errata 1 palladium residences project final environmental impact … · 2015-11-06 · b. project...
TRANSCRIPT
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 A‐1
ERRATA 1 PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Los Angeles (City) has prepared this Errata to provide additional information regarding thePalladium Residences Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It provides information regarding minorrevisions to the Project, clarifications and minor edits to the Draft and Final EIR documents, andsupplementaltechnicalanalyses.
The minor Project modifications, clarification, and supplemental information do not add significant newinformationtotheEIRorresultinmoreseveresignificantenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeProjectanddonot require re‐circulationof theDraftEIR. TheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA)onlyrequires recirculation of aDraft EIRwhen “significant new information” is added to aDraft EIR. Section15088.5oftheCEQAGuidelinesstatesthat“NewinformationaddedtoanEIRisnot‘significant’unlesstheEIRischangedinawaythatdeprivesthepublicofameaningfulopportunitytocommentuponasubstantialadverseenvironmentaleffectoftheprojectorafeasiblewaytomitigateoravoidsuchaneffect(includingafeasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” CEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5alsoprovidesthat“[r]ecirculationisnotrequiredwherethenewinformationaddedtotheEIRmerelyclarifiesoramplifiesormakesinsignificantmodificationsinanadequateEIR”
Changes to the Draft and Final EIR are indicated below under the respective EIR section heading, pagenumber,andparagraph.Paragraphreferenceistothefirstfullparagraphonthepage.Deletionsareshownwithstrikethroughandadditionsareshownwithunderline.
2. BACKGROUND
InaccordancewithSection15082oftheCEQAGuidelines,theCityofLosAngelespreparedandcirculatedaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)forpubliccommenttotheStateClearinghouse,OfficeofPlanningandResearch,responsibleagencies,andotherinterestedpartiesfora33‐dayreviewperiod,commencingAugust8,2013andendingSeptember9,2013. TheNOPformally informedthepublicthattheCitywaspreparingaDraftEIRfortheProject,andsolicitedinputregardingthescopeandcontentoftheenvironmentalinformationtobe included in the Draft EIR. In addition, a public scopingmeetingwas held on August 29, 2013 in theHollywoodPalladiumwithintheProjectSite.
Subsequently,aEIRwaspreparedandcirculated fora47‐daypublicreviewonOctober23,2014 throughDecember 8, 2014 in compliance with Section 15105(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Final EIR thatincluded responses to comments on the Draft EIR and corrections and additions to the Draft EIR waspreparedanddistributedonMarch31,2014. TheFinalEIRincludescomments fromandresponsesto44
A. Introduction and Background November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 A‐2
commenting parties including Public Agencies, Native American Organizations, Community OrganizationsandIndividualsandBusinesses.
Subsequent to completion of the Final EIR, the City of Los Angeles Hearing Officer, on behalf of the CityPlanningCommission,andtheDeputyAdvisoryAgencyconductedajointpublichearingonApril15,2015atwhich members of the public had an opportunity to present oral and written testimony regarding theProject. Based on this hearing, and public comments received, the Advisory Agency approved VestingTentativeTractMap(VTTM)No.72213fortheProjectonAugust6,2015.Thatdecisionwasappealed,andthose appeals included comments on the EIR. To address additional comments received, the ProjectApplicantproposescertainrefinementsoftheProject,whichwouldfurtherreduceProjectimpacts.
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 B‐1
B. PROJECT REFINEMENTS
1. SELECTION BY THE LEAD AGENCY OF ALTERNATIVE 7 AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR describes the Project as it was initially proposed andanalyzedas“theProject”intheDraftEIR,Chapter4.0EnvironmentalAnalysisandChapter6.0,OtherCEQAConsideration.TheDraftEIRalsoincludedanalysisofseven(7)ProjectAlternativesinChapter5.0.Oneofthese,Alternative7,AlternativeSiteDesign–EnhancedSetbacks,wasdeterminedintheDraftEIRtobetheEnvironmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative 7 also received favorable public comments, asdocumentedintheFinalEIR.OnthebasisofAlternative7’sreducedenvironmentalimpactsandfavorablepubliccomments,thePlanningStaffReporttotheAdvisoryAgencyrecommendedapprovalofAlternative7andtheAdvisoryAgency’sdeterminationapprovedaVestingTentativeTractMapforAlternative7.
Alternative 7 is substantially similar to the initially proposed Project. Most notably it includes the samedevelopment program, general building location and design, and entitlement requests as the initiallyproposed Project. It also includes implementation of the same Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram, including thePalladiumPreservationandEnhancementPlan,asdescribed in theFinalEIR. TheAlternative7variationsfromtheinitiallyproposedProjectarerelatedtominormodificationsinthemassingofthebuildingsandsubterraneanparkingtoreducecertainProjectimpacts.
Alternative 7’smodified design includes reducing the subterranean parking to amaximum of four levelsinsteadofseven,whichreducesexcavationandassociatedconstructionimpacts;proposesagreatersetbackfromSelmaAvenuefortheProject’snortherlytower,whichimproveseast‐westviewsovertheProjectSite;slightlynarrowstheProject’snewbuildingsbehindthePalladium,providinggreaterbufferspacebetweenthenewconstructionandthePalladium;andpushesbackbyapproximately25feetthepodiumbehindthePalladium,making approximately 2,000 square feet of pedestrian space open to the skywithin El CentroCourt.Theedgesofthetallerbuildingelementswouldalsobefurtherrecessed/setback,withacurvilineararchitecturalgridthatarticulatesoutwardfromtheunitswithusableoutdoorbalconyspaceinter‐stitchedbetween. Thearticulatedgridand interstitialbalconieswouldnotreadasasolidwall,butas transitionalelementsincontrastwithsolidbuildingfacades.Alternative7alsoincreasedtheheightofthetallerbuildingelementsasinitiallyproposedandanalyzedintheDraftEIRfrom28storiesand350feetinheighttoupto30storiesand395feetinheight,toaccommodatespacelostduetotheAlternative’sgreatersetbacks.
2. PROPOSED REFINEMENTS TO ALTERNATIVE 7
Baseduponfurthercommunitycomment,andinresponsetocommentsraisedintheappealsoftheAugust6,2015,VTTMdetermination,theApplicanthasproposedfurtherrefinementstotheAlternative7Projectasfollows:
ReducedHeights: ThemaximumbuildingheightunderAlternative7hasbeenreducedfromamaximumof395 feet to amaximumof 350 feet. The reduction in theheight ofAlternative7results in reduced impacts on aesthetics as compared to those discussed in the Alternative 7analysisonpage5‐133oftheDraftEIR.Alternative7’simpactsonaesthetics,viewsandshadingassociatedwithbuildingheightwouldnowbethesameasreportedintheEIRfortheproposedProject.
B. Project Refinements November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 B‐2
EliminationofHotelOption:TheDraftandFinalEIRanalyzedtwoProjectOptions–Option1,Residential,with731residentialunitsandapproximately24,000squarefeetofretail,andOption2,Residential/Hotel,with598residentialunitsanda250roomhotelwithrelatedhotelfacilitiesandapproximately24,000square feetof retail. Givenrecent requests forclarityandcertaintyabouttheProject’suses,andthedevelopmentandproposalofmanyotherhotelsinHollywood,the Project Applicant has decided to proceed with the residential ‐ only, Option 1 that wasanalyzedintheDraftandFinalEIR,andwillnotpursueahotelcomponent.
