too many examples of
patients not respecting the local neighborhoods.
Kassie Snyder Oppose I live in this area and strongly oppose this this location for
the hospital. Many mental health hospitals have a tendency
to release patients at the end of treatment even if the
patient has nowhere to go and no way of getting there. So
now the homeless community grows and those patients
start wandering through our neighborhoods. With the
shortage and lack of police presence in the neighborhood,
who will be there to protect our children that walk to the
nearby elementary, middle, and high schools. Who will
respond to the increase of low level crime? The type of
patients that will be treated at this facility should not be
near schools. In addition, there is already a national
shortages of mental health providers. What will happen if
this facility meets the patient bed capacity but without the
necessary providers? In any medical facility, under staffing
means terrible quality of care. At the end of the day, it
could be questioned if these patients are even really being
helped. This is an all roads lead to disaster scenario.
ginger Oppose This is not an appropriate location for a psychiatric facility.
This would be better suited for an industrial / business area.
Eastlake was built to raise family's with schools, children
programs, parks.
Sergio Cuevas Oppose A a community health center health provider, I believe this
facility poses a great threat to our community and children.
This is an Ill thought out plan with disregard to our families.
Only one incident, which had happened in that companies
history elsewhere, can ruin many peoples lives. Please,
reconsider the location and this company.
kevin Oppose this is a family based community area, to bring a facility to
here is not to any benefit. Why are the children not being
considered? Why is this not being proposed in an area with
fewer children based programs and families are located.
Laura R Oppose Strongly oppose!! This should be used for a family oriented
business/ recreational area. Our families should be priority.
Julia De unamuno Oppose I strongly OPPOSE of any Behavioral health Phych facility
Hospital in Eastlake in my neighborhood.
This is not a secluded area....
This is Residential area with families.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 984 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 37 of 40
There are several schools in the immediate area. We need
to protect our children.
This not the location.
Sara Fernando Oppose I am a commercial property owner of an office condo at
2517 Windward located in Venture Commerce Center
Eastlake. I have been a Board member of VCC since 2018.
Our complex is a Commercial Common Interest
Development with 92 separately owned units. We are
located west of the proposed site and since we share 900
feet of property line we are zero feet away. I have many
concerns that have not been addressed:
1. Due process and official notifications:
VCC Board, owners and tenants were not invited to the
September 26, 2019 informational Open House (today 8
pages of comments are included as attachment 8) and we
did not have an opportunity to comment
VCC Board and property owners did not receive the Notice
of Project scoping meeting (Fig 5 shows to NOP recipients)
there are 106 groups or companies listed some are pretty
far away (Sweetwater Valley)yet the business complex and
our association immediately next to the site did not get
officially notified.
I commented on the Environmental Impact Report my
comment is on Attachment 6.02 A page 38 and I stated that
no effort had been made to notify the owners or the Board
of VCC of the proposed development. The city reviewed the
EIR comments and states that they add no significant new
info The lack of notification to property owners next to the
proposed site is very significant. Official notification must
be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the
proposed site boundary. This is a requirement!
Sandra Gonzales Oppose I oppose the proposed building of this psychiatric hospital
in such a close proximity to homes and family friendly
businesses. The potential for unstable individuals to be
released in this area is highly dangerous. The lack of any
nearby law enforcement agency in the area shows that the
planners have not taken public safety into account and
instead are concerned with private interests. Please show
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 985 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 38 of 40
respect for the community and do not build this facility in
this area.
Luis R Oppose Strongly oppose to the construction of this mental facility. It
is a family oriented neighborhood. Our families are first
Guillermo M Oppose Strongly oppose. I am retired and love living here. We feel
safe and enjoy it. This is not meant to have a mental facility
Sara Fernando Oppose Acadia misrepresents and downplays the risks the
Behavioral Health hospital poses.The language used in
Operational profile (Attachment 5) is very different to the
risk factors in Acadias 2020 Annual Report to
Stockholders.On page 6 of form 10-K Acute inpatient
psychiatric facilities provide a high level of care in order to
stabilize patients that are either a threat to themselves or
to others. On page 24 Risk Factors Operational Risks.
Because many of the patients we treat suffer from severe
mental health and chemical dependency disorders, patient
incidents, including deaths, sexual abuse, assaults and
elopements, occur from time to timeOn Page 26.There is a
risk that one or more service users could be harmed by one
or more of our employees, either intentionally, through
negligence or by accident. Further, individuals cared for by
us have in the past engaged, and may in the future engage,
in behavior that results in harm to themselves, our
employees or to one or more other individuals, including
members of the public. On Page 27.As part of our normal
business activities, we produce and store clinical waste
which may produce effects harmful to the environment or
human health. Health and safety risks are inherent in the
services that we provide and are constantly present in our
facilities, primarily in respect of food and water quality, as
well as fire safety and the risk that service users may cause
harm to themselves, other service users or employees.
Rosalba M Oppose Strongly opposed! I am retired and love living here with my
children and grandkids. Please dont build the facility!
Judy Hebert Oppose This will make our neighborhood less safe. I strongly
oppose!
Edward H Oppose No thank you, our community does not need this.
Mark L Oppose This is not an appropriate location for a psychiatric hospital.
Positioning his facility in the middle of a family oriented
neighborhood is not only inappropriate, but presents
several safety concerns.
Susan Gail Collier Oppose The City of CV passing out to many Building Permits for the
Eastlake Community. We are overcrowded .How about a
Police sub station instead.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 986 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 39 of 40
Shane Stiles Oppose I strongly oppose the placement of the psychiatric hospital
in the business park of Eastern Chula Vista. When I
purchased my home in the area there was no indicator that
they his type of establishment would be placed here. The
area is extremely close to schools and residential tracts.
With the intention of this to be a law enforcement intake
facility once released these individuals will be free to roam
our neighborhoods and bring all the issues that entails. I
foresee an increase in crime, vagrancy, drug use and a a
danger to the families and children in the area. This was a
poorly decided plan from the beginning. The council and
city management knows full well if placed in the voters
hands this would not pass. But I will speak with my vote
against any city council member or candidate for mayor
who would support such a facility to be placed here. I
strongly oppose this plan.
Susan P Oppose I strongly oppose this facility. I am a grandmother of two
young children. Having this hospital in our area poses a
great danger to residents, especially children, with the
potential of elopements and introduction of patients
deemed a danger to themselves and others. The proposed
location is not the right place for this facility. It simply
makes zero sense.
Kristen Harju Oppose I have young children that live in this area and do not feel
safe.
J Surmillon Oppose Strongly oppose for the reasons that many others have
already stated--safety and well being of the community.
The proposed facility is supposed to replace a county-wide
facility, not just service residents of Eastlake or even Chula
Vista at large. It makes no sense why the facility is being
proposed at this location.
Cristina N. Oppose I am opposed to the proposed psychiatric facility. While I
agree there is a need for mental health services, this is the
wrong location and the wrong provider to run the facility. I
urge the council to deny approval of this project.
Marisa Tomas Oppose It is absolutely obvious that the city has chosen NOT to
listen to it's constituents. The majority of comments from
the community throughout the process have been more
than 90% in OPPOSITION. It's unbelievable that city officials
are telling constituents to lawyer up if they want to fight
this. Why then do we pay our taxes for representation if no
one is representing us? You are on notice to return my
taxes you crooks so I can hire a lawyer. The city manager
and the city planning staff have decided they know what is
best for our neighborhood regardless of what the
community thinks. Shame on all of you for your corruption.
Do not waste ordinary citizen's time by pretending we have
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 987 of 1221
Planning Commission eComments received for meeting held on November 10, 2021
Agenda Item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, KNOWN AS
THE EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Page 40 of 40
a say in matters we most certainly do not. You are all
hereby put on notice that legal action will be taken against
you when an adverse incident occurs due to your approval
of this hospital project.
Roy Boyko Oppose This is not the appropriate location for this mental health
facility. The proposed location is right next to a family
orientated neighborhood with school age children. The
families of Rolling Hills Ranch need to be protected and not
forgotten by our elected officials.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 988 of 1221
Chula Vista Planning CommissionNovember 10, 2021
EASTLAKE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
12022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 989 of 1221
EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
•Expand behavioral health services to meet overwhelming need
•Partnership of two premiere healthcare organizations
•High quality and compassionate patient care
•Economic and community benefits
22022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 990 of 1221
DID YOU KNOW …?
An estimated 1 in 4 adults has a mental health need. In South
County, this represents nearly 90,000 people.
(Source: CA Hospital Association)
32022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 991 of 1221
DID YOU KNOW …?
More than 1 out of every 11 young people in California stated that
they had attempted suicide one or more times in the past twelve
months. When applied to Sweetwater Union High School District, this
equates to 3,854 students.
(Source: Centers for Disease Control)
42022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 992 of 1221
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEED IS GROWING
San Diego County is nearly 1,000 beds short of meeting our region’s
behavioral health care needs. Based on population, South County
should have 246 beds but currently has only 103 beds available.
(Source: California Hospital Association)
52022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 993 of 1221
SCRIPPS/ACADIA PARTNERSHIP
•Scripps Health has served San Diego County for nearly 100 years
•Partnerships for specialized care beneficial for Scripps and patients
•Acadia Healthcare partnership for behavioral health announced in early 2019
•Acadia is a national leader in behavioral health treatment
•Will honor Scripps’ charity care policy and commitment to being a strong community partner
62022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 994 of 1221
JOINTLY OPERATED BY SCRIPPS AND ACADIA
•Equal representation on operating
committee
•Administer all regulatory and
licensure/accreditation requirements
•Provide guidance on revenue cycle, billing,
and supply chain management
•Equal partners in clinical quality and
compliance
Partnership will
create a new
behavioral
healthcare entity
72022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 995 of 1221
ACADIA HEALTHCARE
•Established in 2005
•Experienced senior
management team with
established track record
•Largest stand-alone
behavioral health company
in the U.S.
•229 locations in U.S. and
Puerto Rico
8
JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIPS WITH
PREMIERE HEALTH SYSTEMS
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 996 of 1221
ACADIA HEALTHCARE
•Inpatient behavioral health
hospitals
•Specialty treatment centers
•Residential treatment centers
•Outpatient clinics
•Comprehensive Treatment
Centers for opioid addiction
92022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 997 of 1221
DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF QUALITY
Inpatient Hospital Admissions
Patient Admissions from 2016-2020
Serious Incidents –0.82%
Elopements –0.19%
Law Enforcement Calls –0.35%
102022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 998 of 1221
SECURITY FEATURES
•Controlled access in and out of facility and between units
•24-hour video surveillance of lobby, outdoor, and common areas
•15-minute patient checks
•Listening to community concerns:
24-hour onsite security
Increased height of perimeter wall
112022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 999 of 1221
PROJECT
SITE
12
•Met all criteria better than
other sites considered
•Zoned for hospital use
•Centrally located within
service area
•Connected to major
roadway network
•Large enough to construct
single-story facility
Cost/Seismic Requirements
Low visual impact
Best for patient care
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1000 of 1221
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
BAYVIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CHULA VISTA, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 114 ft
Schools/Childcare =1,013 ft
Park = 3,001 ft
Religious institution = 2,177 ft
Hospital = 2.6 mi
132022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1001 of 1221
AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
RANCHO BERNARDO, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 377 ft
Schools/Childcare =1,432 ft
Park = 3,153 ft
Religious institution = 1,766 ft
Hospital = 2.6 mi
14
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1002 of 1221
PACIFIC GROVE HOSPITAL
RIVERSIDE, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 15 ft
Schools/Childcare =213 ft
Park = 3,883 ft
Religious institution = 213 ft
Hospital = 0.5 mi
15
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1003 of 1221
DISCHARGE PROCESS
•Discharge decisions are made by physician and clinical care team
•State law requirements for homeless patients to ensure secure
transition from hospitalization
Approximately 3% of patients at Acadia hospitals do not have secure living
situation
•Hospital policy ensures that discharge plans include secure
transportation to next care site for ALL patients
162022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1004 of 1221
MEDICAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES
•Patients will only be admitted if they do not require simultaneous
medical treatment
•Support services for patients available on site:
Daily presence of internist on site
Medication management
Nutrition support
Physical therapy
•Social workers will coordinate support services needed by
patients being discharged
172022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1005 of 1221
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
•$65M capital investment
•$20M+ annual operating budget
Approximately 80% of vendors for
facilities are local
•$1M annually in local tax
revenue
•150 permanent, well-paying jobs
•Teaching hospital
182022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1006 of 1221
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
•School outreach programs
Suicide prevention
Teacher training
Referrals and treatment
resources
•Military outreach programs
Referrals
Potential for specialized
treatment programs
192022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1007 of 1221
ENDORSEMENTS INCLUDE …
•County Supervisor Nora Vargas
•Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
•South County Economic Development Council
•South Bay Community Services
•San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
•NAMI, San Diego
•San Diego Healthcare Underwriters Association
•Family Health Centers of San Diego
•MANA San Diego
•Asian Business Association
202022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1008 of 1221
THIS PROJECT IS FOR ALL OF US
212022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1009 of 1221
REFERENCE
SLIDES
222022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1010 of 1221
ACADIA HEALTHCARE PAYOR SOURCES
23
Medicaid
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1011 of 1221
MENTAL HEALTH IMPACT OF COVID
All age groups have been affected
More than 1 in 3 adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder
Pediatric visits for mental health increased 24% for ages 5-11 and 31% for
ages 12-17
63% of those 18-24 reported symptoms of anxiety or depression and 25%
said they have seriously considered suicide
47% of those aged 65+say worry or stress related to coronavirus has
affected their mental health, up 74% since the beginning of the pandemic
(Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation and CDC)
242022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1012 of 1221
252022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1013 of 1221
262022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1014 of 1221
272022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1015 of 1221
Chula Vista Residents
Opposed
to the Eastlake Behavioral
Hospital at Showroom Place
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1016 of 1221
We urge the City Council Members to APPROVE
our Appeal and OVERTURN the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review for this project.
January 26, 2022 22022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1017 of 1221
CVSafe is comprised of…
•Chula Vista Residents
•We care about intelligent and responsible growth.
•We care about keeping the community SAFE.
•Presenting today are your Neighbors: Brad, Bibi, John and Ian
•Tax Payers, Voters, Former Little League and AYSO Coaches
January 26, 2022 3
We filed the Appeal. We represent the community
which will be most affected.
The Staff Report did not answer our Questions.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1018 of 1221
•Concern over proposed 50/50 Management Plan between Scripps &
Acadia
•How many full-time Psychiatrists, MDs and RNs will be on site?
•Will these be Union Jobs?
•It is unclear what economic benefits, if any, the city will see after the first
year.
•Why not? It is required by the EIR.
•Why was an EIR not required?
•Why did Acadia write the EIR?
•Why was no Formal Safety review with CVPD input completed?
Appeal Point 1: The EIR is One-Sided.
Appeal Point 2: No Alternate Site Study was completed.
Appeal Point 3: No Economic Impact Analysis was completed.
Appeal Point 4: No one knows Acadia’s Staffing Plan.
January 26, 2022 4
Appeal Point 5: There is No Official Management Agreement between Acadia &
Scripps
Appeal Point 6: The current CUP does not protect our Community.
•Concern over inadequate Elopement and Security Protocols
•Concern over insufficient physical security barriers and inadequate, unarmed
security
•Serious Concern over the City-Acadia/Scripps Oversight Process
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1019 of 1221
Appeal Point: The EIR is One-Sided.
•Why? Because Acadia wrote it.
•Is the EIR impartial?
•Is it complete?
•Is it accurate?
•Is it Fair?
•Mr. Stan Donn, a Senior Planner at the November Planning Commission meeting
said the project was covered by the Eastlake II EIR & GDP. First approved in 1999,
later updated in 2007.
•He told Acadia, and the Planning Commissioners, that an EIR was not required.
•The original General Development Plan for Eastlake II was written in 1999.
January 26, 2022 5
1
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1020 of 1221
Appeal Point: The EIR is One-Sided.
•Planning Commission Vice Chair DellaRosa asked about the EIR requirement.Mr Donn
replied, “This is a simple design review, Conditional Use Permit, like any other facility that
you have done before in these planned communities.”
•“…the applicant wanted to have assurance… they chose to do an EIR. That’s their choice.”
•He also said, “The project required a CUP and a DR permit.” No mention of an EIR being
required.
•Mr Donn further said, “Staff accommodated them” and “We concurred with their
findings.”
•Since the Staff did not require an EIR, they did not write the EIR. Once presented with
an Acadia prepared EIR, Staff did not scrutinize it. Why?
•We object to this failed and improper process and ask that the EIR be redone correctly
without assistance from Acadia.
January 26, 2022 6
1
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1021 of 1221
Appeal Point: No Alternate Site Study was
completed.
•Per the EIR, this study is required. Not Optional.
•Per the Staff Report dated 25 January 2022, “Based on the EIR, alternative
sites were evaluated in the EIR. However, these alternative sites were not
listed out in the EIR.” (Page 5.)
•Why a serious alternative site(s) was/were not studied?
•The staff report acknowledged that no alternate site was reported as
studied.
•Why? Is it because the Staff never required an EIR?
•We are asking that the City Council direct Staff to re-write the EIR.
•We ask that the rules be followed and an alternate site be studied, as this
is required and not a minor project.
January 26, 2022 7
2
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1022 of 1221
EIR: Alternate Site Search by Acadia
•Acadia’s EIR did have some guidance for the City Council…
•The Planning Commission Focused on Land Use and the EIR
•This EIR shows that the City Council will determine the status of an
Alternate Site –What?
January 26, 2022 82022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1023 of 1221
EIR: Alternate Site Search by Acadia
•As established, this was not mentioned in the EIR or the Staff Notes which was in
response to our Appeal.
•The CEQA asks “can any effects be avoided if located in another location?”
•How about… Scripps Hospital on 4th Avenue?
•Large Hospital with Psychiatric Beds
•Close Proximity to a Medical Support Offices
•Centrally located, near the Police Department & ample public transportation
•This is an ideal location.
•Why was it not studied as required by the EIR?
January 26, 2022 92022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1024 of 1221
Why are there NO
Alternate locations
as required by the
EIR?
January 26, 2022 10
•Staff did not
require an EIR
•Acadia did
not want to
provide one.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1025 of 1221
So, that’s why the
ShowRoom Place
location was selected,
right?
•Flat, Graded, in
Chula Vista
•500 Ft Radius of
notification… 50-75
homes, maybe?
•Hospital on a Cul-de-
Sac? Violates the
Municipal Code
(19.58.110). “All
Hospitals shall be
located on collector
streets or
thoroughfares.”
January 26, 2022 112022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1026 of 1221
But, Zoom out a bit
and look at the
community….
•Approx 20K+
Households
•Approx 80K+
People
•20 Schools
(Yellow Triangles)
•No Hospitals
•No Police Stations
January 26, 2022 122022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1027 of 1221
EIR: Public Safety not addressed
•The public safety section of the EIR was not even ONE page long.
•Elopement Protocols ignored.
•We ask that the EIR address these issues in depth as safety is a key
component of Safety.
•Where is the CVPD? There have now been two public hearings and
no briefing or written statement has been made or submitted from
any member of the Chula Vista PD.
•The public does not know what they PD’s opinion of this project is.
January 26, 2022 132022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1028 of 1221
Appeal Point: No Economic Impact Analysis
was completed.
•At the Planning Commission hearing, following a question by the Chairman,
it became apparent that Acadia representative made assertions about the
economic impact of the project that were exaggerated. In
response,the project planner stated the City did not do an economic
impact analysis. Why?
•At the PC it was clear no one had any idea what economic benefits or costs
this facility would generate.
•Why was Acadia allowed to present false, unsubstantiated information
concerning the project's economic impact?
January 26, 2022 14
3
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1029 of 1221
Acadia Healthcare: In the News
There are hundreds of Acadia Healthcare campuses Nationwide
and thousands of allegations, lawsuits and convictions within their
umbrella. This is a very brief summary of the headlines appearing
nationally.