The Necessary Approvals on page 2‐23, of the Draft EIR, Section 2.0 Project Description havebeenmodifiedtodeletetheentitlementrequestpertainingtohoteluses.Eliminationofthehoteluses from theProject reduces the impacts identified for theProject in theDraft andFinalEIR.Most notably, these include reduced operational traffic impacts (three intersections would nolongerhavesignificantimpactswitheliminationofOption2,wouldbereducedfromfivetothreeintersections, and residential street segments would no longer be significantly impacted);reducedoperationalimpactsonairquality,greenhousegasemissionsandnoiseassociatedwithtraffic;andreducedutility impacts, includingwaterconsumption,wastewatergeneration, solidwastegeneration,andenergyconsumption.ImpactsondemandforPoliceserviceswouldalsobeslightlyreduced.
UpdatedEntitlementRequests: TheNecessaryActionsrequiredtoimplementandentitletheProjectarelistedinSection2.GoftheProjectDescriptiononpages2‐22to2‐23oftheDraftEIRandmodifiedthroughCorrectionsandAdditionsonpage2‐29oftheFinalEIR.Modificationstotheseentitlementsareasfollows:
o DeletionofaConditionalUsePermittoallowFloorAreaAveragingandResidentialDensityTransfer.ThisisreplacedwithanewProjectDesignFeature(PDF)PDF‐LandUse‐1thathasbeenaddedtotheLandUseSectionaspartoftheCorrectionsandAdditionsbelow.ThePDFwillbe implementedasaconditionofProjectApprovaland is included in theMMRP. ThischangeisalsodescribedinthisErratainSectionD.2onpageD‐2.
o DeletionofthehotelusesintheConditionalUsePermitforthesaleofalcoholicbeverages.
o DeletionoftherequestforConditionalUsePermitforahotelintheC4zonewithin500feetofanRzone.
ThemodificationstotheentitlementrequestsdonotchangetheProjectoritsimpactsontheenvironment.TheyprovideclarificationsregardingProjectimplementation.
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐1
C. ADDITIONAL EIR INFORMATION
1. AESTHETICS AND VIEWS
AnevaluationofthecommentsconcerningaestheticsandviewsreceivedafterreleaseoftheFinalEIRandduring the public hearing process determined that the comments raised are similar to or the same ascomments already addressed in the Final EIR and that the responses provided in the Final EIR fullyaddressedthecommentsregardingtheProject’saestheticimpactsandtheProject’sviewimpactsincludedintheDraftEIR.
2. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AIR QUALITY
Comments regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissionswere received for the first time after thepublicationof theFinalEIRandduring thepublichearingprocess. Oneof thecommentspertains tonewrecommendations for the methodology used for performing Health Risk Assessments. This comment isaddressedbelow.AsecondcommentaddressestheProject’sanalysisoflocalizeddispersionimpacts.Thiscomment is also addressed below. Otherwise, upon an evaluation of these comments, it has beendeterminedthat theDraftEIRhasproperlyanalyzedthesetopicsandtheDraftEIRhasusedtherequiredmethodology for such analyses. Based on these comments and the further analyses discussed below, nosignificantimpactsbeyondthoseidentifiedintheDraftEIRwouldoccur.
New Health Risk Assessment based on March 2015 California Office of Environmental Health and
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidelines.
InMarch2015,astheFinalEIRwasbeingpreparedforpublicationOEHHAadoptednewguidelineswhichupdatedthepreviousguidanceforpreparingHealthRiskAssessments(HRAs)undertheState’sAirToxics“Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment program by incorporating advances in risk assessment withconsideration of infants and children using Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF). These changes also take intoaccount different breathing rates and time spent at home. On June 5, 2015, SCAQMD incorporated theupdatedOEHHAguidelinesintoitsapplicablerulesthatapplytocertainstationarysourcesregulatedundertheHot Spots program. The SCAQMDhas not yet released guidance on the applicability of the updatedOEHHA guidelines for preparing CEQA documents. Nonetheless, even though SCAQMD has notrecommended using the update OEHHA guidelines for preparing HRAs in CEQA documents, to beconservative, an analysis was performed using these guidelines, which is included as a TechnicalMemorandumincludedasAppendixB‐2ofErrata1.
TheCorrectionsandAdditionsbelowalso incorporatethissupplementalanalysis intotheEIR. Undertherevisedanalysistheincrementalincreaseinhealthriskfromconstructionwouldbe6.5inonemillion,whichis less than thesignificance thresholdof10 inonemillionand therefore less thansignificant. Asaresult,health risk impacts from Project construction would be less than significant under the updated OEHHAmethodologyforstationarysources.
As the 2015 OEHHA guidelines are more sensitive to the protection of the public safety than previousguidelines,additionalconstructionmeasuresarerequiredtomeettheupdatedriskestimates.Aspartoftheon‐goinganalysis,theProjectDesignFeaturethatwaspreviouslyrecommendedfortheprotectionofpublic
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐2
healthhasbeenrevised.TheupdatesincorporatetheuseofCARB/USEPATier4standardsinlieuoftheTier3 standards, and increaseduseof electric constructionequipment.TheupdatedPDF‐GHG‐1nowreadsasfollows:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetor exceed theCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipment ratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProjectconstruction.Polepower(electricitydeliveredfromtheutilitygrid)shallbetheprimarysourceofpowerforusewithon‐siteelectrictools,equipment,lighting,etc.,exceptwhere/wheninfeasibleduetositeconstraints;dieselgenerators,ifneeded,shallberatedbetween75 horsepower (hp) and 750 hp andmeet or exceed applicable Tier 4 standards.Total diesel generator usage during construction shall not exceed 312,000horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucksthatmeetorexceedthemodelyear2010emission standards. These requirements shall be included in applicable biddocumentsandsuccessfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model yearspecificationandCARBorSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
The Draft EIR determined that Project operations would result in an incremental cancer risk ofapproximately3.6inonemillion.whichislessthanthe10inonemillionsignificancethreshold.Theprimarycontributor to the risk was emissions from restaurant charbroiling. The operational HRA assesseduncontrolled TAC emissions from charbroiling. However, restaurant charbroiling would comply withSCAOMDRule1138 (ControlofEmissions fromRestaurantOperations),which requires the installationofemissions controls on charbroilers in use in the Air Basin. The cancer risk from Project operations withcharbroileremissionscontrolsinplacewouldbe0.7inonemillion.
WhentakingintoaccounttheagesensitivityandupdatedexposurefactorsunderthenewOEHHAguidanceforstationarysources,thecancerriskfromProjectoperationswithcharbroileremissionscontrolsinplacewouldbe2.0inonemillion,whichislessthanthe10inonemillionsignificancethreshold.Asaresult,healthriskimpactsfromProjectoperationwouldbelessthansignificantunderthenewOEHHAmethodologyforstationarysources.
Subsequent Dispersion Modeling
SubsequenttopublicationoftheFinalEIR,acommentwasreceivedsuggestingthattheProject’sanalysisoflocalized emission levels were not properly calculated. The argument asserted that the significancethresholdswerebasedonlotsizeandtheProject’s3.6acresitehadahigherthresholdthanasmallersiteexclusiveof thePalladiumwouldhavehad. The3.6acreSitesizeandmethodologyemployedintheDraftEIRarecorrect.(CommentsregardingtheProject’slotsizeandsitedensitywereaddressedintheFinalEIR.FurtherdiscussionoftheProject’slotconfigurationanddensityareaddressedintheLandUsediscussionofthis Additional EIR Information Section below.) However, in order to address the comment furtherassessmentoflocalizedemissionshavebeenperformed.ThesubsequentstudywasbasedonarefinedLSTanalysisusingdispersionmodelingpursuantSCAQMDguidelines.Forillustrativepurposes,modelingusing
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐3
theAERMODdispersionmodelprimarilyevaluatedthepotentiallocalizedconstructionimpactsonthe1.87acresareaoftheProjectSite,exclusiveoftheareainwhichthePalladiumbuildingislocated.Theanalysistakesintoaccountandaddressesimpactsatthenearestsensitivereceptorswhetherexistingoridentifiedasfuturedevelopment.ThefullanalysisisprovidedinaTechnicalMemorandumincludedinAppendixB‐3ofErrata1.
Theresultsoftheanalysis indicatethat forNO2andCO, localizedconstructionemissionsfromtheProjectwouldnotcauseanexceedanceoftheNAAQSorCAAQSatexistingorfuturesensitivereceptors.LocalizedconstructionemissionsfromtheProjectwouldresultinamaximumincrementalincreaseofapproximately1.3µg/m3forPM10andapproximately0.7µg/m3forPM2.5,atsensitivereceptors,whichwouldnotexceedthesignificancethresholdof10.4µg/m3.Asaresult,thelocalizedconstructionimpactswouldbelessthansignificant,forthisanalysisaswellasthepreviouslypreparedanalysis.
The results of the analysis for operational localized NO2 and CO emissions (including from the vehiclesenteringandexitingtheproposedparkingstructure)wouldnotcauseanexceedanceoftheNAAQSorCAAQSat existing or future sensitive receptors. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would result in a maximumincremental increase of 2.18 µg/m3 at sensitive receptors, which would not exceed the operationalsignificance threshold of 2.5 µg/m3. As a result, the localized operational impacts would be less thansignificant.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG)
OnApril29,2015,subsequenttopublicationoftheFinalEIR,CaliforniaGovernorBrownissuedExecutiveOrderB‐30‐15. Therein,GovernorBrownestablishedanew interimstatewidereduction target to reduceGHGemissions to40percentbelow1990 levelsby2030;orderedall stateagencieswith jurisdictionoversourcesofGHGemissionstoimplementmeasurestoachievereductionsofGHGemissionstomeetthe2030and2050reduction targets;anddirectedCARBtoupdate theClimateChangeScopingPlan toexpress the2030targetintermsofmillionmetrictonsofcarbondioxideequivalent. CARBsubsequentlyexpresseditsintention to initiate the Climate Change Scoping Plan update during the summer of 2015, with adoptionscheduledfor2016.
TheCorrectionsandAdditionssupplementtheGHGanalysisintheDraftEIR.ThesupplementalinformationdoesnotalterthepreviousconclusionsoftheDraftEIRthatProjectimpactsonGHGemissionswouldbelessthansignificant. Thesupplementary information is included in theCorrectionsandAdditionsSectionandAppendicesbelow.Thesupplementalinformationincludesthefollowing:
NewregulatorydiscussionregardingExecutiveOrderB‐30‐15andtheCapandTradeProgram
RevisionstothediscussionofthemethodologyforevaluatingGHGemissionsimpacts;
Revisions to the Significance Thresholds based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) inresponsetoSB97;
AddedanalysesintheevaluationofProjectimpactsregardingconsistencywithGreenhouseGasReductionPlanstoaddresstheconsistencyoftheProjectwithExecutiveOrdersS‐3‐05andB‐30‐15;
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐4
AdditionalinformationregardingcumulativeimpactsinlightofCEQASection15064(h)(3);and
AppendixBoftheDraftEIRwasfurthersupplementedwithinformationfromCAPCOAguidancetosupportthediscussionofthelandusetransportationmeasuresthatwouldreduceProjectVMTasdiscussedunderthepresentationoftheProjectCharacteristicsthatreduceVMT(seeAppendixB‐1ofthisErrata).
3. CULTURAL RESOUCES – ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES
Comments regarding impacts on archaeological resources were received for the first time after thepublication of the Final EIR. Upon evaluation of the comments, it has been determined that the EIR hasproperly analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on such resources and provided appropriatemitigationmeasures for theirprotection. However, asa response to these comments, theCorrectionsandAdditionsbelowincludearevisiontoMitigationMeasureMM‐ARCH‐1relatingtothepreparationofanArchaeologicalResourceMitigationPlan(ARMP).
4. CULTURAL RESOURCES – HISTORIC RESOURCES
An evaluation of the comments concerning historic resources received after release of the Final EIR andduring thepublic hearingprocesswas conductedby thehistoric resources consultant,HistoricResourcesGroup(HRG).Basedonthisevaluation,HRGdeterminedthatthecommentsraisedaresimilartoorthesameasthosecommentsalreadyaddressedintheFinalEIRandthattheresponsesprovidedintheFinalEIRfullyaddressed the comments regarding the Project’s historic resources impacts and the Project’s historicresourcesassessmentincludedintheDraftEIR.
SubsequenttopublicationoftheFinalEIR,whichcontainedadditionalhistoricanalysisandtwonewProjectDesign Features regarding the Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan andHistoric InterpretativeExhibit,theStateOfficeofHistoricPreservation(OHP)publisheditsJune2015CEQACaseStudies,VolumeIV (the “Case Study”). (The Case Study is included as Appendix A‐1 of this Errata 1.) The Case StudyreviewedthePalladiumResidencesProject,asconfirmedinanOctober14,2015emailfromSeandeCourcy,StateHistorianIIwiththeLocalGovernment&EnvironmentalComplianceUnittoHistoricResourcesGroup(correspondenceincludedinAppendixA‐1ofthisErrata1).TheCaseStudystatesthattheProjectproposedahistoricrehabilitationtreatmentplan intheFinalEIR,whichtogetherwiththeProject’sdesign“ensuredfiveaspectsofthebuilding’shistoricintegritywouldremainintactdespitesomeimpacttothebuildings[sp]historicsettingandfeeling.”TheCaseStudy’sanalysisconcludesbystating:
“Given the project objectives of 1) increased density and 2) preservation/continued use of thehistoricbuilding,thisapproachseemslikereasonablemeansforensuringimpactstothebuildingarelessthansignificant.
Local government planners and preservation advocates should work with project proponentsthrough the local preservation review process, and/or the CEQA process to incorporate historicresourcesintoinfilldevelopmentdesign.Thecollaborativeapproach,exemplifiedbythisCaseStudy,hasthepotentialtoinspiremoresustainableinfilldesignwhenhistoricresourcesareinvolved.”
InconfirmingthatthisCaseStudywasofthePalladiumResidencesProject,theauthornotedthat“Whilewedon’tcallouttheprojectbyname,weappreciatedthewaytheLeadAgencyincorporatedOHP’scomments
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐5
into the final environmental document and wanted to share this example with other Lead Agencies.”(Appendix A) Based on OHP’s analysis of the Project provided in this Case Study, and the subsequentcommunication (both included in the Appendix), OHP has provided no further objections to the historicimpactanalysisasitissupplementedintheFinalEIR.
Subsequent topublicationof theFinalEIR, theProjectapplicantalsocontinuedon‐goingdiscussionswithhistoric stakeholders thathave led to further refinementsof theProject’shistoricProjectDesignFeaturesandproposedzoningconditionsofapproval.
Changes to the Project’s historic Project Design Features include minor clarifications, as well as theadditional requirement that a draft Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan be submitted toHollywoodHeritageinadditiontoCityPlanning’sOfficeofHistoricResources.
ChangesmadetotheProject’sQConditionsandDLimitationsincludethefollowing:
In theevent that theapplicantdoesnotnominate thePalladiumasrequired, theapplicantwillnotopposeanyotherentityfromnominatingthePalladium;
TheapplicantagreesthatalldevelopmentdensityfromthePalladiumbuildingsitewillbeusedforaprojectdevelopedonadjacentproperty,andshallnotbeusedtoredevelopthePalladiumbuildingsite;and
The applicant agrees that the development rights for the site shall only be for repair orreconstructionofthePalladiumbuildingintheeventofdamageorloss,unlessit isdeterminedthatrestoration/reconstructionofthebuildingisimpractical.
AnyprojectwithanFARofbetween4.5:1andnot toexceed6.0:1 requiresOHRapprovalof ahistoricimpactanalysis.