As I searched for Acadia Healthcare news that was not authored
by the company themselves, I came across difficult to read, and
tragic headlines. This is what some of them read…
January 22, 2022 152022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1030 of 1221
January 23, 2022 162022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1031 of 1221
January 22, 2022 172022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1032 of 1221
January 23, 2022 18
Rocklin Planning
Commission
●Analysis prepared
by Police
Department
●Proposed Hospital
Located 600 Ft
from School
●Listened to the
comments from
the general public
●Cited Jessica’s Law
DENIED
Chula Vista
Planning
Commission
●NO Analysis
prepared by Police
Department
●Proposed Hospital
Located 400 Ft
from School
●DID NOT Listened
to the comments
from the general
public
●DID NOT cite
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1033 of 1221
Appeal Point: No one knows Acadia’s Staffing
Plan?
•In response to a question by a commissioner, Acadia said the “good paying jobs”
averaged $30 per hour. This raises some serious issues about how this facility will
be staffed. Will it be staffed with full-time on-site Psychiatrists, MDs and
unionized registered nurses. If yes, how many?
•SEIU Nurses?
•Fact: Sharp and Kaiser Hospitals employ UNION Nurses. Scripps Does Not.
•A $30 dollar an hour average salary suggests that the low-cost model that has
been critiqued in the numerous articles submitted as part of the EIR comments
will be the model for this facility.These same articles document how this model
adopted by Acadia has caused in other facilities a safety danger to the patients
and workers in the facilities.
January 22, 2022 19
4
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1034 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1035 of 1221
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1036 of 1221
Appeal Point: There is no Management
Agreement between Acadia & Scripps
Apparent 50/50 Split Governance between Acadia & Scripps -compared to 80/20 ownership
The CUP presented at the Planning Commission hearing lacked any real or clear enforcement mechanism.
•How do operational disputes get resolved between the two parties?
•The applicant and its partner were unable to elaborate.
•Does the City Council understand this process? Does the City get involved? Is the CVPD and/or CVFD
involved?
The City should do the following:
•INSIST in the CUP that operational disputes will be settled in a consistent, documented and transparent
manner.
•The management agreement should be a publicly available document that outlines the process that Acadia,
Scripps and the City undertake when significant issues arise.
•This agreement will be subject to review and amendment on a periodic basis as defined by the City.
January 23, 2022 22
5
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1037 of 1221
Appeal Point: The current CUP does not
protect the Community.
The CUP presented at the Planning Commission hearing lacked any
real enforcement mechanism.
•What if the reports on Acadia’s track record of elopements are
indeed accurate?
•How many will they be allowed before the CUP can be withdrawn?
•The CUP conditions need to have clear standards that can be
enforced.
•The CUP does not address community safety concerns which should
be addressed to make an appropriate finding to preserve public
safety.
January 22, 2022 23
6
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1038 of 1221
•BUILD ELECTRIC FENCES on the entire perimeter of the property. If they are
tripped, an internal alarm signals both Acadia Security Staff and the CVPD.
•TRACK ELOPMENT. If total Elopement in Eastlake totals 5 or more
individuals in a 12 calendar month period, the CUP will direct a CUP Review
& Revocation Hearing. The City Manager and the CV Chief of Police will
chair. Additionally, Acadia will report ANY and ALL Elopements to the City
Manager and CV Chief of Police within 12 hours.
•NOISE. The proposed exercise & playground area shall be moved to the
front of the property, so that it is not adjacent to homes and people who
work from home.
January 26, 2022 24
The proposed CUP does not protect the Community.
With these recommended enhancements, it can:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1039 of 1221
•Keep our Community Safe
•Hold Acadia to a higher Standard.
•Do not let them fool you.
January 26, 2022 25
The proposed CUP does not protect to
Community. With these additions, it can:
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1040 of 1221
Thank-you.
January 26, 2022 262022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1041 of 1221
Extra Slides
January 26, 2022 272022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1042 of 1221
Appeal Point 1: The EIR is One-Sided.
Appeal Point 2: No Alternate Site Study was completed.
Appeal Point 3: No Economic Impact Analysis was completed.
Appeal Point 4: No one knows Acadia’s Staffing Plan.
Appeal Point 6: The current CUP does not protect our Community.
January 26, 2022 28
Appeal Point 5: There is No Official Management Agreement between
Acadia & Scripps
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1043 of 1221
Senator
Ben Hueso’s
Letter
January 26, 2022 292022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1044 of 1221
Senator Ben
Hueso’s Letter
Page 2 of 2
January 26, 2022 302022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1045 of 1221
Chula Vista City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022
EASTLAKE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
12022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1046 of 1221
EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
•Expand behavioral health services to meet overwhelming need
•Partnership of two premiere healthcare organizations
•High quality and compassionate patient care
•Economic and community benefits
22022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1047 of 1221
DID YOU KNOW …?
An estimated 1 in 4 adults has a mental health need. In South
County, this represents nearly 90,000 people.
(Source: CA Hospital Association)
32022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1048 of 1221
DID YOU KNOW …?
More than 1 out of every 11 young people in California stated that
they had attempted suicide one or more times in the past twelve
months. When applied to Sweetwater Union High School District, this
equates to 3,854 students.
(Source: Centers for Disease Control)
42022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1049 of 1221
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEED IS GROWING
San Diego County is more than 800 beds short of meeting our
region’s behavioral health care needs. Based on population, South
County should have 246 beds but currently has only 103 beds
available.
(Source: California Hospital Association)
52022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1050 of 1221
SCRIPPS/ACADIA PARTNERSHIP
•Scripps Health has served San Diego County for nearly 100 years
•Partnerships for specialized care beneficial for Scripps and patients
•Acadia Healthcare partnership for behavioral health announced in early 2019
•Acadia is a national leader in behavioral health treatment
•Will honor Scripps’ charity policy and commitment to being a strong community partners
62022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1051 of 1221
PROJECT
SITE
7
•Met all criteria
•Zoned for hospital use
•Centrally located in service
area
•Connected to major
roadway network
•Large enough to construct
single-story facility
Cost/Seismic Requirements
Low visual impact
Best for patient care
•Public health asset for
South County
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1052 of 1221
8
BENEFIT FOR POLICE
SERVICE
•Police need to leave the city
for most 5150 commits
•Can take them out of
service for several hours
•More beds in Chula Vista
means police are back in
service quickly
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1053 of 1221
9
STATE LAW
California Welfare & Institutions Code 5120
“Health facilities for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and
treatment shall be permitted in any area zoned for hospitals or
nursing homes, or in which hospitals and nursing homes are
permitted by conditional use permit.”
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1054 of 1221
10
FEDERAL LAW
Americans with Disabilities Act
“Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, disability discrimination is prohibited in
prohibited in all activities of local government entities, including zoning decisions. This
decisions. This nondiscrimination mandate requires the City to provide equal services,
services, programs, and activities to entities that serve individuals with disabilities and
disabilities and to ensure that the City’s zoning decisions do not discriminate against
against individuals with disabilities and entities associated with them. The City is
further prohibited from utilizing criteria that have the effect of discriminating against
against individuals with disabilities or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend
or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities.”
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1055 of 1221
11
•Site zoning allows for hospital
with a CUP
•Environmentally cleared with
FEIR certified in mid-1990s
•EIR was not required
Applicant chose to prepare EIR in
anticipation of opposition
No significant unmitigable impacts
EASTLAKE PLANNING HISTORY
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1056 of 1221
12
APPEAL ISSUE #1:
EIR STUDIED APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES
•CEQA requires a “reasonable
range of alternatives” be
studied
Proposed project
Reduced project alternative
Medical office alternative
•CEQA does not require that
alternate sites be studied
Reduced project
Medical office
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1057 of 1221
13
APPEAL ISSUE #2:
ECONOMIC IMPACT -NO FACTUAL
ERRORS PRESENTED
•Project cost estimated at nearly $74M
•Local property tax rate is 1.6287%
•Property Valuation Services estimated
annual property tax revenue will be
approximately $1.2 million
County
City of Chula Vista
School Districts
Other local districts
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1058 of 1221
14
APPEAL ISSUE #3:
EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WERE DISCLOSED
•Met with Mayor Salas and Councilmember McCann at their request
•All communications were disclosed appropriately
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1059 of 1221
15
APPEAL ISSUE #4:
ALL COMMENTS WERE RESPONSED TO APPROPRIATELY
•Received more than 400 comments on the draft EIR
•Responses to every comment included as part of the Final EIR
•Few comments raised environmental issues
•Non-environmental comments also addressed in Operational Plan
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1060 of 1221
16
APPEAL ISSUE #5:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS UP TO DATE
•Disclosure statement needs to be updated only if information has
changed
•Statement has been reviewed –no changes to information
•Statement was resubmitted after review with updated date
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1061 of 1221
ECONOMIC AND
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
•Nearly $74M capital investment
•$20M+ annual operating budget
Approximately 80% of vendors for
facilities are local
•Approximately $1M annually in
local tax revenue
•150 permanent, well-paying jobs
•Teaching hospital
•Community education and
outreach
172022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1062 of 1221
ENDORSEMENTS INCLUDE …
•Supervisor Nora Vargas
•Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
•South County Economic Development Council
•South Bay Community Services
•San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
•NAMI, San Diego
•San Diego Healthcare Underwriters Association
•Family Health Centers of San Diego
•MANA San Diego
•Asian Business Association
182022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1063 of 1221
THIS PROJECT IS FOR ALL OF US
192022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1064 of 1221
DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF QUALITY
Inpatient Hospital Admissions
Patient Admissions from 2016-2020
Serious Incidents –0.82%
Elopements –0.19%
Law Enforcement Calls –0.35%
12022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1065 of 1221
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
BAYVIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CHULA VISTA, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 114 ft
Schools/Childcare =1,013 ft
Park = 3,001 ft
Religious institution = 2,177 ft
Hospital = 2.6 mi
22022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1066 of 1221
AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
RANCHO BERNARDO, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 377 ft
Schools/Childcare =1,432 ft
Park = 3,153 ft
Religious institution = 1,766 ft
Hospital = 2.6 mi
3
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1067 of 1221
PACIFIC GROVE HOSPITAL
RIVERSIDE, CA
+/-distance to:
Residents = 15 ft
Schools/Childcare =213 ft
Park = 3,883 ft
Religious institution = 213 ft
Hospital = 0.5 mi
4
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITALS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1068 of 1221
Planning Commission Appeal:
Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital
January 25, 2022
EIR20-0001, CUP19-0010 and DR19-0012
1
Chula Vista City Council
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1069 of 1221
CHRONOLOGY OF PROJECT
•May 20, 2019 –Application for Project Filed with City of Chula Vista’s DSD
Department
•September 26, 2019 –Community Meeting Held
•November 10, 2021 –Planning Commission Hearing on Project -approved
•November 17, 2021 –Appeal Filed by Mr. Brad Davis
•December 7, 2021 and January 11, 2022 –Two Continuances of Appeal
Hearing
•January 25, 2022 –Appeal to be Heard by City Council
2APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1070 of 1221
CAUSES OF ACTION FOR
APPEAL
1. Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were
factually in error.
2. The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning Commission
that was not disclosed or made public.
3. The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
4. The FEIR does not provide sufficient support, as required by California
Public Resources Code (CEQA) Sections 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a), by failing
to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed.
5. The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer
community questions and concerns.
3APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1071 of 1221
PROJECT LOCATION & SURROUNDING USES
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District
at Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Future Hotel
4
Residential
Residential
Slopes
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1072 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING NORTH
The District at
Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
60-Foot Slope
5SHOWROOM PLACEResidential
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1073 of 1221
6STREET LEVEL –LOOKING NORTH 2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1074 of 1221
7STREET LEVEL –THE DISTRICT & AMAZON2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1075 of 1221
8LOT LEVEL –FROM THE PARCEL2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1076 of 1221
9LOT LEVEL –NORTHERN EDGE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1077 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST
The District at
Eastlake
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
50-Foot Slope
20-Foot Slope
10
Residential
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1078 of 1221
11NORTHERN SLOPE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1079 of 1221
12RIVER ROCK ROAD2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1080 of 1221
13WESTERN SLOPE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1081 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business ParkAmazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District at
Eastlake
60-Foot Slope
20-Foot Slope
142022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1082 of 1221
15EASTERN SLOPE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1083 of 1221
16YOSEMITE DRIVE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1084 of 1221
EASTLAKE II PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS 17
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:595-710-1100 & 595-710-1200
General Plan Designation:Limited Industrial
Current Zoning: Business Center 4 (BC-4)
Lot Area:10.5 acres
Proposed Development:97,050 square feet
Open Space Required:68,607 square feet
(15% of site)
Open Space Provided:164,206 square feet
(36% of site)
Parking Required: 180
spaces
Parking Provided: 186
spaces
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1085 of 1221
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District at
Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Residential
Residential
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1086 of 1221
SITE PLAN & AMENITIES 192022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1087 of 1221
WALLS AND FENCING 20
12-foot
Exterior Walls
8-foot CMU
Perimeter
Walls
8-foot
Interior Walls
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1088 of 1221
ARCHITECTURE 212022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1089 of 1221
SOUTH ELEVATION 222022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1090 of 1221
VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 232022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1091 of 1221
VIEW FROM NORTHEAST 242022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1092 of 1221
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST 252022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1093 of 1221
ELEVATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
262022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1094 of 1221
CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS 27
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District at
Eastlake
Commercial
CenterHarold Place2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1095 of 1221
NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE
CROSS-SECTION 282022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1096 of 1221
NORTHEASTERN PROPERTY LINE
CROSS-SECTION 292022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1097 of 1221
EASTERN PROPERTY LINE
CROSS-SECTION 302022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1098 of 1221
WESTERN PROPERTY LINE
CROSS-SECTION 312022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1099 of 1221
OPERATIONAL PROFILE
Hours of Operation: 24-hour with three employee shifts (7am-3pm; 3-11pm; and
11pm-7am)
Employees: 150 including CEO, CMO, and CNO
Ratio of Patients to Clinical Staff: 1:6
Number of Patients: 120 inpatients; 20-50 outpatients per day
Types of Patients: adolescent, adult, geriatric, and Veteran populations
Average Length of Stay: 7-10 days
Visiting Hours: 6pm-7pm
Discharge: All patients being discharged must have a detailed safe discharge
plan guiding their ongoing care, continuity of care, and housing
322022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1100 of 1221
OPERATIONAL PROFILE
Transportation Upon Discharge: Shuttle service to nearest bus stop for those
who do not have pre-arranged, private transportation
Involuntary Holds: Pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 and
5250, ELBH may involuntarily commit patients from 72 hours up to 14 days
Security Plan:
•Fencing and landscape barriers
•24-hour security patrols
•Controlled access in and out of facility
•Single entrance/exit
•Closed-circuit security camera monitoring of exterior
and common areas
•15-minute patient safety checks
Oversight/Accountability: Planning Commission condition of approval
•Licensed by the State of California
•Accredited by The Joint Commission
•Must maintain and remain in good standing with Medicare/Medi -Cal and
Tricare and all other governing/licensing bodies
332022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1101 of 1221
Project
Site
ACCESS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Eastlake
Venture
Amazon
The District
Future
Hotel
34
BOSWELL RD.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1102 of 1221
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report
Less Than Significant Impacts:
•Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Energy
•Geology
•Greenhouse Gas
•Hazardous Materials
•Hydrology
•Land Use
•Noise
•Public Services
•Public Utilities
•Transportation
•Wildfire
No Significant Impacts:
•Agriculture
•Biology
•Cultural Resources
•Housing
•Mineral Resources
•Population
352022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1103 of 1221
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report
•No Mitigation Measures Required
•Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) Not Required
•CEQA Findings of Fact Prepared
•431 Comments Received
•Attachment 6.e.
•Response To Comments (RTCs)
•Attachment 6 –EIR, Response to Comments,
CEQA Findings of Fact, Appendices
362022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1104 of 1221
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Project Community
Meeting
•September 26, 2019 at Montevalle Community Center
Major Issues of Concern –130 Comments Collected
•Neighborhood Safety
•Patients Discharged Without Transportation Provided
•Patients From Outside of the Area
•Lack of Security
•Lack of Solid Perimeter Wall Around Property
•Close Proximity to Residential Homes
Response to Comments Matrix Prepared
•Included as Attachment 5
Operational Profile Prepared by Applicant
•Reviewed by Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) –No concerns
•Included as Attachment 3
372022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1105 of 1221
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Applicant’s Webpage and newsletter
•193 signed up for newsletter
Additional Comments Received
•261 comments: 7 in favor, 254 opposed
•Attachment 6
Opposition Webpage and Petition
•5,187 signatures
382022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1106 of 1221
LIMITS ON DISCRETION
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA)
•Protects individuals with disabilities from the denial of the
opportunity to participate in or benefit from any aid, benefit,
or service
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
•Protects the rights of both providers and clients of residential
treatment programs o
•f discriminating against individuals with disabilities
City of Ocean Springs v. Psychamore, LLC (2013)
•Prohibits cities from utilizing criteria or methods of
administration that have the effect of discrimination
392022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1107 of 1221
Causes of Action for Appeal
1. Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that
were factually in error.
2. The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning
Commission that was not disclosed or made public.
3. The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
4. The FEIR does not provide sufficient support, as required by
California Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(4) and
21002.1(a), by failing to describe the alternatives that were
thoroughly assessed.
5. The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer
community questions and concerns.
40APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1108 of 1221
Causes of Action for Appeal
1. Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were
factually in error.
-Staff analyzed the Project’s conformity to the General Plan; economic
impact is not a topic analyzed by an EIR
2. The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning Commission that
was not disclosed or made public.
-No evidence provided; all Commissioners disclosed communications on
November 10, 2021
3. The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
-Applicant updated Disclosure (Attachment 5)
4. The FEIR does not provide sufficient support, as required by California Public
Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a), by failing to
describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed.
-Staff analyzed CEQA’s requirements and found the EIR meets requirements
5. The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer
community questions and concerns.
-431 Community Comments were responded to on pages RTC-1 through
RTC-146 of the EIR (Attachment 6.c.)
41APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1109 of 1221
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and
affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP19-0010) and Design
Review Permit (DR19-0012) to construct a one-
story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a
120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5-acre
site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place.
422022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1110 of 1221
BACKUP SLIDES 432022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1111 of 1221
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS RAISED BY
APPELLANT
1. EIR prepared by the Applicant and their consultant team
2. No economic impact analysis conducted
3. Public safety analysis is insufficient
4. No alternative findings presented to Planning Commission
5. No CUP enforcement mechanism
44ADDITIONAL CONCERNS RAISED2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1112 of 1221
Schools Within Proximity to Site 45
Thurgood Marshall Elementary
1.26 Miles
Project
Site
Eastlake High School
1.21 Miles
Arroyo Vista Charter School
1.28 Miles
Salt Creek Elementary
.72 Mile
Eastlake Middle
1.13 Miles
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1113 of 1221
PROJECT LOCATION & SURROUNDING USES
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District
at Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Future Hotel
462022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1114 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING NORTH
The District at
Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
47SHOWROOM PLACE2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1115 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST
The District at
Eastlake
Commercial
Center
Amazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business Park
482022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1116 of 1221
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST
Project
Site
Eastlake Venture
Commerce Center
Business ParkAmazon
Delivery Van
Training Lot
The District at
Eastlake
492022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1117 of 1221
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Condition of Approval: Operational Profile 11/09/21
“13. The Applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval and shall
operate the Project in conformance with all standards, terms and conditions
set forth in that certain EASTLAKE BEHAVORIAL HEALTH HOSPITAL
Operational Profile, dated November 9, 2021, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (the “Operational Profile”). The Applicant shall meet
and confer from time to time with City staff at the request of the Director of
Development Services (or their designee) in order to review ongoing
operations of the Project, confirm operational consistency with the
Operational Profile and to discuss any occurring or proposed changes by the
Applicant to Project operations. Any such changes to Project operations shall
be subject to the reasonable approval of the Director of Development Services.