The updates to the Project Design Features and proposed zoning conditions for the Project provideadditional protections for theHollywoodPalladium, and therefore are consistentwith thehistoric impactanalysisprovidedintheDraftandFinalEIR.ThetwohistoricProjectDesignFeaturesandthreeProjectSitezoning conditions are now proposed as follows (to see the changesmade in strikeout and underline seeSectionD‐2onpageD‐3below):
PDF‐HIST‐1:PalladiumPreservationandEnhancementPlan.TheApplicantshallcontributetothepreservationandenhancementofthePalladiumthroughimprovementstobeselectedat theApplicant’s election, including from the following list of potential improvements,providedthattheproposedimprovementtobeimplementedmustbe(1)selectedbytheApplicantasapriority improvementandapprovedby its tenant for thePalladium, (2)approvedbytheDepartmentofCityPlanning’sOfficeofHistoricResources(“OHR”)and(3) in compliancewith the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, ascertified by a qualified historic preservation consultantwho shallmonitorwork underthePalladiumPreservationandEnhancementPlanforconformancewiththeStandards.
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐6
A. Timing. A draft Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan proposed by theApplicant shall be submitted to Hollywood Heritage and OHR no later than 30calendar days prior to any design review required from same and prior to theissuance of building permits for the Project, which will include identification ofcharacter‐definingfeaturesandthesignificanceofsuchfeatures.AfinalPlanshallbeapprovedbyOHRpriorto issuanceof finalcertificatesofoccupancyfortheProject.At the Applicant’s option, earlier review by OHRmay be requested such as duringschematicdesignanddesigndevelopment.AnHistoricStructureReportshallalsobepreparedinconjunctionwiththefinalPreservationandEnhancementPlan.
B. PotentialElements for Inclusion.The following includesa list ofproposedpotentialimprovements to be considered for inclusionin the Palladium Preservation andEnhancementPlan.Thislistisbased,inpart,onsurveysofthePalladiumconductedby Historic Resources Group, which prepared the Project’s Historic ResourcesAssessment Report and conducted a prior historic review of the Palladium inconjunction with the Palladium’s 2008 rehabilitation. This list is also based onimprovementsrecommendedincommentlettersontheDraftEIR,aswellasneededfunctional improvements to the Palladium’s operations, to ensure that it remains afirst‐class entertainment venue. Prior to construction of any improvements, theApplicant shall propose those improvements it determines to be priorityimprovementsandseektoobtaintheapprovalsreferencedinitems1,2and3ofthefirstparagraphabove.
– ImprovethePalladium’sexistingback‐stagespace,back‐of‐houseservice,andloadingoperations,whichdonotmeetcurrentperformanceandproductionneeds‐replacethe 2008 addition on the northern side of the Palladium, and potentially thepreviouslyaltered,originalextensioninthesamelocation,withsubterraneanand/oroverhead bridge connections to the new building on the north side. Additionally,relocate the existing outdoor truck loading area to a subterranean level; withsubterranean access from Argyle and Selma Avenues. These enhancements wouldprovide additional staging areas for the Palladium’s operations within the newbuilding; improve loading operations; eliminate any potential pedestrian‐vehicularconflictsonElCentroAvenue;andprovidesubstantiallymoreopenspaceontherearsideofthePalladiumforwalkingandgathering;
– Improve accessibility to, and utilization of, the Palladium’s existing southernstorefront spaces, better integrate the storefront spaceswith the proposedProject,and improve queuing – provide doors and potential window openings within thePalladium’swesternwalltoconnectpedestriansfromSunsetCourttothePalladium’sstorefronts;
– Prepare a design program for the Palladium’s existing southern storefront spaces.The nonstructural storefront partitions on the southern façade of the PalladiumbuildingwerealteredpriortothePalladium’s2008rehabilitationproject,andwerenotuniformorcharacter‐defining.The2008rehabilitation fundedbyCRAremovednon‐character‐defining features, reconstructed missing original features, and builtnew features such as storefronts that are compatible with the historic building.Similartotheintentandimplementationofthe2008rehabilitation,adesignprogram
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐7
for these storefronts will include a uniform set of components that provide for acoherentdesignamongthedifferentstorefrontbayswhileallowingforlayoutoptionsthatmeettheneedsoftenants,forinstanceallowingalterationsofthelocationsandnumbersofdoors,windows,andmullions;
– Prepareahistoricallycompatiblesignageplan for thePalladium’sexistingsouthernstorefrontspaces,potentiallyincludingsuchelementsassigndimensionsandoptionsformaterials,construction,illumination,colors,andfinishes.Historicallytherehavebeen many different styles and types of tenant signage used on the building, andconsiderationwillbegiventohistoricsignagedesignprecedentsthataredocumentedin archival photographs of the Palladium when designing new signage for thestorefronts.Howeversignagemayormaynotbeneeded for theexistingstorefrontspaces;
– FlushopaqueentrancelobbydoorsonSunsetandArgyle‐Replacewithfullyglazeddoors that recall original design documented in the original Gordon Kaufmanndrawings;
– Ballroomceiling‐Repairandreplacetexturedacousticalplasterasneeded;
– Ballroomfloor‐Stripping,screening,varnishing,andwaxingona10yearcycle;
– Lobbyfinish,lighting,andrestoration‐Installcompatiblesconces,wallcovering,andcarpet;
– Public toilets – Remove and reinstall clean, durable multiple‐accommodationfacilities;
– Ballroomchandeliers‐Dustandwashglass;reducecorrosionandwaxmetalona10yearcycle;
– Woodroofframing‐Annualinspectionandlocaltreatmentbylicensedexterminator
– Metalflashings,fasciae,hardware‐Maintenanceoffinishesandoperatingpartsona10yearcycle;
– ExteriorWalls‐Maintenanceofpaintedsurfacesona10yearcycle;
– Neon and specialty signage and lighting ‐ Maintenance of ballasts, tubes, boxes,shields,facesona10yearcycle;
– HVACsystem‐Engineeringandreplacementofmajorcomponentsona15yearcycle;
– Roof‐Replacementona20yearcycle;
– Toilet fixtures, fittings,&accessories ‐Replacementofheavyuse toilet componentsona10yearcycle.
PDF‐HIST‐2:Historic InterpretiveExhibit.AnHistoric InterpretiveExhibit shallbe incorporatedinto the Project at key locations to increase general public and patron awareness andappreciationofthehistoryandsignificanceofHollywoodandtheHollywoodPalladium.Theexhibitshallprovideinformativevisualdisplaysand/ormediathatmayaddresssuchtopicsas:thebuilding’sarchitecturalstyleandarchitect;identificationofotherhistoricalbuildingsintheProjectvicinityandtheirrelationshiptothePalladium;useoftheProjectSiteprior to constructionof thePalladiumand thehistoricHollywoodcontext; and the
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐8
layersofhistoryatthesite:agriculture,motionpictureindustry,musicalrecording, liveentertainment, radio, and television. The display shall be designed and implementedpursuanttoinputfromHollywoodstakeholders.TheHistoricInterpretiveExhibitmaybelocated within the Palladium building itself, or as an outdoor interpretive programreviewed and approved by the Office of Historic Resources. The Historic InterpretiveExhibitwillnotbehousedinseparatenewconstructionappendedtotheexteriorofthePalladiumbuilding.
ModifiedQCondition1:
In theevent thataprojectadjacent to theHollywoodPalladium theatrebuilding locatedat6201SunsetBoulevard isapprovedatadensityof6.0:1FAR,andprovided thatall administrativeandlegalappealsandchallengeshavebeenresolvedpermittingaprojectwithadensityof6.0:1FAR,then prior to issuance of building permits for such project, the applicant shall nominate theHollywoodPalladiumtheatrebuildingasaHistoric‐CulturalMonumentinaccordancewiththeLosAngeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance, Municipal Code Sections. 22.171 et seq. In the event theapplicant does not nominate the Hollywood Palladium theatre building as a Historic‐CulturalMonument,theapplicantwillnotopposeanyotherentitynominatingthebuildingasanHistoricalCulturalMonument.TheapplicantrecognizesthatSec.511oftheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanstates that “[t]he [CommunityRedevelopment] Agency shall deny requests for housing incentiveunits, development in the Regional Center Commercial designation above an F.A.R. of 4.5:1 andvariationsforsitesonwhichastructuredeterminedbytheAgencytobesignificantwasdemolishedafter the adoption of this Plan or is proposed to be demolished; however, under exceptionalcircumstances where a significant structure has been substantially damaged and must bedemolishedduetocircumstancesbeyondthecontroloftheowner,theAgencymaygrantrequestsforhousingincentiveunits,developmentwithintheRegionalCenterCommercialdesignationabovean F.A.R. of 4.5:1 and variations.” The applicant agrees that all development density from thePalladiumbuildingsitewillbeusedforaprojectdevelopedonadjacentproperty,andshallnotbeusedtoredevelopthePalladiumbuildingsite,whichdevelopmentrightsshallonlybeforrepairorreconstructionofthePalladiumbuildingintheeventofdamageorloss,unlessitisdeterminedthatrestoration/reconstructionofthebuildingisimpractical.
ModifiedQCondition2:
Prior to theDepartmentofCityPlanning’s sign‐off onbuildingpermits for aprojectwitha6.0:1FARdirectlyadjacenttothePalladium,theDepartmentofPlanning,inconsultationwithitsOfficeofHistoric Resources shall confirm that the project’s building plans substantially conform to theconceptual planspresented anddescribed in theEnvironmental ImpactReport and approvedbytheCityofLosAngeles.
ModifiedDLimitations:
Aprojecton this sitemaybedevelopedat aFloorAreaRatio (FAR)ofbetween4.5:1andnot toexceed6.0:1providedthat:
a. The Community Redevelopment Agency, any successor to the CommunityRedevelopmentAgency, or theDepartmentofCityPlanningofLosAngelespursuant tothe transferbyordinanceof redevelopment landuseplansand functions to theCityofLos Angeles (C.F. No. 12‐0014‐S4), finds that the project conforms to the Hollywood
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐9
RedevelopmentPlanwithfindingsasrequiredbySec.506.2.3oftheRedevelopmentPlanandapprovesanOwnerParticipationAgreement;and
b. Theproject’shistoricanalysisisapprovedbytheOfficeofHistoricResources,theprojectisapprovedbytheCityPlanningCommission,ortheCityCouncilonappeal,pursuanttotheproceduressetforthinLAMC12.32D.
5. LAND USE
Comments raised on the topic of Land Use received after release of the Final EIR and during the publichearing process have already been addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. However, additionalinformationisprovidedbelowregardingcommentsreceivedontheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanandtheProject’srequestedConditionalUsePermitforFloorAreaAveraging.
The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CommentssubmittedduringthepublichearingprocessregardingtheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanandthesuccessoragencytotheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency(CRA/LA)werereviewedandaresimilartopreviouscommentsthatwereaddressedintheFinalEIR.However,additionalinformationregardingProjectconsistencywiththeHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanisprovidedbelow.
While redevelopment agencieshavebeendissolved, theHollywoodRedevelopmentPlan remains in effectuntil 2033. Pursuant to the legislation dissolving redevelopment agencies, the successor agency orDesignated Local Authority (DLA) is obligated to carry out theHollywoodRedevelopment Plan until thatdate.Additionally,theDLAhastheauthorityto,amongotherthings,makethefindingsrequiredtoallowforthe Project’s increase in floor area ratio ("FAR") of up to 6.0:1, as well as enter into a binding writtenagreement–justastheformerredevelopmentagencywasableto.
On June 21, 2012, the DLA adopted a resolution clarifying the land use provisions of Section 502 of theHollywoodRedevelopment Plan and theRedevelopment Plan in relation to the land use approvals of theGeneralPlan,CommunityPlan,andZoningOrdinance.Specifically,theDLAadoptedaresolutionstatingthat,“anylandusespermittedforsuchpropertybytheapplicableprovisionsoftheCityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,CommunityPlanandZoningOrdinance,allastheyexistorarehereafteramendedorsupplantedfromtimetotime,shallbepermittedlandusesforallpurposesunderthe[HollywoodRedevelopmentPlan].”TheDLAexplainedthatthisactionwasnecessary“togiveeffecttotheprovisionssetforthinSection502ofthe[HollywoodRedevelopmentPlan].”
TheDraftEIRatTable4.H‐4,andFinalEIRatpages2‐36through2‐37,describetheProject’sconsistencywiththeHollywoodRedevelopmentPlan’sSection506.2.3,findingsrequiredfordevelopmentuptoa6.0:1FAR.SincepublicationoftheFinalEIR,theProjectapplicanthasalsoinitiatedanapplicationwiththeDLAfor an Owner Participation Agreement, pursuant to its letter dated September 20, 2015 (included asAppendixD‐1ofthisErrata).
Additionally, the DLA issued a letter dated November 3, 2015 (included as Appendix D‐2 of this Errata)confirming that it has monitored the FAR of Regional Center Commercial designated areas within theRedevelopmentPlanarea,asrequiredbySection506.2.3of theRedevelopmentPlan. TheDLAconfirmed
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐10
that the average FAR within these areas is approximately 1.5:1 FAR, less than the average of 4.5:1 FARrequired under the Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the Project’s requested density of 6.0:1 FAR ispermittedundertheRedevelopmentPlan.
The followingtechnicaledit to theProject’szoningD limitation isalsoproposedtoremoveanyambiguitythata6.0:1FARispermittedundertheProjectSite’szoning;thiseditwouldnotpermitalargerProjectorgreaterFARthanpreviouslyproposedoranalyzedintheProject’sEIR.
ModifiedDLimitation:
AprojectonthissitemaybedevelopedataFloorAreaRatio(FAR)ofbetween4.5:1andnottoexceed6.0:1providedthat:
a. TheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency,anysuccessortotheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency,or the Department of City Planning of Los Angeles pursuant to the transfer by ordinance ofredevelopmentlanduseplansandfunctionstotheCityofLosAngeles(C.F.No.12‐0014‐S4),findsthattheprojectconformstotheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanwithfindingsasrequiredbySec.506.2.3oftheRedevelopmentPlanandapprovesanOwnerParticipationAgreement;
Withdrawal of Request for Conditional Use Permit for Floor Area Averaging and Residential Density Averaging
TheProjectpreviously includedarequest foraConditionalUsePermit forFloorAreaAveraging,which ispermittedbytheLosAngelesMunicipalCodeforunifieddevelopmentprojects.TheProjectSiteconsistsoftwo lots, however the entire Sitewill operate, look, and feel like one unified development. The Project’sfunctional linkages include pedestrian and vehicular connections, common architecture, landscape andtreatment of outdoor space, and complementary and connected program elements. Working togetherseamlessly, theProjectSitepresentsasa consolidatedwhole fromadjacent streets. Thus, this request isappropriate and permitted by the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as discussed in detail in the Project’sapplicationsandonpage3.B‐41oftheFinalEIR.
Nonetheless,inresponsetopubliccomments,theProjectapplicanthasagreedtowithdrawtherequestforFloor Area and Residential Density Averaging. Instead, prior to issuance of building permits, the ProjectapplicantwilleithertietheProject’stwolots,orrecordafinalmapoftheProject’sVestingTentativeTractMapwhichmergestheProject’s twolots intoonegroundlot. Thisrequirement isbeingcodified inanewproposedProjectDesignFeature,PDF‐LandUse‐1,asfollows:
PDF‐LandUse‐1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for above grade construction for theProject,theApplicantshalleither(1)recordacovenanttotietheProjectSite’stwolots;or (2)recordaphaseofanapproved tractmap for theProjectwhichmerges theSite’stwolotsintoonemastergroundlot.