Material changes to Project operations with security or land use implications,
in the discretion of the Director of Development Services, may require the
Applicant to request an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit subject to
the approval of the Planning Commission. Nothing in this Condition of
Approval shall absolve the Applicant’s obligations to comply with any and all
other Conditions of Approval set forth in this Conditional Use Permit”
502022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1118 of 1221
From: webmaster@chulavistaca.gov <webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 4:33 PM
To: Mayor <mayor@chulavistaca.gov>; Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: City of Chula Vista: Contact Us - Notification for Mayor Casillas Salas
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Mayor Casillas Salas
Date & Time: 01/25/2022 4:33 PM
Response #: 1812
Submitter ID: 102656
IP address: 2600:1012:b121:e159:5080:a1d1:d112:cf13
Time to complete: 0 min. , 34 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below.
First Name Alejandra
Last Name Nuno
Email Address Alex_nuno1@yahoo.com
Comments
Hello, I am unable to submit my online comment so am sending you an email.
I am sure you are aware of the multiple reasons why local residents oppose the proposed inpatient facility in
our community, particularly with this provider, so I will not review them.
However, I wanted to express that as a long-time Chula Vista resident, I urge a NO vote on this proposal.
Thank you,
Alejandra Nuño.
Sent from my iPhone
Thank you,
City of Chula Vista
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:webmaster@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:mayor@chulav
istaca.gov
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:Alex_nuno1
@yahoo.com
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1119 of 1221
From: Nicholas Wyatt <nwyatt@sandiego.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 4:52 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Strongly Oppose
Warning: External Email
CV City Clerk,
I strongly oppose the hospital being built in this residential and school area. Alternative build sites
need to be identified and fairly evaluated before this can continue to move forward.
Very respectfully,
Nicholas Wyatt
Cell: (770)815-0918
Email: nwyatt@sandiego.edu
mailto:nwyatt@sand
iego.edu
mailto:CityClerk@chulavi
staca.gov
mailto:nwyatt@sand
iego.edu
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1120 of 1221
From: Arielle Baldera <ariellehenscheid@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition of Behavioral Health Project
Warning: External Email
I’m writing in opposition to the behavioral health project given it’s current terms. The following are
a few of my concerns.
1. I am concerned that the basic terms of The Conditional Use Permit have not been meet. (This
facility would be situated on a cul de sac. The CUP specifically states it must be located on a
thoroughfare) 2. Police response times in CV already do not meet the threshold standards. How is it
possible that this facility will not impact our already understaffed emergency services?
3. Why is the best practice of Co-location of services such as a hospital, emergency services and
other physicians not being taken into account for this project.
4. The Environmental Impact Review. Why didn’t the city require a new one to be completed by a
third party? How is an EIR completed by Acadia non-biased?
5. Why haven’t other sites been considered in Chula Vista and the surrounding county. Remember
this hospital will be serving the entire county not just CV residents.
Arielle Baldera, CMP
619-920-5094
mailto:ariellehenscheid@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1121 of 1221
From: Briana Wyatt <bhenscheid@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:06 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition of Agenda item # 7.2 on 1/25/22
I’m writing in opposition to the behavioral health project given it’s current terms. The
following are a few of my concerns.
1. I am concerned that the basic terms of The Conditional Use Permit have not been meet. (This facility
would be situated on a cul de sac. The CUP specifically states it must be located on a thoroughfare)
2. Police response times in CV already do not meet the threshold standards. How is it possible that this
facility will not impact our already understaffed emergency services?
3. Why is the best practice of Co-location of services such as a hospital, emergency services and other
physicians not being taken into account for this project.
4. The Environmental Impact Review. Why didn’t the city require a new one to be completed by a third
party? How is an EIR completed by Acadia non-biased?
5. Why haven’t other sites been considered in Chula Vista and the surrounding county. Remember this
hospital will be serving the entire county not just CV residents.
Joyfully,
Briana R. Wyatt, MBA, RYT
Soulful Success Coach
www.BrianaWyatt.com
@BrianaRWyatt
Inspiring coaching and holistic mind-body tools to help ambitious women cut the overwhelm and live
with more JOY, CREATIVITY, & PURPOSE!
Start healing your mind, body and business! Book a Soulful Strategy Coaching Call! I promise you'll walk
away with clarity, inspiration and tools for action!
Curious about holistic healing? Join us for our monthly Sacred Circle Healing. Along with a guided
meditation, you'll learn holistic techniques and sacred rituals to deepen your practice and support you
on your unique healing journey. Sign up here, your first drop-in is free!
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:bhenscheid@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
http://
www.brianawyatt.co
m/
https://www.brianawyatt.com/
book-with-briana
https://
www.brianawyatt.
com/sacred-
circle-healing
https://
www.brian
awyatt.co
m/sacred-
circle-
healing
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1122 of 1221
From: Susan <skrusze@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:08 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 7.2
Warning: External Email
Mayor Salas and Members of the City Council, I respectfully request that you approve the appeal of
Brad Davis and REJECT the Conditional Use permit for the 120 Bed Acute Psychiatric Hospital to be
located on Showroom Place in Chula Vista.
A residential community where families with children live and play is not the appropriate location
for an acute psychiatric hospital. I live in the neighborhood and I am appalled that you are
approving such a facility in the middle of a residential community. Public transit is not easily
accessible in the area, which could result in patients being released to walk aimlessly through the
neighborhood, wandering into businesses, harassing customers and leading to panhandling,
homelessness, harassment of people on the street, car break-ins, burglaries, and generally
becoming a public nuisance and danger. Exposing residents to possible dangerous patients of the
Acute Psychiatric Hospital is not acceptable. As a resident of the community, I am asking that you
deny the permit. Such a facility does not belong in a residential neighborhood and instead should be
located away from families in industrial locations.
Respectfully,
Susan Cruz
2784 Savannah Court
Chula Vista, CA 91914
mailto:skrusze
@cox.net
mailto:CityClerk@chulavi
staca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1123 of 1221
From: JoseAlex Nuno <nunohome2@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:59 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: No to Arcadia
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: JoseAlex Nuno <nunohome2@gmail.com>
Date: January 25, 2022 at 4:59:34 PM PST
To: cityclerk@chulavista.gov
Subject: No to Arcadia
Hello, I am unable to submit my online comment so am sending you an email.
I am a local resident and am urging a no vote to the proposed inpatient psych facility.
Thank you,
Jose Nuño
Sent from my iPhone
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:nunohome2@
gmail.com
mailto:CityClerk@chula
vistaca.gov
mailto:nunohome2@
gmail.com
mailto:cityclerk@chul
avista.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1124 of 1221
From: Jennifer Morales <imafern2010@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:38 PM
To: Mary Salas <MSalas@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Eastlake Psych hospital site
Not only do I oppose the proposed psychiatric hospital site, I am wondering WHY, with all the
research my Rolling Hills Ranch neighbors have done… AND PRESENTED TO YOU, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION and the rest of the council regarding what a HORRIBLE partner Acadia is and the danger
this poses to my community…is this still in the works?
Do you think if you keep stalling, instead of denying this approval, you will wear us out?
I OPPOSE THE HILL BEHIND MY HOUSE as a potential site for this facility.
Warning:
External
Email
mailto:imafern2010@
gmail.com
mailto:MSalas@chula
vistaca.gov
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1125 of 1221
v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Employee Compensation and Positions: Approval of: (1) Amended Position Counts in Various
Departments; (2) Salary Adjustments for Certain Unclassified, Hourly Positions; (3) Revised Compensation
Schedule; and (4) Budget Amendments
Report Number: 22-0026
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Human Resources
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no
environmental review is required.
Recommended Action
Adopt resolutions (A) amending the authorized position count in various departments and salary
adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly positions; (B) approving the revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Compensation Schedule effective January 28, 2022 to reflect the salary adjustments for certain unclassified,
hourly positions and the adjusted salaries for Mayor, Councilmember and City Attorney effective July 1, 2021
and its inclusion in the revised Compensation Schedules effective July 2, 2021; August 13, 2021; September
10, 2021; November 5, 2021; November 19, 2021; December 17, 2021 and December 31, 2021, as required
by the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (C) making various amendments to the Fiscal
Year 2021/22 budget for appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
SUMMARY
In an effort to address the needs of various departments and the City's workforce, the Human Resources
Department, in conjunction with the affected departments, is proposing the addition and deletion of certain
positions and salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly classifications.
Staff is also recommending approval of the revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule effective
January 28, 2022 to reflect salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly classifications and the adjusted
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1126 of 1221
P a g e | 2
salaries for Mayor, Councilmember and City Attorney effective July 1, 2021 and its inclusion in the revised
Compensation Schedules effective July 2, 2021; August 13, 2021; September 10, 2021; November 5, 2021;
November 19, 2021; December 17, 2021 and December 31, 2021.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is
required.
Environmental Determination
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under
Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Position Changes
Civil Service Rule 1.02(A), which applies to the City’s classified positions, provides for necessary reviews and
changes so that the City’s classification plan is kept current, and that changes in existing classes, the
establishment of new classes, or the abolition of classes are properly reflected in the classification plan.
In an effort to address the needs of various departments and the City's workforce, the Human Res ources
Department, in conjunction with the affected departments, is proposing certain position changes. The
following identifies the affected positions and proposed changes.
Department Position Title FTE
City Attorney
Legal Assistant -1.00
Executive Secretary 1.00
Finance Accounting Technician 1.00
Human Resources Senior Human Resources Analyst 1.00
Human Resources Technician 1.00
Total City-Wide Position Changes (Net Increase/Decrease) 3.00
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1127 of 1221
P a g e | 3
Proposed Salary Range Adjustments
At the direction of the City Manager’s Office, staff is proposing salary range adjustments for the following
unclassified, hourly classifications effective January 28, 2022:
Hourly Rate
Position Title PCN Bargaining Group A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step
Animal Care Aide 5316 Unclassified, Hourly 15.34 16.10 16.91 17.75 18.64
Clerical Aide 0241 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
COVID Site Assistant 5757 Unclassified, Hourly 15.44 16.21 17.02 17.87 18.76
Fire Prevention Aide 5533 Unclassified, Hourly 15.57 16.34 17.16 18.02 18.92
Intern, Graduate 0269 Unclassified, Hourly 16.50 17.33 18.19 19.10 20.06
Intern, Undergraduate 0267 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Library Aide 7181 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Lifeguard I 7587 Unclassified, Hourly 15.24 16.00 16.80 17.64 18.53
Lifeguard II 7585 Unclassified, Hourly 16.77 17.60 18.48 19.41 20.38
Park Ranger 7434 Unclassified, Hourly 15.34 16.10 16.91 17.75 18.64
Police Support Services Aide 5207 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Recreation Aide 7605 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Recreation Leader 7603 Unclassified, Hourly 17.25 18.11 19.02 19.97 20.97
Recreation Specialist 7601 Unclassified, Hourly 20.70 21.74 22.82 23.96 25.16
Seasonal Assistant 0231 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Senior Lifeguard 7589 Unclassified, Hourly 18.44 19.36 20.33 21.35 22.42
Tiny Tot Aide 7503 Unclassified, Hourly 15.25 16.01 16.81 17.65 18.53
Tiny Tot Specialist 7505 Unclassified, Hourly 18.30 19.21 20.17 21.18 22.24
Traffic Control Assistant 5155 Unclassified, Hourly 15.69 16.48 17.30 18.17 19.08
Traffic Officer 5293 Unclassified, Hourly 15.69 16.48 17.30 18.17 19.08
Compensation for Councilmembers, the Mayor and elected City Attorney
Sections 302, 304(c) and 503(c) of the City of Chula Vista City Charter establishes the compensation for
Councilmembers, the Mayor and elected City Attorney, respectively, based upon the formulas set forth in
those sections. The City received notification from the Judicial Council of California on December 6, 2021, of
a adjusted salary for the position of Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, to which the salaries
for Councilmembers, the Mayor and elected City Attorney are tied and made the appropriate changes
retroactive to July 1, 2021. Staff made the change to the salary rates for Mayor, Councilmembers and City
Attorney upon notification from the State of California (in accordance with the City Charter), and the Mayor,
Councilmembers and City Attorney are receiving this pay rate.
Compensation Schedule Requirement
California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires that, for purposes of determining a retiring
employee's pension allowance, the pay rate be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule that meets
certain requirements and be approved by the governing body in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable public meeting laws. The revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule ("Compensation
Schedule") was last approved by the City Council at their meeting of December 14, 2021.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1128 of 1221
P a g e | 4
Resolutions
Approval of Resolution A will amend the authorized position count in various departments with a net
increase in authorized staffing and approve salary adjustments for the following unclassified hourly
positions: Animal Care Aide, Clerical Aide, COVID Site Assistant, Fire Prevention Aide, Intern -
Undergraduate, Intern – Graduate, Library Aide, Lifeguard I, Lifeguard II, Park Ranger, Police Support
Services Aide, Recreation Aide, Recreation Leader, Recreation Specialist, Seasonal Assistant, Senior
Lifeguard, Tiny Tot Aide, Tiny Tot Specialist, Traffic Control Assistant and Traffic Officer.
Approval of Resolution B will approve the revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule effective
January 28, 2022 to reflect the salary adjustments for Animal Care Aide, Clerical Aide, COVID Site Assistant,
Fire Prevention Aide, Intern - Undergraduate, Intern – Graduate, Library Aide, Lifeguard I, Lifeguard II, Park
Ranger, Police Support Services Aide, Recreation Aide, Recreation Leader, Recreation Specialist, Seasonal
Assistant, Senior Lifeguard, Tiny Tot Aide, Tiny Tot Specialist, Traffic Control Assistant and Traffic Officer
and the adjusted salaries for Mayor, Councilmember and City Attorney effective July 1, 2021, and its inclusion
in the revised Compensation Schedules effective July 2, 2021; August 13, 2021; September 10, 2021;
November 5, 2021; November 19, 2021; December 17, 2021 and December 31, 2021, as required by the
California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.
Approval of Resolution C will amend the budget and appropriate funds therefor.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has determined that the action the item is not site specific. Staff is not independently aware and has
not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision
maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The net impact to the General Fund in the current fiscal year is $315,945, where approximately $223,791 is
attributable to the minimum wage increase. Funding for the Accounting Technician position will be offset
through salary savings in the Finance Department. Funding for the Human Resources Technician will be
funded from Measure A support allocation received in the General fund. Staff is requesting the proposed
budgetary adjustments reflected in the table below:
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1129 of 1221
P a g e | 5
The ongoing costs associated with these proposed changes are estimated at approximately $675,635, which
$108,081 will be offset from Measure A support allocation received in the General Fund, and approximately
$447,581 is attributable to the minimum wage increase. The overall cost will increase along with future cost
of living adjustments and benefit changes. The costs will be incorporated into the baseline salary budgets of
the respective departments in future fiscal years.
ATTACHMENTS
(1) Memorandum from the Judicial Council of California dated December 6, 2021
(2) Revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule Effective January 28, 2022
Staff Contact: Courtney Chase, Director of Human Resources/Risk Management
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1130 of 1221
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272
MEMORANDUM
Date
December 6, 2021
To
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
Associate Justices of the Courts of Appeal
Judges of the Superior Courts of California
From
Martin Hoshino
Administrative Director, Judicial Council
Subject
Fiscal Year 2021‒22 Judicial Salary Increase
Adjustment
Action Requested
For Your Information
Deadline
N/A
Contact
Evelyn Ramos, Human Resources Supervisor
415-865-4296 phone
evelyn.ramos@jud.ca.gov
I am forwarding the attached Exempt Pay Letter received from the California Department of
Human Resources regarding an adjustment to the fiscal year 2021–22 judicial salary increases.
Three executive branch bargaining units (5, 8, and 19) received a general salary increase
retroactive to July 1, 2021. These salary increases have now been included in the calculations.
The pay letter addresses an adjusted judicial salary increase from 4.3% to 4.88% effective July 1,
2021, pursuant to provisions of Government Code section 68203, subdivision (a).
The State Controller’s Office (SCO) must still confirm dates for issuance of payments.
However, it is anticipated that the new salary rates will be reflected in December 2021 payroll
checks issued on January 1, 2022. Also subject to SCO confirmation, a separate retroactive
payment for July 2021–November 2021 could be delivered by December 31, 2021. We will
advise you if these timeframes are altered by the SCO.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1131 of 1221
December 6, 2021
Page 2
Please note that administrative presiding justices and presiding judges will continue to receive
additional pay differentials to their compensation.
MH/fnk
Attachment
cc: Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California
Mr. Jorge Navarrete, Clerk/Executive Officer of the Supreme Court
Clerk/Executive Officers of the Courts of Appeal
Court Executive Officers of the Superior Courts
Human Resources Liaisons of the Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts
Ms. Millicent Tidwell, Chief Deputy Director, Judicial Council
Mr. John Wordlaw, Chief Administrative Officer, Judicial Council
Mr. Robert Oyung, Chief Operating Officer, Judicial Council
Ms. Shelley Curran, Chief Policy and Research Officer, Judicial Council
Ms. Aurora Rezapour, Human Resources Director, Judicial Council
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1132 of 1221
Exempt Program
1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 324-9381; Fax (916) 327-1886
Governor Gavin Newsom
Secretary, Government Operations Agency Yolanda Richardson
Director Eraina Ortega
December 6, 2021
State Controller’s Office
300 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Exempt Pay Letter
Per Government Code section 68203, this is to notify you that the Department of
Human Resources (CalHR) has adjusted the following statutory judicial salaries,
effective July 1, 2021.
After CalHR calculated the 2021 Judicial Salary Increase of 4.30%, three bargaining
units (5, 8, and 19) received a general salary increase retroactive to July 1, 2021. With
the inclusion of the Bargaining Unit 5, 8, and 19 general salary increases, the 2021
calculation yields a 4.88% average percentage salary increase. To account for the
difference between the previously provided 4.30% and the newly calculated 4.88%,
CalHR has adjusted the judicial salaries by 0.5560% to 0.5562% as reflected in the
chart below:
Please note that the monthly rate may be rounded down so that the total for the twelve
months does not exceed the annual amount. If you have any questions, please contact
Angelina Snarr at (916) 324-9406 or Angelina.Snarr@calhr.ca.gov.