Underthefirstoption,oncetheProjectSite’stwolotsaretied,theLosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety will treat the two lots as one lot for purposes of calculating the Project’s Floor Area Ratio andresidentialunitdensity.TheCovenantandAgreementtoHoldPropertyasOneParcelprovidesthatthetwolotscannotbesoldseparately,andthecovenantwillrunwiththelandandbebindingonfutureownersand
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐11
successors.Alternatively,underthesecondoption,thetwolotswillceasetoexist,andinsteadonenewlotwillbecreatedthatencompassestheentireProjectSite.Undereitherscenario,aConditionalUsePermitforFloorAreaandResidentialDensityAveragingwillnolongerberequired.ThefloorarearatioandresidentialdensityaveragingcalculationreflectedintheEIRremainscorrect.
6. NOISE
CommentsregardingnoisewerereceivedforthefirsttimeafterthepublicationoftheFinalEIRandduringthepublichearingprocess. Uponevaluationof these comments, it hasbeendetermined that theEIRhasproperly analyzed noise for the Project, and that the Draft EIR uses the required methodology for suchanalysis.
As a response to these comments, theCorrections andAdditionsbelow include a new constructionnoiseanalysis for an added sensitive receptor (the Le BonHotel), provide a distance correction for a potentialfuturerelatedproject(BLVD6200,southofHollywoodBoulevard)withadiscussionofthepotentialnoiseimpacts at that location, a revision of the Mitigation Measure that requires noise barriers to reduceconstruction noise, and the provision of additional input data that was used in calculating the Project’svibrationimpactonthePalladiumandtrafficnoiseanalysis.
Comments Regarding the Le Bon Hotel and Required Mitigation
Comments receivedduring thepublichearingprocessexpressedconcern that theLeBonHotel locatedat1610 Argyle Avenue was not identified in the EIR as a sensitive receptor. According to its website, theHollywoodLeBonHotelopened forbusiness inNovember2013,after theNOPfor theProjectwas issuedandafterthetimethatanalysisofconstructionnoisewasundertaken.Priortoitsrenovationintoahotel,theproperty was an office building, which is not a noise‐sensitive use under CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, theexistingbaselineforEIRsistypicallybasedonexistingusesatthetimeanNOPisissued.
As the LeBonHotel is nowoccupied, an analysis of the potential constructionnoise levels to the LeBonHotelhasbeenperformedandincorporatedintotheCorrectionsandAdditionssectionofErrata1. TheLeBon Hotel is located approximately 200 feet from the Project Site. The analysis concludes that theconstructionnoise levelscouldreach75dBA,whichwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdof68dBAatnearby monitored noise location R4. To address the potentially significant impact the mitigation noisemeasure,MM‐NOISE‐1,whichrequiresconstructionnoisebarriersatspecifiedlocationsaroundtheedgeoftheProjectSite,hasbeenmodifiedtorequireconstructionofan8dBa,16footheightnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectandtheLeBonHotel.ThismodificationwillaccountfortheimpactsattheLeBonHotelresultinginlessthansignificantimpactsatthatlocation.
Comment Regarding Related Project 9: BLVD 6200, south of Hollywood Boulevard.
RelatedProject9,BLVD6200,waspreviouslyreportedintheDraftEIRExistingConditionsSectionasbeinglocatedapproximately250feetfromtheProjectSite.Thatdistancehasbeenmeasuredagaininresponsetothecommentandhasbeenrevisedto200feetasamoreaccuratedescriptionofitsdistance.ThisproposedresidentialprojectisnotyetunderconstructionandmaynotbeoccupiedduringProjectconstruction.
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐12
However, as discussed further in the Corrections and Additions, this potential future Project is locatedadjacent to theLeBonHotel, forwhichsubsequentanalysishasbeenperformed. Thatanalysisconcludesthattheconstructionnoiselevelscouldreach75dBA,whichwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdof68dBA at location R4; and therefore mitigation noise measure, MM‐NOISE‐1, has beenmodified to requireconstruction of an 8 dBA, 16 foot height noise barrier. As the BLVD 6200 project is also located atapproximately200feetaway,andatthesamereceptorlocation,theanalysisandmitigationfortheLeBonHotel would apply to andmitigate the potential impacts for the BLVD 6200 project aswell, to less thansignificantlevels.
Added Input Data Regarding the input Parameters for the Analyses of Vibration and
Roadway Noise
Footnote24ofSection4.I,NoiseoftheDraftEIR,providesinformationregardingthecalculationofvibrationimpacts at the Palladium building. That footnote has been amended to provide additional informationregarding the calculation. Also, Draft EIR Noise Appendix H‐1.3 has been replaced, with correctedinformation.NoiseAppendixH‐1.5hasbeensupplementedwithadditionalinformationregardingroadwayinformation(numberof lanes, lanewidth,parkinglanewidthandsidewalkwidthaswellascruisespeed).TheinformationisprovidedintheErrataAppendicesC‐2andC‐3,below.
7. TRAFFIC
SpecificcommentsregardingtrafficwerereceivedforthefirsttimeafterthepublicationoftheFinalEIRandduringthepublichearingprocess. Oneof thecommentspertainstoapprovalofMobilityPlan2035. Thiscomment is addressed below. Based on this comment and the further analyses discussed below, nosignificant impactsbeyondthoseidentifiedintheDraftEIRwouldoccur,andsignificant impactswouldbereducedwitheliminationoftheresidential/hotelOption2.
Approval of Mobility Plan 2035
SubsequenttopublicationoftheFinalEIRinMarch2015,theCityofLosAngelesadopteditsnewMobilityPlan2035,AnElementoftheGeneralPlan(LosAngelesDepartmentofPlanning,approvedAugust2015).Thestreetdescriptionsthatwerepreviouslyprovidedonpages4.L‐2through4.L‐6oftheDraftEIRmentionedboththethen‐currentdesignationforeachstreetaswellasthedesignationasproposedintheDraftMobilityPlan2035asitexistedatthattime.NowthatthePlanhasbeencompleted,thefinalroaddesignations,pertheadoptedMobilityElement2035,havebeenclarifiedintheCorrectionsandAdditionsbelow.ThesefinaldesignationsdonotchangeanyoftheanalysesorconclusionsoftheEIR’sTransportationAnalysisReport.
Elimination of Project Option 2 – Reduced Traffic Impacts
As described above, the Project Applicant has decided to no longer pursue development Option 2, aresidentialwithhotel (andground level retail)project, andwillbeproceedingsolelywith theresidential‐onlyProjectOption1. ThetrafficimpactsofOption2weregreaterthanthoseofOption1,theresidential‐onlyProject.Priortomitigation,Option2hadsignificantimpactsatthreemoreintersectionsthanOption1under existing and/or future baseline conditions;with elimination ofOption 2, therewould no longer besignificantimpactsattheseintersections.TheseincludeIntersection#2,CahuengaBoulevardandFranklinAvenue,Intersection#12,VineStreetandSantaMonicaBoulevardandIntersection#23,GowerStreetand
November 2015 C. Additional EIR Information
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐13
Franklin Avenue. Further, Option 2 also had a significant impact on the residential street segment of ElCentroAvenuebetweenLelandWayandDeLongpreAvenueunderexistingbaselineconditions;therewerenosignificantimpactstoresidentialstreetsegmentsunderOption1.WiththeeliminationofOption2,thesesignificantimpactswouldnolongeroccurwithdevelopmentoftheproposedProject.
PursuanttoCEQAguidelines,theTrafficStudyandEIRanalysisconsideredfeasiblemitigationmeasurestoreduce the potential impacts associated with the three intersections and one residential street segmentidentified for the additional Option 2 impacts. Mitigation Measure MM‐TRAF‐7 required the Project toprovideimprovementsand/orfair‐sharephysicalimprovementsatthetwointersectionsforwhichfeasiblemitigation were identified: Intersection #2, Cahuenga Boulevard and Franklin Avenue and #23, GowerStreet and Franklin Avenue. As the impacts at these intersections are no longer significant, MitigationMeasureMM‐TRAF‐7 isno longerrequiredandhasbeendeleted fromtheProject’sMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram.
TheEIRanalysisalsoincludedmitigationmeasureMM‐TRAF‐10toreducethepotentiallysignificantstreetsegment impact fromOption2. Thismitigationmeasurehas alsobeendeleted from theanalysis and theMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram.
Comments Submitted Subsequent to the Final EIR
Fehr&Peers has reviewed all of the comments concerning traffic thatwere received after release of theFinalEIRandduring thepublichearingprocess. BasedonFehr&Peers’ analysis, noneof the commentsidentify inconsistencies between the EIR analysis and CEQA, Caltrans or City Guidelines or change theconclusionsoftheEIR.
The traffic impact analysis in theDraftEIRwas very conservative and likelyoverestimatedProject trafficimpacts.Thetrafficanalysisincludedthefollowingconservativemeasures:
Included traffic generated by 62 related development projects, even though some of theseprojects may not be approved or constructed, andmany have remained on the City’s relatedprojects list for years without progress toward construction. Furthermore, the City’s relatedprojects list does not always include adjustments to remove traffic generated by existing landusesontherelatedprojectsitethatwouldberemovedbytherelatedproject. Alsotherelatedprojects trip generation was added in addition to the 1 percent per year background trafficgrowthappliedtotheProjectinthecumulativeimpactsanalysis.
EventhoughtherelatedprojectslistcouldbelimitedtoprojectsonfilewiththeCityatthetimeof the Project’s NOP, the Transportation Analysis Report and EIR also analyzed additionalprojectsfiledbetweentheNOPandpublicationoftheDraftEIR.
Added even further cumulative growth by conducting an alternative analysis increasing thebackground volume/capacity (V/C) ratios at every study intersection by 0.100, which is theamountthatraisestheoperatinglevelofmostcongestedintersectionsbyoneclass(e.g.LOSCtoLOSD). This reflects amore congested condition and requires a smaller increment of Projecttripstocauseasignificantimpact.
C. Additional EIR Information November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 C‐14
Adjustedthecapacityvaluesatstudyintersectionsthatoperateunderoversaturatedcongestedconditionstoensurethatthesuppressedtrafficvolumesdonotresultinanincorrectcalculationoflevelofservice.
Didnottakecredit inthemitigationanalysisforimplementationoftheProject’stransportationdemand management (TDM) program, even though it is a required mitigation measure(previouslyMM‐TRAF‐9intheDraftEIRandnowdesignatedasMM‐TRAF‐8).
Did not take credit in the mitigation analysis for the implementation for the traffic signalcontroller upgrades required by LADOT and included in the Project’s mitigation program(previouslyMM‐TRAF‐8intheDraftEIRandnowdesignatedasMM‐TRAF‐7).
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐1
D. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
1. GENERAL/GLOBAL CORRECTION TO THE EIR REGARDING THE HOTEL OPTION
AsdescribedintheProjectRefinementsabove,theinitialProjectDescriptionincludedtwoProjectOptions–Option1,Residential,with731residentialunitsandOption2,Residential/Hotel,with598residentialunitsanda250roomhotelwithrelatedhotelfacilitiesandgroundlevelretail. GivenrecentrequestsforclarityandcertaintyabouttheProject’suses,andthedevelopmentandproposalofmanyotherhotelsinHollywood,theProjectApplicanthasdecidedtoproceedwiththeresidential‐only,Option1thatwasanalyzedintheDraftandFinalEIR,andwillnotpursueahotelcomponent.
For this reason,all references toOption2,Residential/Hotel, areno longerapplicable to theProject. Theanalyses in theEIRmaybeconsidered for informationand impactsofanalternative typeofdevelopmentthathadbeenconsideredfortheProjectSite.
SpecificcorrectionsandadditionsregardingOption2havebeenaddedtothefollowingDraftEIRsectionsforconsistency with conclusions in entitlement documents going forward: Section 4.L, Transportation andCirculation;Section6.A,SignificantUnavoidableImpacts;andSection6.B,ReasonsWhytheProjectisBeingProposed,NotwithstandingSignificantUnavoidableImpacts.
2. GLOBAL REVISIONS REGARDING ENTITLEMENT REQUESTS AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
ConsistentwiththeProjectRefinementsandcommentsdiscussedintheAdditionalEIRInformationSection,both discussed above, the Project is proposingminormodifications to the Project entitlements, proposedzoningconditions,andhistoricProjectDesignFeatures,asshownbelow.Theseminormodificationsapplytoall of the locations in the EIR where Project entitlements, zoning conditions and historic Project DesignFeaturesarediscussed.
Revisions to the List of Necessary Approvals
The second, third, fourth and fifth bullets in the list of necessary approvals, first listed on Pages 2‐23
and 4.H‐21 of the Draft EIR, and previously amended on Page 2‐29 of the Final EIR have been proposed
to read as follows:
Zone Change and Height District Change to designate the entire site [Q]C4‐2D‐SN, removing therestrictions on residential uses on the SelmaAvenueArea, updating references to the CommunityRedevelopment Agency on the Sunset Boulevard Area, potentially including options for rooftopdining,andrevisingupdatingtheProject’sQConditionsandDLimitations, includingbyaddingaQcondition to require the Applicant to nominate the Palladium as a Historic‐CulturalMonument inaccordancewiththeCity’sCulturalHeritageOrdinanceinconnectionwithpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermitfortheProject;
ConditionalUsePermittoallowthesaleofafulllineofalcoholicbeveragesforon‐siteconsumptionattheProject’sproposedrestaurant/diningandhoteluses,includingin‐roomhotelmini‐bars,hotel
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐2
restaurant/bar,andhotelmeetingrooms,aswellasattheProject’sresidentialand/orhotelindoorand rooftop lounges (recognizing that the existing Hollywood Palladium already has a deemed‐approved Conditional Use Permit for alcohol), and for off‐site consumption within the Project’sgroundfloorretailatapotentialgourmetfoodorboutiquewinestore;
ConditionalUsePermittoallowahotelintheC4Zonewithin500feetofanRzone;
ConditionalUsePermittoallowFloorAreaAveragingandResidentialDensityTransferbetweentheProjectSite’stwoparcels;
Revisions to the Project’s Q Conditions and D Limitation
ModifiedQCondition1:
In the event that a project adjacent to the Hollywood Palladium theatre building located at6201SunsetBoulevardisapprovedatadensityof6.0:1FAR,andprovidedthatalladministrativeandlegal appeals and challenges have been resolved permitting a projectwith a density of 6.0:1 FAR,then prior to issuance of building permits for such project, the applicant shall nominate theHollywoodPalladiumtheatrebuildingasaHistoric‐CulturalMonument inaccordancewith theLosAngeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance, Municipal Code Sections. 22.171 et seq. In the event theapplicant does not nominate the Hollywood Palladium theatre building as a Historic‐CulturalMonument, theapplicantwillnotopposeanyotherentitynominatingthebuildingasanHistoricalCulturalMonument.The applicant recognizes that Sec. 511of theHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanstates that “[t]he [Community Redevelopment] Agency shall deny requests for housing incentiveunits, development in the Regional Center Commercial designation above an F.A.R. of 4.5:1 andvariationsforsitesonwhichastructuredeterminedbytheAgencytobesignificantwasdemolishedafter the adoption of this Plan or is proposed to be demolished; however, under exceptionalcircumstanceswhereasignificantstructurehasbeensubstantiallydamagedandmustbedemolishedduetocircumstancesbeyondthecontrolof theowner, theAgencymaygrantrequests forhousingincentiveunits,developmentwithintheRegionalCenterCommercialdesignationaboveanF.A.R.of4.5:1andvariations.”TheapplicantagreesthatalldevelopmentdensityfromthePalladiumbuildingsitewillbeusedforaprojectdevelopedonadjacentproperty,andshallnotbeusedtoredevelopthePalladiumbuildingsite,whichdevelopment rights shallonlybe for repairor reconstructionof thePalladium building in the event of damage or loss, unless it is determined thatrestoration/reconstructionofthebuildingisimpractical.