Class
Code
Class Title
Monthly
Salary
Annual
Salary
New Monthly
Salary
New Annual
Salary
L5987 Chief Justice $23,875.58 $286,507 $24,008.33 $288,100
L5988 Associate
Justice $22,767.75 $273,213 $22,894.33 $274,732
L5991 Justice, Court of
Appeal $21,344.83 $256,138 $21,463.50 $257,562
L9999 Judge, Superior
Court $18,652.41 $223,829 $18,756.16 $225,074
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1133 of 1221
State Controller’s Office
Page 2
Sincerely,
Manpreet Singh
Exempt Program Manager
(916) 323-4023
cc: Martin Hoshino, Administrative Director
Millicent A. Tidwell, Chief Deputy Director
John Wordlaw, Chief Administrative Officer
Aurora Rezapour, Director, Human Resources Office
Felizia Nava-Kardon, Deputy Director, Human Resources
Evelyn Ramos, Human Resources Supervisor
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1134 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 1 of 69
3633 CONF ACCOUNTANT
0 29.70 2,376.11
1 31.19 2,494.92
2 32.75 2,619.66
3 34.38 2,750.65
4 36.10 2,888.18
3641 ACE ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT
0 21.99 1,759.04
1 23.09 1,846.99
2 24.24 1,939.36
3 25.45 2,036.30
4 26.73 2,138.12
3643 CONF ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
0 25.53 2,042.72
1 26.81 2,144.85
2 28.15 2,252.09
3 29.56 2,364.70
4 31.04 2,482.93
3675 ACE ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
0 25.53 2,042.72
1 26.81 2,144.85
2 28.15 2,252.09
3 29.56 2,364.70
4 31.04 2,482.93
3647 CONF ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II
0 27.81 2,225.19
1 29.21 2,336.44
2 30.67 2,453.26
3 32.20 2,575.93
4 33.81 2,704.73
3677 ACE ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II
0 27.81 2,225.19
1 29.21 2,336.44
2 30.67 2,453.26
3 32.20 2,575.93
4 33.81 2,704.73
3645 ACE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SUPERVISOR
0 31.99 2,558.95
1 33.59 2,686.91
2 35.27 2,821.25
3 37.03 2,962.31
4 38.88 3,110.41
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1135 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 69
0181 ACE ADMINISRATIVE TECHNICIAN
0 27.17 2,173.77
1 28.53 2,282.47
2 29.96 2,396.58
3 31.46 2,516.41
4 33.03 2,642.24
0149 CONF ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
0 27.17 2,173.77
1 28.53 2,282.47
2 29.96 2,396.58
3 31.46 2,516.41
4 33.03 2,642.24
0179 ACE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
0 27.17 2,173.77
1 28.53 2,282.47
2 29.96 2,396.58
3 31.46 2,516.41
4 33.03 2,642.24
0180 UCHR ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
0 27.17
1 28.53
2 29.96
3 31.46
4 33.03
0154 CONF ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY-MAYOR
0 27.17 2,173.77
1 28.53 2,282.47
2 29.96 2,396.58
3 31.46 2,516.41
4 33.03 2,642.24
0215 SM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MGR
0 48.27 3,861.56
1
2
3
4 58.67 4,693.75
5316 UCHR ANIMAL CARE AIDE
0 15.34
1 16.10
2 16.91
3 17.75
4 18.64
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1136 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 69
5343 ACE ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST
0 19.72 1,577.27
1 20.70 1,656.13
2 21.74 1,738.93
3 22.82 1,825.89
4 23.96 1,917.18
5344 UCHR ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST
0 19.72
1 20.70
2 21.74
3 22.82
4 23.96
5319 ACE ANIMAL CARE SUPERVISOR
0 27.38 2,190.21
1 28.75 2,299.72
2 30.18 2,414.71
3 31.69 2,535.45
4 33.28 2,662.21
5303 ACE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
0 23.66 1,892.71
1 24.84 1,987.34
2 26.08 2,086.72
3 27.39 2,191.06
4 28.76 2,300.62
5305 UCHR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
0 23.66
1 24.84
2 26.08
3 27.39
4 28.76
5304 ACE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER SUPVR
0 27.21 2,176.63
1 28.57 2,285.45
2 30.00 2,399.72
3 31.50 2,519.71
4 33.07 2,645.71
5309 ACE ANIMAL SERVICES SPECIALIST
0 21.51 1,720.66
1 22.58 1,806.69
2 23.71 1,897.02
3 24.90 1,991.88
4 26.14 2,091.46
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1137 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 69
3083 MM APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER
0 44.33 3,546.37
1 46.55 3,723.68
2 48.87 3,909.87
3 51.32 4,105.37
4 53.88 4,310.63
3088 PROF APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SPEC
0 38.62 3,089.39
1 40.55 3,243.86
2 42.58 3,406.05
3 44.70 3,576.35
4 46.94 3,755.17
7741 ACE AQUARIST
0 24.49 1,959.25
1 25.71 2,057.18
2 27.00 2,160.04
3 28.35 2,268.06
4 29.77 2,381.46
7579 ACE AQUATIC SUPERVSIOR I
0 25.38 2,030.17
1 26.65 2,131.67
2 27.98 2,238.26
3 29.38 2,350.17
4 30.85 2,467.68
7577 ACE AQUATIC SUPERVSIOR II
0 27.91 2,233.18
1 29.31 2,344.84
2 30.78 2,462.08
3 32.31 2,585.19
4 33.93 2,714.45
7575 ACE AQUATIC SUPERVSIOR III
0 32.10 2,568.16
1 33.71 2,696.57
2 35.39 2,831.40
3 37.16 2,972.96
4 39.02 3,121.61
5011 SM ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
0 68.40 5,472.03
1
2
3
4 83.14 6,651.29
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1138 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 69
2405 SM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
0 74.49 5,959.37
1 78.22 6,257.36
2 82.13 6,570.22
3 86.19 6,895.07
4 90.55 7,243.66
2210 SM ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
0 43.24 3,458.90
1 45.40 3,631.86
2 47.67 3,813.45
3 50.05 4,004.10
4 52.56 4,204.42
2707 EXEC ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
0 96.38 7,710.38
1
2
3
4 116.42 9,313.75
4040 SM ASSISTANT DIR OF DEVLPMNT SVCS
0 74.61 5,968.72
1
2 82.65 6,611.87
3 86.78 6,942.47
4 90.69 7,255.03
6008 SM ASSISTANT DIR OF ENGINEERING
0 66.94 5,355.14
1
2
3
4 80.82 6,465.21
3604 SM ASSISTANT DIR OF FINANCE
0 72.72 5,817.36
1
2 84.13 6,730.77
3
4 87.79 7,023.26
3304 SM ASSISTANT DIR OF HR
0 63.62 5,089.32
1
2
3
4 76.34 6,107.18
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1139 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 6 of 69
6322 SM ASSISTANT DIR OF PUBLIC WORKS
0 68.28 5,462.24
1
2
3 80.61 6,448.52
4 82.43 6,594.51
6015 WCE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
0 39.14 3,131.53
1 41.10 3,288.10
2 43.16 3,452.51
3 45.31 3,625.13
4 47.58 3,806.39
6289 WCE ASSISTANT LAND SURVEYOR
0 39.14 3,131.53
1 41.10 3,288.10
2 43.16 3,452.51
3 45.31 3,625.13
4 47.58 3,806.39
4749 WCE ASSISTANT PLAN CHECK ENGINEER
0 38.14 3,051.40
1 40.05 3,203.97
2 42.05 3,364.17
3 44.15 3,532.38
4 46.36 3,709.00
4439 ACE ASSISTANT PLANNER
0 32.66 2,612.90
1 34.29 2,743.55
2 36.01 2,880.73
3 37.81 3,024.76
4 39.70 3,176.00
3635 CONF ASSOCIATE ACCOUNTANT
0 32.67 2,613.72
1 34.31 2,744.41
2 36.02 2,881.63
3 37.82 3,025.71
4 39.71 3,177.00
6017 WCE ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
0 45.02 3,601.26
1 47.27 3,781.32
2 49.63 3,970.39
3 52.11 4,168.90
4 54.72 4,377.35
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1140 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 69
6287 WCE ASSOCIATE LAND SURVEYOR
0 45.02 3,601.26
1 47.27 3,781.32
2 49.63 3,970.39
3 52.11 4,168.90
4 54.72 4,377.35
4747 WCE ASSOCIATE PLAN CHECK ENGINEER
0 43.86 3,509.11
1 46.06 3,684.57
2 48.36 3,868.80
3 50.78 4,062.24
4 53.32 4,265.35
4437 ACE ASSOCIATE PLANNER
0 35.93 2,874.19
1 37.72 3,017.90
2 39.61 3,168.80
3 41.59 3,327.24
4 43.67 3,493.60
5123 ACE AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT TECH
0 21.81 1,744.93
1 22.90 1,832.18
2 24.05 1,923.79
3 25.25 2,019.98
4 26.51 2,120.98
3404 MMCF BENEFITS MANAGER
0 48.98 3,918.28
1 51.43 4,114.21
2 54.00 4,319.92
3 56.70 4,535.91
4 59.53 4,762.70
3406 UCHR BENEFITS MANAGER
0 48.98
1 51.43
2 54.00
3 56.70
4 59.53
2222 SM BUDGET AND ANALYSIS MANAGER
0 56.00 4,479.84
1 58.80 4,703.83
2 62.16 4,972.62
3 65.27 5,221.26
4 68.07 5,445.27
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1141 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 69
4769 MM BUILDING INSPECTION MANAGER
0 44.31 3,544.56
1 46.52 3,721.79
2 48.85 3,907.88
3 51.29 4,103.28
4 53.86 4,308.44
4771 ACE BUILDING INSPECTOR I
0 31.38 2,510.12
1 32.95 2,635.63
2 34.59 2,767.41
3 36.32 2,905.78
4 38.14 3,051.07
4773 ACE BUILDING INSPECTOR II
0 34.51 2,761.14
1 36.24 2,899.20
2 38.05 3,044.15
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.19
4775 ACE BUILDING INSPECTOR III
0 37.97 3,037.25
1 39.86 3,189.12
2 41.86 3,348.58
3 43.95 3,516.00
4 46.15 3,691.80
4780 SM BUILDING OFFICIAL/CODE ENF MGR
0 67.74 5,418.86
1
2
3
4 82.33 6,586.68
6412 PROF BUILDING PROJECT MANAGER
0 43.11 3,448.57
1 45.26 3,620.99
2 47.53 3,802.04
3 49.90 3,992.15
4 52.40 4,191.75
6402 MM BUILDING SERVICES MANAGER
0 51.78 4,142.50
1 54.37 4,349.62
2 57.09 4,567.10
3 59.94 4,795.46
4 62.94 5,035.23
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1142 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 9 of 69
6669 ACE BUILDING SERVICES SUPERVISOR
0 30.34 2,426.91
1 31.85 2,548.25
2 33.45 2,675.67
3 35.12 2,809.45
4 36.87 2,949.93
4505 ACE BUSINESS LICENSE REPRESENTATIV
0 21.99 1,759.04
1 23.09 1,846.99
2 24.24 1,939.36
3 25.45 2,036.30
4 26.73 2,138.12
6444 ACE CARPENTER
0 27.38 2,190.39
1 28.75 2,299.90
2 30.19 2,414.90
3 31.70 2,535.65
4 33.28 2,662.44
3669 ACE CASHIER
0 18.56 1,484.90
1 19.49 1,559.15
2 20.46 1,637.11
3 21.49 1,718.96
4 22.56 1,804.91
3053 SM CHIEF INFO SEC OFFICER
0 55.48 4,438.00
1
2
3
4 67.43 5,394.42
5001 EXEC CHIEF OF POLICE
0 93.84 7,507.33
1
2 108.48 8,678.44
3
4 114.07 9,125.24
2011 MMUC CHIEF OF STAFF
0 37.48 2,998.65
1 39.36 3,148.59
2 41.33 3,306.00
3 43.39 3,471.30
4 45.56 3,644.88
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1143 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 10 of 69
2729 SM CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER
0 64.50 5,159.75
1
2
3 76.14 6,091.40
4 77.87 6,229.32
2400 CATY CITY ATTORNEY (ELECTED)
0
Effective July 1, 2021
1
2
3
4 107.61 8,608.81
2435 CONF CITY ATTY INVESTIGATOR
0 32.33 2,586.46
1 33.95 2,715.78
2 35.64 2,851.57
3 37.43 2,994.15
4 39.30 3,143.86
2201 CCLK CITY CLERK
0 77.36 6,189.09
1
2
3
4 93.99 7,519.24
2221 PROF CITY CLERK ANALYST
0 37.67 3,013.37
1 39.55 3,164.04
2 41.53 3,322.24
3 43.60 3,488.35
4 45.78 3,662.77
2224 UCHR CITY CLERK ANALYST (HOURLY)
0 37.67
1 39.55
2 41.53
3 43.60
4 45.78
6010 SM CITY ENGINEER
0 63.68 5,094.69
1
2
3
4 77.41 6,192.61
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1144 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 11 of 69
7007 SM CITY LIBRARIAN
0 59.85 4,788.20
1 62.85 5,027.60
2 65.99 5,278.99
3 69.29 5,542.93
4 72.75 5,820.08
2710 CMGR CITY MANAGER
0
1
2
3
4 139.76 11,180.77
5429 ACE CIVILIAN BCKGRND INVESTIGATOR
0 27.49 2,199.23
1 28.86 2,309.19
2 30.31 2,424.65
3 31.82 2,545.89
4 33.41 2,673.18
5430 UCHR CIVILIAN BCKGRND INVESTIGATOR
0 27.49
1 28.86
2 30.31
3 31.82
4 33.41
5431 UCHR CIVILIAN POLICE INVESTIGATOR
0 25.79
1 27.08
2 28.43
3 29.85
4 31.35
0241 UCHR CLERICAL AIDE
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
4777 ACE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I
0 27.25 2,180.31
1 28.62 2,289.34
2 30.05 2,403.79
3 31.55 2,523.99
4 33.13 2,650.19
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1145 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 12 of 69
4778 UCHR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II
0 29.98
1 31.48
2 33.05
3 34.70
4 36.44
4779 ACE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II
0 29.98 2,398.34
1 31.48 2,518.27
2 33.05 2,644.19
3 34.70 2,776.39
4 36.44 2,915.22
4789 ACE CODE ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN
0 23.70 1,895.92
1 24.88 1,990.73
2 26.13 2,090.26
3 27.43 2,194.78
4 28.81 2,304.51
3683 MM COLLECTIONS SUPERVISOR
0 36.78 2,942.72
1 38.62 3,089.86
2 40.55 3,244.34
3 42.58 3,406.57
4 44.71 3,576.90
2799 PRUC COMM/SPEC EVENTS COORDINATOR
0 40.62 3,249.25
1 42.65 3,411.72
2 44.78 3,582.30
3 47.02 3,761.42
4 49.37 3,949.49
5141 ACE COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER
0 22.91 1,832.70
1 24.05 1,924.33
2 25.26 2,020.55
3 26.52 2,121.57
4 27.85 2,227.65
5142 UCHR COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER
0 22.91
1 24.05
2 25.26
3 26.52
4 27.85
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1146 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 13 of 69
6200 ACE CONSERVATION SPECIALIST I
0 24.78 1,982.10
1 26.02 2,081.22
2 27.32 2,185.29
3 28.68 2,294.53
4 30.12 2,409.26
6202 ACE CONSERVATION SPECIALIST II
0 27.25 2,180.31
1 28.62 2,289.34
2 30.05 2,403.79
3 31.55 2,523.99
4 33.13 2,650.19
6427 ACE CONSTRUCTION & REPAIR SUPV
0 38.76 3,100.61
1 40.70 3,255.64
2 42.73 3,418.42
3 44.87 3,589.34
4 47.11 3,768.81
2023 UCHR COUNCIL ASSISTANT
0 22.91
1 24.06
2 25.26
3 26.52
4 27.85
2003 CL COUNCILPERSON
0
Effective July 1, 2021
1
2
3
4 28.41 2,272.73
5757 UCHR COVID SITE ASST
0 15.44
1 16.21
2 17.02
3 17.87
4 18.76
5101 MM CRIME LABORATORY MANAGER
0 47.63 3,810.62
1 50.01 4,001.15
2 52.52 4,201.21
3 55.14 4,411.27
4 57.90 4,631.83
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1147 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 14 of 69
6667 ACE CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR
0 25.16 2,012.40
1 26.41 2,113.03
2 27.73 2,218.69
3 29.12 2,329.62
4 30.58 2,446.11
6661 ACE CUSTODIAN
0 19.89 1,590.82
1 20.88 1,670.36
2 21.92 1,753.88
3 23.02 1,841.59
4 24.17 1,933.66
6662 UCHR CUSTODIAN
0 19.89
1 20.88
2 21.92
3 23.02
4 24.17
7191 ACE DELIVERY DRIVER
0 18.86 1,509.10
1 19.81 1,584.56
2 20.80 1,663.79
3 21.84 1,746.98
4 22.93 1,834.33
2410 PRUC DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY I
0 44.96 3,596.82
1 47.21 3,776.65
2 49.57 3,965.48
3 52.05 4,163.76
4 54.65 4,371.94
2408 PRUC DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II
0 53.95 4,316.16
1 56.65 4,531.97
2 59.48 4,758.58
3 62.46 4,996.50
4 65.58 5,246.32
2411 SM DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY III
0 67.06 5,364.53
1 70.41 5,632.77
2 73.93 5,914.40
3 77.63 6,210.12
4 81.51 6,520.59
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1148 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 15 of 69
2245 PRUC DEPUTY CITY CLERK I
0 27.80 2,224.17
1 29.19 2,335.37
2 30.65 2,452.15
3 32.18 2,574.77
4 33.79 2,703.49
2243 PRUC DEPUTY CITY CLERK II
0 30.58 2,446.59
1 32.11 2,568.92
2 33.72 2,697.37
3 35.40 2,832.24
4 37.17 2,973.85
2705 EXEC DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
0 100.50 8,040.17
1
2
3
4 111.32 8,905.33
5505 SM DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF
0 71.40 5,712.26
1
2
3
4 86.79 6,943.31
5130 MM DETENTION FACILITY MANAGER
0 47.63 3,810.62
1 50.01 4,001.15
2 52.52 4,201.21
3 55.14 4,411.27
4 57.90 4,631.83
5137 ACE DETENTIONS OFFICER
0 27.49 2,199.23
1 28.86 2,309.19
2 30.31 2,424.65
3 31.82 2,545.89
4 33.41 2,673.18
5135 ACE DETENTIONS SUPERVISOR
0 31.61 2,529.12
1 33.19 2,655.57
2 34.85 2,788.35
3 36.60 2,927.77
4 38.43 3,074.16
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1149 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 16 of 69
4718 PROF DEVELOPMENT AUTOMATION SPEC
0 38.08 3,046.34
1 39.98 3,198.66
2 41.98 3,358.59
3 44.08 3,526.52
4 46.29 3,702.85
4547 MM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER M
0 45.95 3,675.95
1 48.25 3,859.74
2 50.66 4,052.74
3 53.19 4,255.37
4 55.85 4,468.14
4540 UCHR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH I
0 23.41
1 24.58
2 25.81
3 27.10
4 28.45
4542 ACE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH I
0 23.41 1,872.77
1 24.58 1,966.40
2 25.81 2,064.72
3 27.10 2,167.96
4 28.45 2,276.36
4541 ACE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH II
0 25.75 2,060.04
1 27.04 2,163.04
2 28.39 2,271.20
3 29.81 2,384.76
4 31.30 2,503.99
4544 UCHR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH II
0 25.75
1 27.04
2 28.39
3 29.81
4 31.30
4543 ACE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECH III
0 29.61 2,369.05
1 31.09 2,487.50
2 32.65 2,611.88
3 34.28 2,742.47
4 35.99 2,879.59
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1150 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 17 of 69
5245 ACE DGTL FOR TECH I
0 25.47 2,037.22
1 26.74 2,139.08
2 28.08 2,246.04
3 29.48 2,358.34
4 30.95 2,476.25
5243 ACE DGTL FOR TECH II
0 29.29 2,342.81
1 30.75 2,459.95
2 32.29 2,582.94
3 33.90 2,712.09
4 35.60 2,847.69
2734 EXEC DIR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
0 83.24 6,659.46
1
2
3
4 101.18 8,094.61
4039 EXEC DIR. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
0 83.23 6,658.57
1
2
3
4 101.18 8,094.61
6006 EXEC DIR. OF ENGINEERING/CITY ENG
0 83.24 6,659.46
1
2
3
4 101.18 8,094.61
5350 EXEC DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL SERVICES
0 64.50 5,159.77
1
2
3
4 78.40 6,271.73
7004 EXEC DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
0 78.41 6,272.52
1 82.33 6,586.14
2 86.44 6,915.45
3 90.77 7,261.22
4 95.31 7,624.56
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1151 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 18 of 69
3601 EXEC DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
0 83.24 6,659.46
1
2
3 98.56 7,884.62
4 101.18 8,094.61
3300 EXEC DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES/RM
0 83.24 6,659.46
1
2
3
4 101.18 8,094.61
3001 EXEC DIRECTOR OF INFO TECH SERVICES
0 78.41 6,272.52
1
2 86.44 6,915.45
3
4 95.31 7,624.56
6320 EXEC DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
0 83.24 6,659.46
1
2
3 93.93 7,514.05
4 101.18 8,094.61
2747 ACE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPEC I
0 29.94 2,395.16
1 31.44 2,514.92
2 33.01 2,640.67
3 34.66 2,772.70
4 36.39 2,911.33
2749 ACE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPEC II
0 35.93 2,874.19
1 37.72 3,017.90
2 39.61 3,168.80
3 41.59 3,327.24
4 43.67 3,493.60
6438 ACE ELECTRICIAN
0 29.31 2,344.50
1 30.77 2,461.73
2 32.31 2,584.81
3 33.93 2,714.05
4 35.62 2,849.76
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1152 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 19 of 69
6492 ACE ELECTRONIC/EQUIPMENT INSTALLER
0 26.64 2,131.37
1 27.97 2,237.93
2 29.37 2,349.83
3 30.84 2,467.32
4 32.38 2,590.69
6475 ACE ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN
0 32.24 2,578.95
1 33.85 2,707.90
2 35.54 2,843.30
3 37.32 2,985.46
4 39.18 3,134.73
6472 ACE ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN SUPV
0 37.07 2,965.80
1 38.93 3,114.09
2 40.87 3,269.79
3 42.92 3,433.28
4 45.06 3,604.94
5560 SM EMERGENCY SERVICES MGR
0 48.27 3,861.57
1
2
3
4 58.67 4,693.75
5557 PROF EMS EDUCATOR
0 41.84 3,347.11
1 43.93 3,514.46
2 46.13 3,690.19
3 48.43 3,874.70
4 50.86 4,068.43
5559 ACE EMS INVENTORY SPECIALIST
0 26.88 2,150.63
1 28.23 2,258.16
2 29.64 2,371.06
3 31.12 2,489.60
4 32.68 2,614.10
5567 PROF EMS NURSE COORDINATOR
0 50.21 4,016.53
1 52.72 4,217.34
2 55.35 4,428.22
3 58.12 4,649.63
4 61.03 4,882.11
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1153 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 20 of 69
5657 NIAF EMT (NON-SAFETY)
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
5658 UCHR EMT (NON-SAFETY)
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
6081 ACE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN I
0 27.28 2,182.72
1 28.65 2,291.85
2 30.08 2,406.44
3 31.58 2,526.77
4 33.16 2,653.12
6071 ACE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II
0 30.01 2,400.99
1 31.51 2,521.04
2 33.09 2,647.09
3 34.74 2,779.44
4 36.48 2,918.42
6129 ACE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPEC
0 36.08 2,886.67
1 37.89 3,031.00
2 39.78 3,182.55
3 41.77 3,341.66
4 43.86 3,508.76
6205 MM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER
0 49.90 3,992.38
1 52.40 4,192.00
2 55.02 4,401.60
3 57.77 4,621.68
4 60.66 4,852.76
6207 MM ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTNBILITY MGR
0 49.90 3,992.38
1 52.40 4,192.00
2 55.02 4,401.60
3 57.77 4,621.68
4 60.66 4,852.76
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1154 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 21 of 69
6505 MM EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGER
0 39.31 3,145.11
1 41.28 3,302.36
2 43.34 3,467.49
3 45.51 3,640.86
4 47.79 3,822.90
6542 ACE EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
0 28.19 2,255.47
1 29.60 2,368.25
2 31.08 2,486.66
3 32.64 2,610.99
4 34.27 2,741.54
6544 UCHR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
0 28.19
1 29.60
2 31.08
3 32.64
4 34.27
6361 ACE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
0 28.87 2,309.89
1 30.32 2,425.38
2 31.83 2,546.65
3 33.42 2,673.98
4 35.10 2,807.68
0187 CONF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
0 32.88 2,630.28
1 34.52 2,761.79
2 36.25 2,899.87
3 38.06 3,044.87
4 39.96 3,197.11
5270 CONF FA ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
0 27.81 2,225.19
1 29.21 2,336.44
2 30.67 2,453.26
3 32.20 2,575.93
4 33.81 2,704.73
5297 CONF FA ADMINSTRATIVE ANALYST I
0 30.55 2,444.05
1 32.08 2,566.27
2 33.68 2,694.56
3 35.37 2,829.29
4 37.13 2,970.75
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1155 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 22 of 69
5296 CONF FA ADMINSTRATIVE ANALYST II
0 33.61 2,688.45
1 35.29 2,822.87
2 37.05 2,964.02
3 38.90 3,112.24
4 40.85 3,267.83
5277 CONF FA ANALYST
0 23.35 1,867.66
1 24.51 1,961.04
2 25.74 2,059.10
3 27.03 2,162.05
4 28.38 2,270.16
5455 MMUC FA CYBER SECURITY PROG MGR
0 45.19 3,614.84
1 47.44 3,795.57
2 49.82 3,985.35
3 52.31 4,184.62
4 54.92 4,393.85
5465 SM FA DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LECC
0 49.78 3,982.35
1 52.27 4,181.47
2 54.88 4,390.54
3 57.63 4,610.06
4 60.51 4,840.58
5463 SM FA DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
0 54.63 4,370.13
1
2
3
4 66.40 5,311.92
5274 SM FA DIRECTOR OF SD LECC
0 64.26 5,140.50
1
2
3
4 78.10 6,248.31
5286 CONF FA EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
0 29.91 2,392.81
1 31.41 2,512.46
2 32.98 2,638.09
3 34.62 2,769.98
4 36.36 2,908.49
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1156 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 23 of 69
5461 EXEC FA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
0 60.19 4,815.34
1
2
3
4 73.16 5,853.08
5493 MMUC FA FINANCE MANAGER
0 49.65 3,971.63
1 52.13 4,170.20
2 54.73 4,378.71
3 57.47 4,597.64
4 60.34 4,827.53
5439 PRUC FA GEOSPATIAL INTEL ANALYST
0 43.09 3,447.05
1 45.24 3,619.41
2 47.50 3,800.39
3 49.88 3,990.40
4 52.37 4,189.92
5289 CONF FA GRAPHIC DESIGNER/WEBMASTER
0 34.76 2,780.99
1 36.50 2,920.05
2 38.33 3,066.06
3 40.24 3,219.35
4 42.25 3,380.33
5453 MMUC FA INFO SYSTEMS PROGRAM MGR
0 50.26 4,021.01
1 52.78 4,222.06
2 55.41 4,433.15
3 58.19 4,654.81
4 61.09 4,887.56
5485 CONF FA INTEL ANLYT
0 31.60 2,528.18
1 33.18 2,654.59
2 34.84 2,787.32
3 36.58 2,926.68
4 38.41 3,073.03
5491 SM FA IVDC-LECC EXEC DIRECTOR
0 54.14 4,331.09
1 56.85 4,547.63
2 59.69 4,775.01
3 62.67 5,013.75
4 65.81 5,264.44
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1157 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 24 of 69
5440 MMUC FA LECC INFO TECH MANAGER
0 45.96 3,676.86
1 48.26 3,860.70
2 50.67 4,053.74
3 53.21 4,256.42
4 55.87 4,469.24
5278 CONF FA MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
0 28.49 2,278.88
1 29.91 2,392.81
2 31.41 2,512.47
3 32.98 2,638.10
4 34.62 2,769.99
5443 PRUC FA MICROCOMPUTER SPECIALIST
0 37.37 2,989.52
1 39.24 3,138.99
2 41.20 3,295.94
3 43.26 3,460.74
4 45.42 3,633.77
5292 PRUC FA NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR I
0 37.61 3,008.60
1 39.49 3,159.03
2 41.46 3,316.98
3 43.54 3,482.83
4 45.71 3,656.98
5294 PRUC FA NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR II
0 41.37 3,309.47
1 43.44 3,474.95
2 45.61 3,648.69
3 47.89 3,831.13
4 50.28 4,022.69
5457 PRUC FA NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR III
0 43.57 3,485.73
1 45.75 3,660.02
2 48.04 3,843.01
3 50.44 4,035.17
4 52.96 4,236.93
5444 PRUC FA PROGRAM ANALYST
0 44.58 3,566.58
1 46.81 3,744.91
2 49.15 3,932.16
3 51.61 4,128.77
4 54.19 4,335.21
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1158 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 25 of 69
5451 CONF FA PROGRAM ASSISTANT
0 22.76 1,820.40
1 23.89 1,911.41
2 25.09 2,007.00
3 26.34 2,107.35
4 27.66 2,212.71
5452 PRUC FA PROGRAM ASSISTANT SUPV
0 32.43 2,594.00
1 34.05 2,723.70
2 35.75 2,859.88
3 37.54 3,002.88
4 39.41 3,153.01
5445 SM FA PROGRAM MANAGER
0 49.78 3,982.35
1 52.34 4,186.90
2 54.88 4,390.54
3 57.63 4,610.06
4 60.51 4,840.58
5497 MMUC FA PUBLIC-PRVT PART EXER MGR
0 46.74 3,739.50
1 49.08 3,926.47
2 51.53 4,122.79
3 54.11 4,328.94
4 56.82 4,545.39
5284 CONF FA RCFL NETWORK ENGINEER
0 36.67 2,933.88
1 38.51 3,080.57
2 40.43 3,234.61
3 42.45 3,396.33
4 44.58 3,566.15
5495 PRUC FA SENIOR FINANCIAL ANALYST
0 34.94 2,794.93
1 36.68 2,934.67
2 38.52 3,081.42
3 40.44 3,235.48
4 42.47 3,397.26
5483 PRUC FA SENIOR INTELLIGENCE ANALYST
0 36.79 2,943.35
1 38.63 3,090.52
2 40.56 3,245.05
3 42.59 3,407.30
4 44.72 3,577.66
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1159 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 26 of 69
5454 CONF FA SENIOR PROGRAM ASSISTANT
0 27.07 2,165.81
1 28.43 2,274.10
2 29.85 2,387.81
3 31.34 2,507.21
4 32.91 2,632.57
5477 CONF FA SENIOR SECRETARY
0 23.41 1,872.67
1 24.58 1,966.30
2 25.81 2,064.61
3 27.10 2,167.85
4 28.45 2,276.24
5481 PRUC FA SUPERVISORY INTEL ANALYST
0 40.47 3,237.69
1 42.49 3,399.57
2 44.62 3,569.55
3 46.85 3,748.03
4 49.19 3,935.43
4051 SM FAC FINANCE MANAGER
0 48.27 3,861.56
1
2
3
4 58.67 4,693.75
6425 MM FACILITIES MANAGER
0 44.78 3,582.24
1 47.02 3,761.35
2 49.37 3,949.42
3 51.84 4,146.89
4 54.43 4,354.24
7471 ACE FIELD MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
0 22.02 1,761.60
1 23.12 1,849.68
2 24.28 1,942.16
3 25.49 2,039.27
4 26.77 2,141.24
3623 SM FINANCE MGR
0 54.92 4,393.69
1
2
3
4 66.76 5,340.56
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1160 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 27 of 69
3624 SM FINANCE MGR (CPA)
0 60.41 4,833.06
1
2
3
4 73.43 5,874.62
3622 UCHR FINANCE MGR CPA (HOURLY)
0 60.41
1
2
3
4 73.43
6521 ACE FIRE APPARATUS MECHANIC
0 33.72 2,697.55
1 35.41 2,832.42
2 37.18 2,974.05
3 39.03 3,122.75
4 40.99 3,278.89
5511 IAFF FIRE BATTALION CHIEF - A
0 37.76 4,229.36
1 39.65 4,440.83
2 41.63 4,662.87
3 43.71 4,896.01
4 45.90 5,140.81
5513 IAFF FIRE BATTALION CHIEF - C
0 52.87 4,229.36
1 55.51 4,440.83
2 58.29 4,662.87
3 61.20 4,896.01
4 64.26 5,140.81
5583 IAFF FIRE CAPTAIN - A
0 30.31 3,394.98
1 31.83 3,564.72
2 33.42 3,742.96
3 35.09 3,930.11
4 36.84 4,126.61
5582 IAFF FIRE CAPTAIN - B
0 40.42 3,394.98
1 42.44 3,564.72
2 44.56 3,742.96
3 46.79 3,930.11
4 49.13 4,126.61
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1161 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 28 of 69
5581 IAFF FIRE CAPTAIN - C
0 42.44 3,394.98
1 44.56 3,564.72
2 46.79 3,742.96
3 49.13 3,930.11
4 51.58 4,126.61
5501 EXEC FIRE CHIEF
0 85.68 6,854.73
1
2 101.56 8,125.15
3
4 104.14 8,331.59
5507 MMUC FIRE DIVISION CHIEF
0 65.45 5,235.91
1 68.72 5,497.70
2 72.16 5,772.59
3 75.77 6,061.21
4 79.55 6,364.27
5603 IAFF FIRE ENGINEER - A
0 25.84 2,894.63
1 27.14 3,039.36
2 28.49 3,191.33
3 29.92 3,350.89
4 31.41 3,518.44
5601 IAFF FIRE ENGINEER - C
0 36.18 2,894.63
1 37.99 3,039.36
2 39.89 3,191.33
3 41.89 3,350.89
4 43.98 3,518.44
5530 IAFF FIRE INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR I
0 30.60 2,448.07
1 32.13 2,570.47
2 33.74 2,699.00
3 35.42 2,833.95
4 37.20 2,975.65
5534 UCHR FIRE INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR I
0 30.60
1 32.13
2 33.74
3 35.42
4 37.20
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1162 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 29 of 69
5531 IAFF FIRE INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR II
0 33.66 2,692.87
1 35.34 2,827.51
2 37.11 2,968.89
3 38.97 3,117.33
4 40.92 3,273.20
5532 UCHR FIRE INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATOR II
0 33.66
1 35.34
2 37.11
3 38.97
4 40.92
5533 UCHR FIRE PREVENTION AIDE
0 15.57
1 16.34
2 17.16
3 18.02
4 18.92
5528 IAFF FIRE PREVENTION ENG/INVSTGTR
0 40.60 3,247.92
1 42.63 3,410.32
2 44.76 3,580.83
3 47.00 3,759.88
4 49.35 3,947.87
5537 ACE FIRE PREVENTION SPECIALIST
0 25.75 2,060.04
1 27.04 2,163.04
2 28.39 2,271.20
3 29.81 2,384.76
4 31.37 2,509.99
5625 ACE FIRE RECRUIT
0 24.50 1,959.62
1 25.72 2,057.60
5623 IAFF FIREFIGHTER - A
0 21.97 2,460.12
1 23.06 2,583.13
2 24.22 2,712.28
3 25.43 2,847.90
4 26.70 2,990.29
5621 IAFF FIREFIGHTER - C
0 30.75 2,460.12
1 32.29 2,583.13
2 33.90 2,712.28
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1163 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 30 of 69
3 35.60 2,847.90
4 37.38 2,990.29
5613 IAFF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC - A
0 25.26 2,829.14
1 26.52 2,970.60
2 27.85 3,119.13
3 29.24 3,275.08
4 30.70 3,438.84
5612 IAFF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC - B
0 33.68 2,829.14
1 35.36 2,970.60
2 37.13 3,119.13
3 38.99 3,275.08
4 40.94 3,438.84
5611 IAFF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC - C
0 35.36 2,829.14
1 37.13 2,970.60
2 38.99 3,119.13
3 40.94 3,275.08
4 42.99 3,438.84
0216 PRCF FISCAL AND MANAGEMENT ANALYST
0 46.04 3,683.33
1 48.34 3,867.50
2 50.76 4,060.86
3 53.30 4,263.92
4 55.96 4,477.12
3627 MMCF FISCAL DEBT MGMT ANALYST
0 46.04 3,683.33
1 48.34 3,867.50
2 50.76 4,060.86
3 53.30 4,263.92
4 55.96 4,477.12
0169 ACE FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 20.31 1,625.05
1 21.33 1,706.31
2 22.40 1,791.62
3 23.51 1,881.19
4 24.69 1,975.25
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1164 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 31 of 69
0170 UCHR FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 20.31
1 21.33
2 22.40
3 23.51
4 24.69
6513 ACE FLEET INVENTORY CONTROL SPEC
0 26.88 2,150.63
1 28.23 2,258.16
2 29.64 2,371.06
3 31.12 2,489.60
4 32.68 2,614.10
6501 MM FLEET MANAGER
0 43.67 3,493.88
1 45.86 3,668.57
2 48.15 3,852.00
3 50.56 4,044.60
4 53.09 4,246.83
5114 ACE FORENSICS SPECIALIST
0 32.21 2,577.08
1 33.82 2,705.93
2 35.52 2,841.26
3 37.29 2,983.30
4 39.16 3,132.47
6629 UCHR GARDENER (SEASONAL)
0 18.19
1 19.10
2 20.06
3 21.06
4 22.11
3079 MM GIS MANAGER
0 44.77 3,581.51
1 47.01 3,760.58
2 49.36 3,948.60
3 51.83 4,146.03
4 54.42 4,353.34
3081 ACE GIS SPECIALIST
0 32.77 2,621.35
1 34.41 2,752.42
2 36.13 2,890.04
3 37.93 3,034.54
4 39.83 3,186.27
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1165 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 32 of 69
2775 ACE GRAPHIC DESIGNER
0 28.74 2,299.00
1 30.17 2,413.94
2 31.68 2,534.64
3 33.27 2,661.38
4 34.93 2,794.43
4093 SM HOUSING MANAGER
0 56.77 4,541.20
1
2
3
4 68.46 5,476.66
3310 PRCF HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
0 35.54 2,843.12
1 37.32 2,985.27
2 39.18 3,134.54
3 41.14 3,291.26
4 43.20 3,455.83
3312 UCHR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
0 35.54
1 37.32
2 39.18
3 41.14
4 43.20
3331 SM HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
0 58.46 4,676.87
1
2
3
4 71.06 5,684.54
3332 UCHR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
0 58.46
1
2
3
4 71.06
3314 UCHR HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN
0 26.16
1 27.47
2 28.85
3 30.29
4 31.80
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1166 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 33 of 69
3315 CONF HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN
0 26.16 2,093.17
1 27.47 2,197.83
2 28.85 2,307.72
3 30.29 2,423.10
4 31.80 2,544.26
6430 ACE HVAC TECHNICIAN
0 29.31 2,344.50
1 30.77 2,461.73
2 32.31 2,584.81
3 33.93 2,714.05
4 35.62 2,849.76
5104 SM INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
0 56.19 4,495.17
1
2
3
4 67.43 5,394.42
3014 PROF INFO TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST
0 36.64 2,930.90
1 38.47 3,077.44
2 40.39 3,231.31
3 42.41 3,392.88
4 44.53 3,562.52
3017 ACE INFO TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN
0 28.19 2,255.47
1 29.60 2,368.25
2 31.08 2,486.66
3 32.64 2,610.99
4 34.27 2,741.54
3018 UCHR INFO TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN
0 28.19
1 29.60
2 31.08
3 32.64
4 34.27
0269 UCHR INTERN - GRADUATE
0 16.50
1 17.33
2 18.19
3 19.10
4 20.06
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1167 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 34 of 69
0267 UCHR INTERN - UNDERGRADUATE
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
4480 PROF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
0 39.92 3,193.61
1 41.92 3,353.29
2 44.01 3,520.96
3 46.21 3,697.00
4 48.52 3,881.85
6291 ACE LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
0 34.51 2,761.15
1 36.24 2,899.21
2 38.05 3,044.17
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.20
4482 ACE LANDSCAPE PLANNER I
0 32.66 2,612.90
1 34.29 2,743.55
2 36.01 2,880.73
3 37.81 3,024.76
4 39.70 3,176.00
4483 ACE LANDSCAPE PLANNER II
0 35.93 2,874.19
1 37.72 3,017.90
2 39.61 3,168.80
3 41.59 3,327.24
4 43.67 3,493.60
5111 ACE LATENT PRINT EXAMINER
0 37.05 2,963.66
1 38.90 3,111.85
2 40.84 3,267.43
3 42.89 3,430.81
4 45.03 3,602.33
5112 UCHR LATENT PRINT EXAMINER
0 37.05
1 38.90
2 40.84
3 42.89
4 45.03
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1168 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 35 of 69
2465 MMUC LAW OFFICE MANAGER
0 37.44 2,995.30
1 39.31 3,145.07
2 41.28 3,302.32
3 43.34 3,467.45
4 45.51 3,640.82
6663 ACE LEAD CUSTODIAN
0 21.87 1,749.92
1 22.97 1,837.41
2 24.12 1,929.29
3 25.32 2,025.75
4 26.59 2,127.04
0183 CONF LEGAL ASSISTANT
0 27.44 2,195.31
1 28.81 2,305.08
2 30.25 2,420.34
3 31.77 2,541.34
4 33.36 2,668.41
7075 ACE LIBRARIAN I
0 27.66 2,212.44
1 29.04 2,323.06
2 30.49 2,439.22
3 32.01 2,561.18
4 33.62 2,689.24
7076 UCHR LIBRARIAN I
0 27.66
1 29.04
2 30.49
3 32.01
4 33.62
7073 ACE LIBRARIAN II
0 30.42 2,433.68
1 31.94 2,555.37
2 33.54 2,683.14
3 35.22 2,817.29
4 36.98 2,958.16
7074 UCHR LIBRARIAN II
0 30.42
1 31.94
2 33.54
3 35.22
4 36.98
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1169 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 36 of 69
7071 ACE LIBRARIAN III
0 33.46 2,677.05
1 35.14 2,810.91
2 36.89 2,951.45
3 38.74 3,099.02
4 40.67 3,253.98
7181 UCHR LIBRARY AIDE
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
7157 ACE LIBRARY ASSISTANT
0 18.74 1,499.29
1 19.68 1,574.27
2 20.66 1,652.97
3 21.70 1,735.62
4 22.78 1,822.41
7091 ACE LIBRARY ASSOCIATE
0 23.69 1,894.94
1 24.87 1,989.69
2 26.11 2,089.18
3 27.42 2,193.64
4 28.79 2,303.33
7092 UCHR LIBRARY ASSOCIATE
0 23.69
1 24.87
2 26.11
3 27.42
4 28.79
7025 MM LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES MGR
0 43.40 3,471.90
1 45.57 3,645.49
2 47.85 3,827.76
3 50.24 4,019.16
4 52.75 4,220.12
7029 MM LIBRARY OPERATIONS MANAGER
0 49.93 3,994.48
1 52.43 4,194.21
2 55.05 4,403.91
3 57.80 4,624.11
4 60.69 4,855.31
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1170 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 37 of 69
7121 ACE LIBRARY TECHNICIAN
0 21.55 1,724.20
1 22.63 1,810.41
2 23.76 1,900.94
3 24.95 1,995.98
4 26.20 2,095.77
7587 UCHR LIFEGUARD I
0 15.24
1 16.00
2 16.80
3 17.64
4 18.53
7585 UCHR LIFEGUARD II
0 16.77
1 17.60
2 18.48
3 19.41
4 20.38
6443 ACE LOCKSMITH
0 27.38 2,190.39
1 28.75 2,299.90
2 30.19 2,414.90
3 31.70 2,535.65
4 33.28 2,662.44
6377 ACE MAINTENANCE WORKER I
0 20.58 1,646.29
1 21.61 1,728.61
2 22.69 1,815.04
3 23.82 1,905.79
4 25.01 2,001.08
6379 UCHR MAINTENANCE WORKER I
0 20.58
1 21.61
2 22.69
3 23.82
4 25.01
6373 ACE MAINTENANCE WORKER II
0 22.64 1,810.92
1 23.77 1,901.47
2 24.96 1,996.54
3 26.20 2,096.37
4 27.51 2,201.19
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1171 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 38 of 69
0228 CONF MANAGEMENT ANALYST I
0 31.13 2,490.30
1 32.69 2,614.81
2 34.32 2,745.56
3 36.04 2,882.84
4 37.84 3,026.97
0229 ACE MANAGEMENT ANALYST I
0 31.13 2,490.30
1 32.69 2,614.81
2 34.32 2,745.56
3 36.04 2,882.84
4 37.84 3,026.97
0224 CONF MANAGEMENT ANALYST II
0 34.24 2,739.33
1 35.95 2,876.30
2 37.75 3,020.10
3 39.64 3,171.11
4 41.62 3,329.66
0227 ACE MANAGEMENT ANALYST II
0 34.24 2,739.33
1 35.95 2,876.30
2 37.75 3,020.10
3 39.64 3,171.11
4 41.62 3,329.66
2781 SM MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS MGR
0 58.65 4,692.00
1
2 60.30 4,824.35
3
4 71.29 5,703.16
2001 MY MAYOR
0
Effective July 1, 2021
1
2
3
4 71.02 5,681.82
6550 ACE MECHANIC ASSISTANT
0 22.09 1,766.93
1 23.19 1,855.27
2 24.35 1,948.04
3 25.57 2,045.44
4 26.85 2,147.71
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1172 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 39 of 69
0238 CONF MGMT ANALYST I (CM'S OFFICE)
0 31.13 2,490.30
1 32.69 2,614.81
2 34.32 2,745.56
3 36.04 2,882.84
4 37.84 3,026.97
5569 ACE MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTON SPCLST
0 27.66 2,212.98
1 29.05 2,323.63
2 30.50 2,439.81
3 32.02 2,561.80
4 33.62 2,689.89
0160 UCHR OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 19.35
1 20.31
2 21.33
3 22.39
4 23.51
0161 ACE OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 19.35 1,547.64
1 20.31 1,625.02
2 21.33 1,706.28
3 22.39 1,791.59
4 23.51 1,881.16
0162 ACE OFFICE SPECIALIST-MAYOR
0 19.35 1,547.64
1 20.31 1,625.02
2 21.33 1,706.28
3 22.39 1,791.59
4 23.51 1,881.16
6311 ACE OPEN SPACE INSPECTOR
0 34.51 2,761.15
1 36.24 2,899.21
2 38.05 3,044.17
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.20
6302 MM OPEN SPACE MANAGER
0 42.33 3,386.62
1 44.45 3,555.95
2 46.67 3,733.75
3 49.01 3,920.44
4 51.46 4,116.47
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1173 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 40 of 69
3025 MM OPERATIONS AND TELECOMM MGR
0 44.77 3,581.50
1 47.01 3,760.57
2 49.36 3,948.59
3 51.83 4,146.02
4 54.42 4,353.33
6434 ACE PAINTER
0 26.14 2,090.84
1 27.44 2,195.37
2 28.81 2,305.14
3 30.26 2,420.41
4 31.77 2,541.42
2475 CONF PARALEGAL
0 29.45 2,355.90
1 30.92 2,473.69
2 32.47 2,597.38
3 34.09 2,727.25
4 35.80 2,863.61
2476 UCHR PARALEGAL
0 29.45
1 30.92
2 32.47
3 34.09
4 35.80
5655 NIAF PARAMEDIC (NON-SAFETY)
0 18.00
1 18.90
2 19.85
3 20.84
4 21.88
5656 UCHR PARAMEDIC (NS/HRLY)
0 18.00
1 18.90
2 19.85
3 20.84
4 21.88
7434 UCHR PARK RANGER
0 15.34
1 16.10
2 16.91
3 17.75
4 18.64
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1174 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 41 of 69
7431 PROF PARK RANGER PROGRAM MANAGER
0 39.92 3,193.60
1 41.92 3,353.28
2 44.01 3,520.94
3 46.21 3,696.99
4 48.52 3,881.84
7441 ACE PARK RANGER SUPERVISOR
0 33.34 2,667.23
1 35.01 2,800.58
2 36.76 2,940.62
3 38.60 3,087.65
4 40.53 3,242.03
5152 UCHR PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
0 20.83
1 21.87
2 22.96
3 24.11
4 25.31
5154 ACE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
0 20.83 1,666.09
1 21.87 1,749.39
2 22.96 1,836.86
3 24.11 1,928.70
4 25.31 2,025.14
3693 ACE PARKING METER TECHNICIAN
0 22.91 1,832.70
1 24.05 1,924.33
2 25.26 2,020.55
3 26.52 2,121.57
4 27.85 2,227.65
7407 SM PARKS & RECREATION ADM
0 58.70 4,696.12
1 61.64 4,930.91
2 64.72 5,177.47
3 67.95 5,436.33
4 71.35 5,708.15
6619 ACE PARKS MAINT WORKER I
0 20.61 1,648.55
1 21.64 1,730.97
2 22.72 1,817.52
3 23.86 1,908.40
4 25.05 2,003.82
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1175 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 42 of 69
6617 ACE PARKS MAINT WORKER II
0 22.67 1,813.40
1 23.80 1,904.07
2 24.99 1,999.28
3 26.24 2,099.24
4 27.55 2,204.20
6604 MM PARKS MANAGER
0 42.34 3,386.86
1 44.45 3,556.20
2 46.68 3,734.01
3 49.01 3,920.71
4 51.46 4,116.74
6605 ACE PARKS SUPERVISOR
0 33.34 2,667.23
1 35.01 2,800.58
2 36.76 2,940.62
3 38.60 3,087.65
4 40.53 3,242.03
5061 POA PEACE OFFICER
0 40.55 3,243.89
1 42.58 3,406.08
2 44.70 3,576.38
3 46.94 3,755.20
4 49.29 3,942.96
4731 MM PLAN CHECK SUPERVISOR
0 48.89 3,911.50
1 51.34 4,107.07
2 53.91 4,312.43
3 56.60 4,528.05
4 59.43 4,754.44
4753 ACE PLAN CHECK TECHNICIAN
0 30.01 2,401.00
1 31.51 2,521.05
2 33.09 2,647.10
3 34.74 2,779.46
4 36.48 2,918.43
4727 SM PLANNING MANAGER
0 62.06 4,964.69
1
2
3 66.96 5,356.97
4 74.87 5,989.33
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1176 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 43 of 69
4527 ACE PLANNING TECHNICIAN
0 24.66 1,972.78
1 25.89 2,071.40
2 27.19 2,174.97
3 28.55 2,283.73
4 29.97 2,397.91
6432 ACE PLUMBER
0 29.31 2,344.50
1 30.77 2,461.73
2 32.31 2,584.81
3 33.93 2,714.05
4 35.62 2,849.76
5025 SM POLICE ADMIN SRVCS ADMNSTRTR
0 57.00 4,560.10
1
2
3
4 69.28 5,542.64
5051 POA POLICE AGENT
0 44.65 3,572.04
1 46.88 3,750.64
2 49.23 3,938.17
3 51.69 4,135.07
4 54.27 4,341.82
5022 SM POLICE CAPTAIN
0 77.79 6,223.17
1
2
3
4 94.55 7,564.00
5258 ACE POLICE COMM RELATIONS SPEC
0 26.35 2,107.60
1 27.66 2,212.98
2 29.05 2,323.63
3 30.50 2,439.81
4 32.02 2,561.80
5185 MM POLICE COMMUNICATIONS SYS MGR
0 44.77 3,581.90
1 47.01 3,761.00
2 49.36 3,949.04
3 51.83 4,146.49
4 54.42 4,353.82
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1177 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 44 of 69
5187 UCHR POLICE DISPATCH CALLTAKER
0 20.66
1 21.69
2 22.78
3 23.92
4 25.11
5180 UCHR POLICE DISPATCHER
0 29.14
1 30.60
2 32.13
3 33.73
4 35.42
5181 ACE POLICE DISPATCHER
0 29.14 2,331.32
1 30.60 2,447.89
2 32.13 2,570.28
3 33.73 2,698.79
4 35.42 2,833.73
5183 ACE POLICE DISPATCHER SUPERVISOR
0 33.91 2,712.98
1 35.61 2,848.63
2 37.39 2,991.06
3 39.26 3,140.62
4 41.22 3,297.65
5179 ACE POLICE DISPATCHER TRAINEE
0 26.49 2,119.38
1 27.82 2,225.35
2 29.21 2,336.62
3 30.67 2,453.45
4 32.20 2,576.12
5191 ACE POLICE FACILITY & SUPPLY COORD
0 26.88 2,150.63
1 28.23 2,258.16
2 29.64 2,371.06
3 31.12 2,489.60
4 32.68 2,614.10
5031 POA POLICE LIEUTENANT
0 61.64 4,931.07
1 64.72 5,177.62
2 67.96 5,436.50
3 71.35 5,708.34
4 74.92 5,993.75
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1178 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 45 of 69
5203 ACE POLICE RECORDS & SUPPORT SUPV
0 26.08 2,086.23
1 27.38 2,190.54
2 28.75 2,300.07
3 30.19 2,415.07
4 31.70 2,535.82
0165 ACE POLICE RECORDS SPECIALIST
0 19.72 1,577.49
1 20.70 1,656.36
2 21.74 1,739.18
3 22.83 1,826.14
4 23.97 1,917.45
0166 UCHR POLICE RECORDS SPECIALIST
0 19.72
1 20.70
2 21.74
3 22.83
4 23.97
5071 ACE POLICE RECRUIT
0 31.31 2,504.46
1 32.87 2,629.67
2
3
4
5041 POA POLICE SERGEANT
0 51.36 4,108.91
1 53.93 4,314.37
2 56.63 4,530.09
3 59.46 4,756.58
4 62.43 4,994.41
5133 UCHR POLICE SERVICES OFFICER
0 27.49
1 28.86
2 30.31
3 31.82
4 33.41
5415 ACE POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN
0 24.83 1,986.28
1 26.07 2,085.60
2 27.37 2,189.89
3 28.74 2,299.37
4 30.18 2,414.35
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1179 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 46 of 69
5207 UCHR POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES AIDE
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
5205 MM POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES MGR
0 43.34 3,466.91
1 45.50 3,640.26
2 47.78 3,822.27
3 50.17 4,013.38
4 52.68 4,214.05
5209 MM POLICE TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
0 44.77 3,581.51
1 47.01 3,760.58
2 49.36 3,948.60
3 51.83 4,146.03
4 54.42 4,353.34
5107 ACE POLICE TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST
0 39.25 3,140.18
1 41.21 3,297.19
2 43.28 3,462.05
3 45.44 3,635.14
4 47.71 3,816.90
2013 PRUC POLICY AIDE
0 29.94 2,394.82
1 31.43 2,514.57
2 33.00 2,640.29
3 34.65 2,772.30
4 36.39 2,910.92
6021 MM PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
0 53.67 4,293.61
1 56.35 4,508.29
2 59.17 4,733.71
3 62.13 4,970.39
4 65.24 5,218.91
3305 MMCF PRINCIPAL HR ANALYST
0 47.21 3,776.41
1 49.57 3,965.23
2 52.04 4,163.49
3 54.65 4,371.66
4 57.38 4,590.23
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1180 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 47 of 69
4486 MM PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
0 49.90 3,992.38
1 52.40 4,192.00
2 55.02 4,401.60
3 57.77 4,621.68
4 60.66 4,852.76
7051 MM PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN
0 43.40 3,471.90
1 45.57 3,645.49
2 47.85 3,827.76
3 50.24 4,019.16
4 52.75 4,220.12
0208 PROF PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST
0 41.89 3,350.99
1 43.98 3,518.54
2 46.18 3,694.46
3 48.49 3,879.19
4 50.91 4,073.15
0214 PRCF PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST
0 41.89 3,350.99
1 43.98 3,518.54
2 46.18 3,694.46
3 48.49 3,879.19
4 50.91 4,073.15
4431 MM PRINCIPAL PLANNER
0 49.90 3,992.38
1 52.40 4,192.00
2 55.02 4,401.60
3 57.77 4,621.68
4 60.66 4,852.76
4212 PROF PRINCIPAL PROJECT COORDINATOR
0 49.90 3,992.38
1 52.40 4,192.00
2 55.02 4,401.60
3 57.77 4,621.68
4 60.66 4,852.76
7410 MM PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER
0 42.34 3,386.84
1 44.45 3,556.18
2 46.67 3,733.99
3 49.01 3,920.69
4 51.46 4,116.72
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1181 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 48 of 69
6020 MM PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER
0 53.67 4,293.61
1 56.35 4,508.29
2 59.17 4,733.71
3 62.13 4,970.39
4 65.24 5,218.91
3717 MM PROCUREMENT SERVICES ANALYST
0 40.34 3,226.94
1 42.35 3,388.30
2 44.47 3,557.71
3 46.70 3,735.60
4 49.03 3,922.37
3721 ACE PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST
0 30.51 2,440.59
1 32.03 2,562.60
2 33.63 2,690.72
3 35.32 2,825.27
4 37.08 2,966.53
3090 PROF PROGRAMMER ANALYST
0 38.70 3,095.67
1 40.63 3,250.45
2 42.66 3,412.98
3 44.80 3,583.63
4 47.04 3,762.81
4217 ACE PROJECT COORDINATOR I
0 32.66 2,612.90
1 34.29 2,743.55
2 36.01 2,880.73
3 37.81 3,024.76
4 39.70 3,176.00
4218 UCHR PROJECT COORDINATOR I
0 32.66
1 34.29
2 36.01
3 37.81
4 39.70
4215 ACE PROJECT COORDINATOR II
0 35.93 2,874.19
1 37.72 3,017.90
2 39.61 3,168.80
3 41.59 3,327.24
4 43.67 3,493.60
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1182 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 49 of 69
5121 ACE PROPERTY & EVIDENCE SUPERVISOR
0 28.85 2,307.67
1 30.29 2,423.06
2 31.80 2,544.21
3 33.39 2,671.42
4 35.06 2,804.99
5127 ACE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE SPEC
0 21.81 1,744.93
1 22.90 1,832.18
2 24.05 1,923.79
3 25.25 2,019.98
4 26.51 2,120.98
5128 UCHR PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE SPEC
0 21.81
1 22.90
2 24.05
3 25.25
4 26.51
2782 CONF PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST
0 30.71 2,456.82
1 32.25 2,579.69
2 33.86 2,708.65
3 35.55 2,844.09
4 37.33 2,986.29
2783 ACE PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST
0 30.71 2,456.82
1 32.25 2,579.69
2 33.86 2,708.65
3 35.55 2,844.09
4 37.33 2,986.29
5254 ACE PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST
0 33.61 2,688.45
1 35.29 2,822.87
2 37.05 2,964.02
3 38.90 3,112.24
4 40.85 3,267.83
5256 UCHR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST
0 33.61
1 35.29
2 37.05
3 38.90
4 40.85
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1183 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 50 of 69
6123 ACE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR I
0 31.38 2,510.15
1 32.95 2,635.64
2 34.59 2,767.43
3 36.32 2,905.79
4 38.14 3,051.09
6121 ACE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR II
0 34.51 2,761.14
1 36.24 2,899.20
2 38.05 3,044.15
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.19
6336 MM PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER
0 42.33 3,386.62
1 44.45 3,555.95
2 46.67 3,733.75
3 49.01 3,920.44
4 51.46 4,116.47
6712 ACE PUBLIC WORKS SPECIALIST
0 25.01 2,000.83
1 26.26 2,100.86
2 27.57 2,205.90
3 28.95 2,316.20
4 30.40 2,432.03
6327 SM PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT
0 57.07 4,565.39
1 59.92 4,793.65
2 62.92 5,033.34
3 66.06 5,285.00
4 69.37 5,549.26
6337 ACE PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR
0 33.34 2,667.23
1 35.01 2,800.58
2 36.76 2,940.62
3 38.60 3,087.65
4 40.53 3,242.03
6392 ACE PUMP MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
0 33.90 2,711.70
1 35.59 2,847.29
2 37.37 2,989.65
3 39.24 3,139.13
4 41.20 3,296.09
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1184 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 51 of 69
6396 ACE PUMP MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
0 29.48 2,358.00
1 30.95 2,475.90
2 32.50 2,599.69
3 34.12 2,729.67
4 35.83 2,866.16
3711 SM PURCHASING AGENT
0 50.21 4,016.92
1
2
3
4 61.03 4,882.59
5417 ACE RANGE MASTER
0 25.20 2,015.96
1 26.46 2,116.76
2 27.78 2,222.60
3 29.17 2,333.73
4 30.63 2,450.42
5418 UCHR RANGE MASTER
0 25.20
1 26.46
2 27.78
3 29.17
4 30.63
6037 MMUC REAL PROPERTY MANAGER
0 47.42 3,793.59
1 49.79 3,983.27
2 52.28 4,182.44
3 54.89 4,391.56
4 57.64 4,611.13
2211 MM RECORDS MANAGER
0 34.51 2,760.80
1 36.24 2,898.84
2 38.05 3,043.78
3 39.95 3,195.98
4 41.95 3,355.77
2217 ACE RECORDS SPECIALIST
0 21.28 1,702.43
1 22.34 1,787.55
2 23.46 1,876.93
3 24.63 1,970.78
4 25.87 2,069.30
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1185 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 52 of 69
7605 UCHR RECREATION AIDE
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
7603 UCHR RECREATION LEADER
0 17.25
1 18.11
2 19.02
3 19.97
4 20.97
7601 UCHR RECREATION SPECIALIST
0 20.70
1 21.74
2 22.82
3 23.96
4 25.16
7425 ACE RECREATION SUPERVISOR I
0 25.38 2,030.17
1 26.65 2,131.67
2 27.98 2,238.26
3 29.38 2,350.17
4 30.85 2,467.68
7426 UCHR RECREATION SUPERVISOR I
0 25.38
1 26.65
2 27.98
3 29.38
4 30.85
7423 ACE RECREATION SUPERVISOR II
0 27.91 2,233.18
1 29.31 2,344.84
2 30.78 2,462.08
3 32.31 2,585.19
4 33.93 2,714.45
7422 ACE RECREATION SUPERVISOR III
0 32.10 2,568.16
1 33.71 2,696.57
2 35.39 2,831.40
3 37.16 2,972.96
4 39.02 3,121.61
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1186 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 53 of 69
2742 ACE RECYCLING SPECIALIST I
0 24.78 1,982.10
1 26.02 2,081.21
2 27.32 2,185.27
3 28.68 2,294.52
4 30.12 2,409.25
2744 ACE RECYCLING SPECIALIST II
0 27.25 2,180.31
1 28.62 2,289.34
2 30.05 2,403.79
3 31.55 2,523.99
4 33.13 2,650.19
5307 ACE REGISTERED VETERINARY TECH
0 23.66 1,892.71
1 24.84 1,987.34
2 26.08 2,086.72
3 27.39 2,191.06
4 28.76 2,300.62
5312 UCHR REGISTERED VETERINARY TECH
0 23.66
1 24.84
2 26.08
3 27.39
4 28.76
5081 UCHR RESERVE OFFICER
0 14.24
1 14.95
2 15.69
3
4
3689 SM REVENUE MANAGER
0 54.92 4,393.69
1 57.67 4,613.37
2 60.55 4,844.04
3 63.58 5,086.24
4 66.76 5,340.56
3367 PRCF RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
0 35.54 2,843.00
1 37.31 2,985.14
2 39.18 3,134.40
3 41.14 3,291.13
4 43.20 3,455.68
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1187 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 54 of 69
3361 SM RISK MANAGER
0 52.29 4,183.58
1
2
3
4 63.57 5,085.23
0231 UCHR SEASONAL ASSISTANT
0 15.00
1 15.75
2 16.54
3 17.36
4 18.23
0171 ACE SECRETARY
0 21.28 1,702.43
1 22.34 1,787.55
2 23.46 1,876.93
3 24.63 1,970.78
4 25.87 2,069.30
3630 MMCF SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
0 37.85 3,027.75
1 39.74 3,179.14
2 41.73 3,338.09
3 43.81 3,505.00
4 46.00 3,680.25
3632 UCHR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
0 37.85
1 39.74
2 41.73
3 43.81
4 46.00
3651 ACE SENIOR ACCOUTING ASSISTANT
0 25.29 2,022.88
1 26.55 2,124.02
2 27.88 2,230.24
3 29.27 2,341.76
4 30.74 2,458.84
0185 ACE SENIOR ADMIN SECRETARY
0 29.89 2,391.17
1 31.38 2,510.72
2 32.95 2,636.26
3 34.60 2,768.05
4 36.33 2,906.46
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1188 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 55 of 69
5345 ACE SENIOR ANIMAL CARE SPECIALIST
0 22.67 1,813.84
1 23.81 1,904.54
2 25.00 1,999.76
3 26.25 2,099.75
4 27.56 2,204.74
3089 PROF SENIOR APPLICATION SUPP SPEC
0 42.87 3,429.31
1 45.01 3,600.78
2 47.26 3,780.82
3 49.62 3,969.86
4 52.10 4,168.35
2403 EXEC SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
0 80.45 6,436.12
1
2
3
4 97.79 7,823.15
4781 ACE SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
0 39.69 3,175.30
1 41.68 3,334.08
2 43.76 3,500.78
3 45.95 3,675.82
4 48.25 3,859.60
4507 ACE SENIOR BUSINESS LICENSE REP
0 25.29 2,022.88
1 26.55 2,124.02
2 27.88 2,230.24
3 29.27 2,341.76
4 30.74 2,458.84
6019 WCE SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
0 52.06 4,164.62
1 54.66 4,372.85
2 57.39 4,591.49
3 60.26 4,821.07
4 63.28 5,062.12
4763 ACE SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMNT OFFICER
0 37.92 3,033.91
1 39.82 3,185.60
2 41.81 3,344.89
3 43.90 3,512.12
4 46.10 3,687.74
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1189 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 56 of 69
6204 ACE SENIOR CONSERVATION SPECIALIST
0 31.34 2,507.38
1 32.91 2,632.75
2 34.55 2,764.38
3 36.28 2,902.60
4 38.10 3,047.74
2025 UCHR SENIOR COUNCIL ASSISTANT
0 28.10
1 29.51
2 30.98
3 32.53
4 34.16
2027 CONF SENIOR COUNCIL ASSISTANT
0 23.33 1,866.51
1 24.50 1,959.83
2 25.72 2,057.82
3 27.01 2,160.71
4 28.36 2,268.75
2725 PROF SENIOR ECON DEVELOPMENT SPEC
0 39.92 3,193.61
1 41.92 3,353.29
2 44.01 3,520.96
3 46.21 3,697.00
4 48.52 3,881.85
6442 ACE SENIOR ELECTRICIAN
0 33.70 2,696.18
1 35.39 2,830.99
2 37.16 2,972.54
3 39.01 3,121.16
4 40.97 3,277.22
6471 ACE SENIOR ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN
0 37.07 2,965.80
1 38.93 3,114.09
2 40.87 3,269.79
3 42.92 3,433.28
4 45.06 3,604.94
6059 ACE SENIOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
0 34.51 2,761.14
1 36.24 2,899.20
2 38.05 3,044.15
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.19
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1190 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 57 of 69
6512 ACE SENIOR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
0 32.42 2,593.80
1 34.04 2,723.49
2 35.75 2,859.66
3 37.53 3,002.64
4 39.41 3,152.77
5529 IAFF SENIOR FIRE INSPECTOR/INVESTIG
0 39.10 3,128.09
1 41.06 3,284.49
2 43.11 3,448.72
3 45.26 3,621.16
4 47.53 3,802.21
0175 ACE SENIOR FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALST
0 22.34 1,787.54
1 23.46 1,876.92
2 24.63 1,970.77
3 25.87 2,069.30
4 27.16 2,172.77
0176 UCHR SENIOR FISCAL OFFICE SPECIALST
0 22.34
1 23.46
2 24.63
3 25.87
4 27.16
3080 ACE SENIOR GIS SPECIALIST
0 36.04 2,883.48
1 37.85 3,027.66
2 39.74 3,179.04
3 41.72 3,337.99
4 43.81 3,504.89
2764 PROF SENIOR GRAPHIC DESIGNER
0 36.08 2,886.40
1 37.88 3,030.72
2 39.78 3,182.26
3 41.77 3,341.37
4 43.86 3,508.43
3308 PRCF SENIOR HR ANALYST
0 40.87 3,269.59
1 42.91 3,433.08
2 45.06 3,604.73
3 47.31 3,784.97
4 49.68 3,974.22
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1191 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 58 of 69
3316 CONF SENIOR HR TECHNICIAN
0 30.09 2,407.14
1 31.59 2,527.50
2 33.17 2,653.88
3 34.83 2,786.57
4 36.57 2,925.90
6441 ACE SENIOR HVAC TECHNICIAN
0 33.70 2,696.18
1 35.39 2,830.99
2 37.16 2,972.54
3 39.01 3,121.16
4 40.97 3,277.22
3012 PROF SENIOR INFO TECH SUPPORT SPEC
0 37.87 3,029.52
1 39.76 3,181.00
2 41.75 3,340.05
3 43.84 3,507.05
4 46.03 3,682.40
6285 WCE SENIOR LAND SURVEYOR
0 52.06 4,164.62
1 54.66 4,372.85
2 57.39 4,591.49
3 60.26 4,821.07
4 63.28 5,062.12
6295 ACE SENIOR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
0 39.69 3,175.32
1 41.68 3,334.09
2 43.76 3,500.79
3 45.95 3,675.83
4 48.25 3,859.62
5110 ACE SENIOR LATENT PRINT EXAMINER
0 42.60 3,408.20
1 44.73 3,578.62
2 46.97 3,757.54
3 49.32 3,945.43
4 51.78 4,142.69
2463 CONF SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT
0 30.19 2,414.84
1 31.69 2,535.57
2 33.28 2,662.35
3 34.94 2,795.47
4 36.69 2,935.25
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1192 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 59 of 69
7053 MM SENIOR LIBRARIAN
0 34.46 2,756.75
1 36.18 2,894.60
2 37.99 3,039.32
3 39.89 3,191.29
4 41.89 3,350.85
7589 UCHR SENIOR LIFEGUARD
0 18.44
1 19.36
2 20.33
3 21.35
4 22.42
6371 ACE SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER
0 27.16 2,173.11
1 28.52 2,281.76
2 29.95 2,395.85
3 31.45 2,515.65
4 33.02 2,641.43
0206 PROF SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
0 38.08 3,046.34
1 39.98 3,198.66
2 41.98 3,358.59
3 44.08 3,526.52
4 46.29 3,702.84
0226 PRCF SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
0 38.08 3,046.34
1 39.98 3,198.66
2 41.98 3,358.59
3 44.08 3,526.52
4 46.29 3,702.84
0173 ACE SENIOR OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 21.28 1,702.43
1 22.34 1,787.55
2 23.46 1,876.93
3 24.63 1,970.78
4 25.87 2,069.30
0174 UCHR SENIOR OFFICE SPECIALIST
0 21.28
1 22.34
2 23.46
3 24.63
4 25.87
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1193 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 60 of 69
6309 ACE SENIOR OPEN SPACE INSPECTOR
0 39.69 3,175.32
1 41.68 3,334.09
2 43.76 3,500.79
3 45.95 3,675.83
4 48.25 3,859.62
7439 ACE SENIOR PARK RANGER
0 27.16 2,173.11
1 28.52 2,281.76
2 29.95 2,395.85
3 31.45 2,515.65
4 33.02 2,641.43
5157 ACE SENIOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFF
0 22.91 1,832.70
1 24.05 1,924.33
2 25.26 2,020.55
3 26.52 2,121.57
4 27.85 2,227.65
6615 ACE SENIOR PARKS MAINT WORKER
0 27.20 2,176.08
1 28.56 2,284.89
2 29.99 2,399.13
3 31.49 2,519.09
4 33.06 2,645.04
4746 WCE SENIOR PLAN CHECK ENGINEER
0 48.25 3,860.03
1 50.66 4,053.03
2 53.20 4,255.68
3 55.86 4,468.47
4 58.65 4,691.89
4751 ACE SENIOR PLAN CHECK TECHNICIAN
0 34.51 2,761.14
1 36.24 2,899.20
2 38.05 3,044.15
3 39.95 3,196.38
4 41.95 3,356.19
4432 PROF SENIOR PLANNER
0 39.92 3,193.61
1 41.92 3,353.29
2 44.01 3,520.96
3 46.21 3,697.00
4 48.52 3,881.85
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1194 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 61 of 69
4434 UCHR SENIOR PLANNER
0 39.92
1 41.92
2 44.01
3 46.21
4 48.52
4529 ACE SENIOR PLANNING TECHNICIAN
0 28.36 2,268.68
1 29.78 2,382.12
2 31.27 2,501.23
3 32.83 2,626.28
4 34.47 2,757.61
0135 ACE SENIOR POLICE RECORDS SPEC
0 22.68 1,814.11
1 23.81 1,904.82
2 25.00 2,000.06
3 26.25 2,100.06
4 27.56 2,205.06
3728 PROF SENIOR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST
0 32.75 2,619.60
1 34.38 2,750.58
2 36.10 2,888.12
3 37.91 3,032.52
4 39.80 3,184.14
3091 PROF SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST
0 44.11 3,529.14
1 46.32 3,705.60
2 48.64 3,890.88
3 51.07 4,085.43
4 53.62 4,289.69
4214 PROF SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR
0 39.92 3,193.61
1 41.92 3,353.29
2 44.01 3,520.96
3 46.21 3,697.00
4 48.52 3,881.85
5125 ACE SENIOR PROPRTY & EVIDENCE SPEC
0 25.08 2,006.67
1 26.34 2,107.01
2 27.65 2,212.36
3 29.04 2,322.97
4 30.49 2,439.12
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1195 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 62 of 69
5248 UCHR SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST
0 36.07
1 37.87
2 39.77
3 41.76
4 43.84
5260 PROF SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST
0 36.07 2,885.66
1 37.87 3,029.95
2 39.77 3,181.44
3 41.76 3,340.52
4 43.84 3,507.55
6101 ACE SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR
0 39.69 3,175.31
1 41.68 3,334.09
2 43.76 3,500.79
3 45.95 3,675.83
4 48.25 3,859.61
6702 ACE SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS SPECIALIST
0 30.01 2,400.99
1 31.51 2,521.04
2 33.09 2,647.09
3 34.74 2,779.44
4 36.48 2,918.42
2215 ACE SENIOR RECORDS SPECIALIST
0 24.47 1,957.79
1 25.70 2,055.68
2 26.98 2,158.46
3 28.33 2,266.39
4 29.75 2,379.71
2746 ACE SENIOR RECYCLING SPECIALIST
0 31.34 2,507.38
1 32.91 2,632.75
2 34.55 2,764.38
3 36.28 2,902.60
4 38.10 3,047.74
3365 PRCF SENIOR RISK MANAGEMENT SPEC
0 40.87 3,269.59
1 42.91 3,433.08
2 45.06 3,604.73
3 47.31 3,784.97
4 49.68 3,974.22
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1196 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 63 of 69
0177 ACE SENIOR SECRETARY
0 23.41 1,872.67
1 24.58 1,966.31
2 25.81 2,064.62
3 27.10 2,167.86
4 28.45 2,276.25
6573 ACE SENIOR TREE TRIMMER
0 29.92 2,393.69
1 31.42 2,513.38
2 32.99 2,639.04
3 34.64 2,771.00
4 36.37 2,909.55
2779 PROF SENIOR WEBMASTER
0 36.21 2,896.98
1 38.02 3,041.82
2 39.92 3,193.92
3 41.92 3,353.62
4 44.02 3,521.30
6169 ACE SIGNAL SYSTEMS ENGINEER I
0 36.07 2,885.78
1 37.88 3,030.06
2 39.77 3,181.57
3 41.76 3,340.66
4 43.85 3,507.68
6170 ACE SIGNAL SYSTEMS ENGINEER II
0 39.68 3,174.35
1 41.66 3,333.08
2 43.75 3,499.72
3 45.93 3,674.71
4 48.23 3,858.44
6355 ACE SIGNING AND STRIPING SUPV
0 33.34 2,667.23
1 35.01 2,800.58
2 36.76 2,940.62
3 38.60 3,087.65
4 40.53 3,242.03
2751 SM SPECIAL PROJECTS MGR
0 48.27 3,861.57
1 49.49 3,959.49
2
3
4 58.67 4,693.75
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1197 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 64 of 69
3313 UCHR SR HR ANALYST
0 40.87
1 42.91
2 45.06
3 47.31
4 49.68
3031 PROF SR ITS/POL SPEC II (T)
0 41.73 3,338.43
1 43.82 3,505.35
2 46.01 3,680.62
3 48.31 3,864.65
4 50.72 4,057.88
3051 PROF SR NETWORK ENGINEER
0 50.91 4,072.44
1 53.45 4,276.07
2 56.12 4,489.87
3 58.93 4,714.36
4 61.88 4,950.08
0136 UCHR SR POLICE RECORDS SPECIALIST
0 22.68
1 23.81
2 25.00
3 26.25
4 27.56
3734 ACE STOREKEEPER
0 22.64 1,810.92
1 23.77 1,901.47
2 24.96 1,996.54
3 26.20 2,096.37
4 27.51 2,201.19
3732 ACE STOREKEEPER SUPERVISOR
0 27.16 2,173.11
1 28.52 2,281.76
2 29.95 2,395.85
3 31.45 2,515.65
4 33.02 2,641.43
6127 ACE STORMWATER COMPLNCE INSP I
0 29.28 2,342.51
1 30.75 2,459.64
2 32.28 2,582.62
3 33.90 2,711.75
4 35.59 2,847.34
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1198 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 65 of 69
6125 ACE STORMWATER COMPLNCE INSP II
0 32.21 2,576.76
1 33.82 2,705.60
2 35.51 2,840.88
3 37.29 2,982.93
4 39.15 3,132.07
6137 ACE STORMWATER ENV SPECIALIST I
0 32.80 2,624.23
1 34.44 2,755.45
2 36.17 2,893.22
3 37.97 3,037.88
4 39.87 3,189.78
6135 ACE STORMWATER ENV SPECIALIST II
0 36.08 2,886.67
1 37.89 3,031.00
2 39.78 3,182.55
3 41.77 3,341.66
4 43.86 3,508.76
6131 MM STORMWATER PROGRAM MANAGER
0 44.57 3,565.34
1 46.80 3,743.60
2 49.13 3,930.78
3 51.59 4,127.33
4 54.17 4,333.69
5241 MM SUPRVSNG PUBLIC SAFETY ANALYST
0 41.48 3,318.51
1 43.56 3,484.44
2 45.73 3,658.66
3 48.02 3,841.60
4 50.42 4,033.67
6151 ACE SURVEY TECHNICIAN I
0 27.28 2,182.72
1 28.65 2,291.85
2 30.08 2,406.44
3 31.58 2,526.77
4 33.16 2,653.12
6141 ACE SURVEY TECHNICIAN II
0 30.01 2,400.99
1 31.51 2,521.04
2 33.09 2,647.09
3 34.74 2,779.44
4 36.48 2,918.42
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1199 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 66 of 69
3015 PROF SYSTEMS/DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR
0 40.30 3,223.71
1 42.31 3,384.90
2 44.43 3,554.14
3 46.65 3,731.85
4 48.98 3,918.44
3027 ACE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
0 25.25 2,020.05
1 26.51 2,121.05
2 27.84 2,227.10
3 29.23 2,338.45
4 30.69 2,455.38
7503 UCHR TINY TOT AIDE
0 15.25
1 16.01
2 16.81
3 17.65
4 18.53
7505 UCHR TINY TOT SPECIALIST
0 18.30
1 19.21
2 20.17
3 21.18
4 22.24
5155 UCHR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSISTANT
0 15.69
1 16.48
2 17.30
3 18.17
4 19.08
5293 UCHR TRAFFIC OFFICER
0 15.69
1 16.48
2 17.30
3 18.17
4 19.08
6187 ACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL & LIGHT TECH I
0 28.75 2,299.97
1 30.19 2,414.97
2 31.70 2,535.72
3 33.28 2,662.50
4 34.95 2,795.63
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1200 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 67 of 69
6185 ACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL & LIGHT TECH II
0 31.62 2,529.97
1 33.21 2,656.46
2 34.87 2,789.29
3 36.61 2,928.74
4 38.44 3,075.19
6181 ACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL & LIGHTING SUPV
0 36.37 2,909.46
1 38.19 3,054.94
2 40.10 3,207.68
3 42.10 3,368.07
4 44.21 3,536.45
5262 ACE TRAINING PROGRAM SPECIALIST
0 26.35 2,107.60
1 27.66 2,212.98
2 29.05 2,323.63
3 30.50 2,439.81
4 32.02 2,561.80
6031 WCE TRANSPORTATION ENGR W CERT
0 52.06 4,164.62
1 54.66 4,372.85
2 57.39 4,591.49
3 60.26 4,821.07
4 63.28 5,062.12
6033 WCE TRANSPORTATION ENGR W/O CERT
0 49.58 3,966.31
1 52.06 4,164.63
2 54.66 4,372.86
3 57.39 4,591.50
4 60.26 4,821.08
6575 ACE TREE TRIMMER
0 24.93 1,994.74
1 26.18 2,094.48
2 27.49 2,199.20
3 28.86 2,309.16
4 30.31 2,424.62
6572 ACE TREE TRIMMER SUPERVISOR
0 34.41 2,752.74
1 36.13 2,890.38
2 37.94 3,034.90
3 39.83 3,186.65
4 41.82 3,345.98
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1201 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 68 of 69
5334 UCHR VET II (HOURLY)
0 47.04
1 49.39
2 51.86
3 54.45
4 57.17
5308 UCHR VETERINARIAN
0 46.77
1 49.11
2 51.57
3 54.15
4 56.85
5322 UCHR VETERINARIAN (PERMITTED)
0 66.13
1 69.44
2 72.91
3 76.56
4 80.39
5331 PROF VETERINARIAN (PERMITTED)
0 57.59 4,607.14
1 60.47 4,837.49
2 63.49 5,079.37
3 66.67 5,333.34
4 70.00 5,600.00
5335 PROF VETERINARIAN I
0 40.90 3,272.11
1 42.95 3,435.72
2 45.09 3,607.50
3 47.35 3,787.87
4 49.72 3,977.27
5333 PROF VETERINARIAN II
0 47.04 3,762.92
1 49.39 3,951.06
2 51.86 4,148.62
3 54.45 4,356.05
4 57.17 4,573.85
5323 UCHR VETERINARY ASSISTANT
0 19.72
1 20.70
2 21.74
3 22.82
4 23.96
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1202 of 1221
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule
Effective January 28, 2022
Job
BU
Description
Step
Hourly
Period
Step 0 = Step A, Step 1 = Step B, Step 2 = Step C, Step 3 = Step D, Step 4 = Step E
Period rate shown is based on an 80‐hour per pay period, with exception of sworn Fire positions with an A or B designation.
Approved and Adopted:
Resolution No.
Page 69 of 69
5325 ACE VETERINARY ASSISTANT
0 19.72 1,577.27
1 20.70 1,656.13
2 21.74 1,738.93
3 22.82 1,825.89
4 23.96 1,917.18
7131 ACE VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR
0 21.55 1,724.20
1 22.63 1,810.41
2 23.76 1,900.94
3 24.95 1,995.98
4 26.20 2,095.77
2777 ACE WEBMASTER
0 32.44 2,595.20
1 34.06 2,724.95
2 35.77 2,861.21
3 37.55 3,004.25
4 39.43 3,154.47
Revised
August 10, 2021 (Effective July 2, 2021)
August 10, 2021 (Effective August 13, 2021)
September 14, 2021 (Effective September 10, 2021)
October 26, 2021 (Effective November 5, 2021)
November 9, 2021 (Effective November 19, 2021)
December 14, 2021 (Effective December 17, 2021)
December 14, 2021 (Effective December 31, 2021)
January 25, 2022 (Effective January 28, 2022 | City Attorney, Councilmember and Mayor salaries effective July 1, 2021)
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1203 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION
COUNT WITH A NET INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED
STAFFING AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN
UNCLASSIFIED, HOURLY POSITIONS
WHEREAS, Civil Service Rule 1.02(A), which applies to the City’s classified positions,
provides for necessary reviews and changes so that the City’s classification plan is kept current,
and that changes in existing classes, the establishment of new classes or the aboliti on of classes
are properly reflected in the classification plan; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to address the needs of various departments and the City's
workforce, the Human Resources Department, in conjunction with the affected departments, is
proposing the certain position changes as stated below; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Manager’s Office, staff is proposing salary range
adjustments for the following unclassified, hourly classifications effective January 28, 2022:
Hourly Rate
Position Title PCN Bargaining Group A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step
Animal Care Aide 5316 Unclassified, Hourly 15.34 16.10 16.91 17.75 18.64
Clerical Aide 0241 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
COVID Site Assistant 5757 Unclassified, Hourly 15.44 16.21 17.02 17.87 18.76
Fire Prevention Aide 5533 Unclassified, Hourly 15.57 16.34 17.16 18.02 18.92
Intern, Graduate 0269 Unclassified, Hourly 16.50 17.33 18.19 19.10 20.06
Intern, Undergraduate 0267 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Library Aide 7181 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Lifeguard I 7587 Unclassified, Hourly 15.24 16.00 16.80 17.64 18.53
Lifeguard II 7585 Unclassified, Hourly 16.77 17.60 18.48 19.41 20.38
Park Ranger 7434 Unclassified, Hourly 15.34 16.10 16.91 17.75 18.64
Police Support Services Aide 5207 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Recreation Aide 7605 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Recreation Leader 7603 Unclassified, Hourly 17.25 18.11 19.02 19.97 20.97
Recreation Specialist 7601 Unclassified, Hourly 20.70 21.74 22.82 23.96 25.16
Seasonal Assistant 0231 Unclassified, Hourly 15.00 15.75 16.54 17.36 18.23
Senior Lifeguard 7589 Unclassified, Hourly 18.44 19.36 20.33 21.35 22.42
Tiny Tot Aide 7503 Unclassified, Hourly 15.25 16.01 16.81 17.65 18.53
Tiny Tot Specialist 7505 Unclassified, Hourly 18.30 19.21 20.17 21.18 22.24
Traffic Control Assistant 5155 Unclassified, Hourly 15.69 16.48 17.30 18.17 19.08
Traffic Officer 5293 Unclassified, Hourly 15.69 16.48 17.30 18.17 19.08
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1204 of 1221
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
that it approves the following changes to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 authorized position counts
with a net increase in authorized staffing:
Department Position Title FTE
City Attorney
Legal Assistant -1.00
Executive Secretary 1.00
Finance Accounting Technician 1.00
Human Resources Senior Human Resources Analyst 1.00
Human Resources Technician 1.00
Total City-Wide Position Changes (Net Increase/Decrease) 3.00
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it
approves salary adjustments for the following unclassified hourly positions as stated above:
Animal Care Aide, Clerical Aide, COVID Site Assistant, Fire Prevention Aide, Intern -
Undergraduate, Intern – Graduate, Library Aide, Lifeguard I, Lifeguard II, Park Ranger, Police
Support Services Aide, Recreation Aide, Recreation Leader, Recreation Specialist, Seasonal
Assistant, Senior Lifeguard, Tiny Tot Aide, Tiny Tot Specialist, Traffic Control Assistant and
Traffic Officer.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Courtney Chase Glen R. Googins
Director of Human Resources /Risk Management City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1205 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR
2021-2022 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 28, 2022 TO REFLECT SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
FOR CERTAIN UNCLASSIFIED, HOURLY POSITIONS AND
THE ADJUSTED SALARIES FOR MAYOR,
COUNCILMEMBER AND CITY ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2021, AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE REVISED
COMPENSATION SCHEDULES EFFECTIVE JULY 2, 2021;
AUGUST 13, 2021; SEPTEMBER 10, 2021; NOVEMBER 5,
2021; NOVEMBER 19, 2021; DECEMBER 17, 2021 AND
DECEMBER 31, 2021 AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE
OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires that, for
purposes of determining a retiring employee's pension allowance, the pay rate be limited to the
amount listed on a pay schedule that meets certain requirements and be approved by the governing
body in accordance with the requirements of the applicable public meeting laws; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule ("Compensation
Schedule") was approved by the City Council at their meeting of December 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, any changes including but not limited to, across-the-board increases,
classification changes and salary adjustments approved subsequent to this date, will be reflected
on a revised Compensation Schedule and submitted to Council approval; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Manager’s Office, staff is proposing salary range
adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly classifications; and
WHEREAS, the City received notification from the Judicial Council of California on
December 6, 2021, of an adjusted salary for the position of Judge of the Superior Court of the
State of California, to which the salaries for Councilmembers, the Mayor and elected City Attorney
are tied and made the appropriate changes retroactive to July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, staff made the change to the salary rates for Mayor, Councilmembers and City
Attorney upon notification from the State of California (in accordance with the City Charter), and
the Mayor, Councilmembers and City Attorney are receiving this pay rate.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1206 of 1221
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
that it hereby does adopt, as required by California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5, the
revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule effective January 28, 2022, a copy of
which is available in the City Clerk’s Office, to reflect salary adjustments for the unclassified,
hourly position titles of Animal Care Aide, Clerical Aide, COVID Site Assistant, Fire Prevention
Aide, Intern, Graduate, Intern, Undergraduate, Library Aide, Lifeguard I , Lifeguard II, Park
Ranger, Police Support Services Aide, Recreation Aide, Recreation Leader, Recreation Specialist,
Seasonal Assistant, Senior Lifeguard, Tiny Tot Aide, Tiny Tot Specialist, Traffic Control Assistant
and Traffic Officer and the adjusted salaries for Mayor, Councilmembers and City Attorney
effective July 1, 2021 and its inclusion in the revised Compensation Schedules effective July 2,
2021; August 13, 2021; September 10, 2021; November 5, 2021; November 19, 2021; December
17, 2021 and December 31, 2021, as required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 2,
Section 570.5.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Courtney Chase Glen R. Googins
Director of Human Resources /Risk Management City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1207 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 BUDGET FOR APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED)
WHEREAS, the City Charter states that at any meeting after the adoption of the budget,
the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by a motion adopted by the affirmative
votes of at least four members; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending $315,945 in expense appropriations to various
departments in the General Fund, resulting in a negative net impact of $315,945 to the General
Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
that it hereby amends the fiscal year 2021/22 budget and approves the following appropriations:
Summary of General Fund Appropriations
Presented by Approved as to form by
Courtney Chase Glen R. Googins
Director of Human Resources /Risk Management City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1208 of 1221
December 6, 2021
To City Manager, Maria V. Kachadoorian and Our Esteemed Mayor and Council
Members,
As a Human Relations Commission (HRC), we have been processing our role and
scope of work as it relates to the Automated License Plate Reader Program (ALPR)
and data sharing technologies. In January of 2021 we began to receive public
comment and feedback regarding our city’s use of ALPR and as a result we formed
an ALPR Ad Hoc to deepen our understanding of ALPR as well as to cultivate
engagement with community members about the benefits, limitations, and impacts.
The purpose of this letter is the following: to summarize some of the pressing
ALPR/data sharing issues and concerns that continue to be shared with the HRC; to
seek clarity about the CVPD’s quarterly ALPR updates to the HRC; and to offer
ongoing discussion about the limitations and capacities o f our HRC around
ALPR/data sharing issues.
ALPR was first brought to our attention after the Union Tribune’s December 6, 2020
article1 documenting CVPD’s sharing of ALPR data with other policing agencies such
as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
Because a significant charge of our commission focuses solely on Welcoming City
certification, we received public comment reflecting the perception that our city
was in violation of SB 54. As it was later clarified, the City was in compliance with SB
54 (sharing of data is not considered personal identities), however public comment
continues to reflect that regardless of compliance with state law, the city’s sharing
of data compromised the “spirit” of SB54. In addition, public comment throughout
this last year continues to address concerns and reflections about the need for a
citywide surveillance technology framework that touches on independent oversight,
best practices, evaluation, and community engagement. Lastly, in July 2021 our City
received notification of an anonymous complaint submitted to Welcoming America
regarding ALPR. An investigation took place, and our City remains in compliance
with the “Welcoming Standard.” All of the sentiments above indicate some ongoing
concern with ALPR and data sharing technologies despite nearly a year after its
practice was released to the public.
As an HRC we continue to reflect on the impact of ALPR and data sharing practices,
and the roles and responsibilities that our HRC holds in “listening” to CVPDs
1 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/south-county/chula-vista/story/2020-12-06/chula-
vista-gives-immigration-officials-others-access-to-license-plate-reader-data
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B5A78E6-D0EC-4AA2-AC94-71BB6C064EA5
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1209 of 1221
quarterly updates. On April 20, 2021 in a report by CVPD to the city council, it was
proposed that CVPD would present quarterly updates to the HRC2. Since then, there
has been one quarterly report (October 28, 2021) to the HRC. Sentiments from our
ALPR Ad Hoc reminded the commission about the complexities, nuances, and
intricacies of data sharing technologies and the need for an appropriate body of
relevant stakeholders to be offered the opportunity to be the audience of the
CVPD’s ALPR quarterly updates; more specifically a body of individuals equipped to
engage with data sharing technologies, civil liberties, policy, and perhaps individuals
that work directly with marginalized communities most impacted by
disproportionate surveillance use. In such, we welcome advisement about these
CVPD quarterly ALPR updates and the roles and responsibilities of our HRC in
offering informed and insightful critiques and recommendations.
In reflecting on our commission’s scope of work, our stre ngths and expertise, and
the amount of time needed to offer a quality review of CVPD’s ALPR practices, we
would like to invite further dialogue about how you perceive our roles,
responsibilities, and future engagement with ALPR and data sharing technologie s.
Despite our commission’s limitations, we do feel that our HRC has the opportunity to
offer continued support in various arenas. For example, we would like to continue
to offer opportunities for our community to share out authentically in spaces that a re
open and community-friendly. We would also be open to holding community-led
workshops that support the forward development of our city’s data -sharing
frameworks (i.e.. oversight, evaluation, best practices, etc.).
In sum, we felt that it was necessary to offer this brief articulation of our past year’s
experiences with ALPR. We look forward to learning more about how you perceive
our commission’s roles and responsibilities in regards to CVPD’s quarterly updates,
as well as to how we can all probe further in addressing and reconciling the ongoing
public concerns.
Sincerely,
Petrina Branch, Chair
Human Relations Commission
2 The Department will provide quarterly updates to the Human Relations Commission
on the ALPR program.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B5A78E6-D0EC-4AA2-AC94-71BB6C064EA5
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1210 of 1221
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REQUESTING THAT THE SAN DIEGO
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS’ EXERCISE ITS OPTION
TO PAY OFF SR-125 TOLL ROAD DEBT IN 2027 AND TAKE
ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO REVERT CONTROL
OF THE SR-125 TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN 2027 FOR ITS OPERATION AS A
FREEWAY
WHEREAS, Opened in 2007, South Bay Expressway (SBX) Toll Road is a ten-mile stretch
of State Route 125 (SR 125) that runs from Otay Mesa Road near State Route 905 to SR 54; and
WHEREAS, The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) purchased the SR-
125 franchise from Creditors, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, following
bankruptcy in December 2011; and
WHEREAS, The SBX owned by Caltrans and leased by SANDAG, operates as a toll road
pursuant to the Amended and Restated Development Franchise Agreement (ARDFA) with the
State of California, which is the agreement governing the day-to-day operations; and
WHEREAS, Currently, under the ARDFA, control of SBX will revert to Caltrans in
November of 2042; and
WHEREAS, South Bay residents gave up expansion of the I-805 when SANDAG
purchased the SBX, making it the only toll road in the County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, In Fiscal Year 2027, SANDAG will have an opportunity to call its debt bonds;
and
WHEREAS, Existing tolls place an undue and disproportionate burden on South Bay users
and hinder the City’s economic development activity in areas such as business attraction and
retention; and
WHEREAS, The SBX connects the only commercial port of entry in San Diego and Otay
Mesa, the largest area of industrial-zoned land in San Diego County, to the regional freeway
network, therefore making the elimination of tolls a benefit to the region, state, and nation; and
WHEREAS, The SANDAG Board has the authority to make the retirement of the debt a
budgetary priority and goal because any other system, other than elimination of tolls, would place
undue burden to the South Bay and would further exacerbate the inequities in our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista requests that the San Diego Association of Governments’ exercise its option to pay off SR-
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1211 of 1221
125 Toll Road debt in 2027 and take all other actions necessary to revert control of the SR-125 to
the California Department of Transportation in 2027 for its operation as a freeway.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Mary Casillas Salas Glen R. Googins
Mayor City Attorney
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1212 of 1221
South Bay
Expressway
SR-125 Toll Road
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1213 of 1221
Background
The South Bay Expressway (SBX) project was a
public private partnership between Caltrans and
California Transportation Ventures (CTV).
SBX is a ten-mile stretch of State Route 125 (SR-
125) from SR-905 to SR-54.
The need for the project was driven by:
Commercial traffic growth in an area of
expanding trade at the Otay Mesa Port of
Entry with Mexico
Economic growth and activity in a largely
undeveloped area of Chula Vista and Otay
Mesa
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1214 of 1221
Initial Goals
SBX was expected to achieve the following goals:
Complete a missing link in the San Diego
freeway network
Reduce traffic congestion and travel time by
34% from Otay Mesa to San Diego and by
75% in the reverse direction
Improve regional mobility in the South Bay
Allow access to employment centers on both
sides of the US-Mexico border
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1215 of 1221
Toll Road History
In 1991, Caltrans and CTV signed a franchise agreement for
the project, allowing CTV to finance and construct the toll
road.
Caltrans leased back the operational rights for a 35-year
concession period through November 2042.
Agreement prohibited Caltrans from building any
competing roads.
In 2010, CTV filed for bankruptcy and SANDAG purchased
the franchise from Creditors, including the U.S.
Department of Transportation, in December 2011 for
$341.5 million.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1216 of 1221
Milestones
In 2012, SANDAG reduced tolls by 24% to 40%.
In 2017, SANDAG refinanced indebtedness and
operates uniquely strong operating margins.
Debt bonds are callable in 2027.
Franchise Agreement between Caltrans and SANDAG
scheduled to terminate in November 2042.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1217 of 1221
SBX FY21 Debt
Profile and
Reserve
Balances
SANDAG projects the following in FY27:
Outstanding Bond Balance $143 million
Total Cash Balances $110 million
When bonds are callable in 2027, an estimated $33
million gap exists.
SANDAG intends to make significant investments into
the electronic tolling system, which are not needed if
the goal is to eliminate tolls and pay off debt sooner.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1218 of 1221
Impact
Existing tolls place an undue and
disproportionate burden on South Bay users
Hinder the City’s economic development activity
in areas such as business attraction and retention
Divert more traffic onto local roadways and I-805
Otay Mesa East Port of Entry will provide border
crossings via a tolling system
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1219 of 1221
Next Steps
To eliminate tolls, three actions are required:
SANDAG and Caltrans would have to support
actions to retire toll road debt and transition
facility to a freeway
$33 million in funding needed by SANDAG in
2027 to finance bond call
Caltrans would need to assume responsibility of
the road before end of lease in 2042
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1220 of 1221
Resolution
Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista requesting that the San Diego
Association of Governments exercise its option
to pay off SR-125 Toll Road debt in 2027 and
take all other actions necessary to revert control
of the SR-125 to the California Department of
Transportation in 2027 for its operation as a
freeway.
2022/01/25 City Council Post Agenda Page 1221 of 1221