ModifiedQCondition2:
PriortotheDepartmentofCityPlanning’ssign‐offonbuildingpermitsforaprojectwitha6.0:1FARdirectlyadjacenttothePalladium,theDepartmentofCityPlanning’sPlanning, inconsultationwithitsOfficeofHistoricResources,shallconfirmthattheproject’sbuildingplanssubstantiallyconformtotheconceptualplanspresentedanddescribedintheEnvironmentalImpactReportandapprovedbytheCityofLosAngeles.
ModifiedDLimitation:
A project on this sitemay be developed at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of between 4.5:1 and not toexceed6.0:1providedthat:
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐3
a. The Department of City Planning or other as the successor to the to the CommunityRedevelopmentAgencyfindsthattheprojectconformstotheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanandHollywoodCommunityPlan;and
a. The Community Redevelopment Agency, any successor to the CommunityRedevelopmentAgency, or theDepartmentofCityPlanningofLosAngelespursuant tothe transferbyordinanceof redevelopment landuseplansand functions to theCityofLos Angeles (C.F. No. 12‐0014‐S4), finds that the project conforms to the HollywoodRedevelopmentPlanwithfindingsasrequiredbySec.506.2.3oftheRedevelopmentPlanandapprovesanOwnerParticipationAgreement;and
b. Theprojectproject’shistoricanalysisisapprovedbytheOfficeofHistoricResources,andthe project is approved by City Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal,pursuanttotheproceduressetforthinLAMC12.32D.
Revisions to the Project’s Historic Project Design Features
Volume 5, Final EIR, Pages 2‐14 to 2‐16. Revise the second, fourth and sixth paragraphs of PDF‐HIST‐1,
as follows:
Second Paragraph
A. Timing. A draft Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan proposed by theApplicantshallbesubmittedtoHollywoodHeritageandOHRno later than30calendardayspriortoanydesignreviewrequiredfromsameandpriortotheissuanceofbuildingpermits for the Project, and a which will include identification of character‐definingfeatures and the significance of such features. A final Plan shall be approved by OHRprior to issuance of final certificates of occupancy for the Project. At the Applicant’soption, earlier review by OHRmay be requested such as during schematic design anddesigndevelopment.AnHistoricStructureReportshallalsobepreparedinconjunctionwiththefinalPreservationandEnhancementPlan.
Fourth Paragraph
– ImprovethePalladium’sexistingback‐stagespace,back‐of‐houseservice,andloadingoperations,whichdonotmeetcurrentperformanceandproductionneeds‐replacethe 2008 addition on the northern side of the Palladium, and potentially thepreviouslyaltered,originalextensioninthesamelocation,withsubterraneanand/oroverhead bridge connections to the new building on the north side. Additionally,relocate the existing outdoor truck loading area to a subterranean level withsubterranean access from Argyle and Selma Avenues. These enhancements wouldprovide additional staging areas for the Palladium’s operations within the newbuilding; improve loading operations; eliminate any potential pedestrian‐vehicularconflictsonElCentroAvenue;andprovidesubstantiallymoreopenspaceontherearsideofthePalladiumforwalkingandgathering;
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐4
Sixth Paragraph
– Prepare a design program for the Palladium’s existing southern storefront spaces.The nonstructural storefront partitions on the southern façade of the PalladiumbuildingwerealteredpriortothePalladium’s2008rehabilitationproject,andwerenotuniformorcharacter‐defining.The2008rehabilitation fundedbyCRAremovednon‐character‐defining features, reconstructed missing original features, and builtnew features such as storefronts that are compatible with the historic building.Similartotheintentandimplementationofthe2008rehabilitation,adesignprogramforthesestorefrontswouldwillincludeauniformsetofcomponentsthatprovidefora coherent design among the different storefront bays while allowing for layoutoptions that meet the needs of tenants, for instance allowing alterations of thelocationsandnumbersofdoors,windows,andmullions;
Volume 5, Final EIR, Page 2‐‐17. Revise PDF‐HIST‐2, as follows:
PDF‐HIST‐2:Historic InterpretiveExhibit.AnHistoric InterpretiveExhibit shallbe incorporatedinto the Project at key locations to increase general public and patron awareness andappreciationofthehistoryandsignificanceofHollywoodandtheHollywoodPalladium.Theexhibitshallprovideinformativevisualdisplaysand/ormediathatmayaddresssuchtopicsas:thebuilding’sarchitecturalstyleandarchitect;identificationofotherhistoricalbuildingsintheProjectvicinityandtheirrelationshiptothePalladium;useoftheProjectSiteprior to constructionof thePalladiumand thehistoricHollywoodcontext; and thelayersofhistoryatthesite:agriculture,motionpictureindustry,musicalrecording, liveentertainment, radio, and television. The display shall be designed and implementedpursuanttoinputfromHollywoodstakeholders.TheHistoricInterpretiveExhibitmaybelocated within the Palladium building itself, or as an outdoor interpretive programreviewed and approved by the Office of Historic Resources. The Historic InterpretiveExhibitwillnotbehousedinseparatenewconstructionappendedtotheexteriorofthePalladiumbuilding.
3. INDIVIDUAL REVISIONS TO THE EIR
InresponsetotheProjectRefinementsdiscussedabove,andtocommentsmadeafterpublicationoftheFinalEIR,thefollowingadditionalcorrectionsandadditionstotheEIRhavebeenmadeandareprovidedbelowwithdeletionsshowninstrikethroughandadditionsshowinunderline.
Executive Summary
1. Volume 1, Table ES‐1, Mitigation Measures column for C.1, Archaeological and Paleontological
Resource, Page ES‐15. Revise mitigation measure MM‐ARCH‐1 as follows:
MM‐ARCH‐1:TheApplicantshallretainaqualifiedarchaeologicalmonitorwhomeetstheSecretaryof the Interior’sProfessionalQualificationsStandards foranarchaeologistwhoshallbepresent during construction excavations such as grading, trenching, grubbing, or anyother construction excavation activity associated with the Project. The frequency ofmonitoring shall be determined by the archaeological monitor based on the rate of
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐5
excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, thematerials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and iffound, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Prior to theonsetofconstructionactivitiesanArchaeologicalResourceMitigationPlan(ARMP)shallbeprepared.TheARMPshallincludeprotocolsforimplementationoftheArchaeologicalMitigationMeasures;andshallalsorequireimplementationofapre‐constructiontestingprogramwithasamplingofsoiltestingatrepresentativetesttrenches.
2. Volume 1, Table ES‐1, PDF Column for E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Page ES‐24. Revise PDF‐GHG‐
1 as follows:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetor exceed theCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipment ratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProjectconstruction.Polepower(electricitydeliveredfromtheutilitygrid)shallbetheprimarysourceofpowerforusewithon‐siteelectrictools,equipment,lighting,etc.,exceptwhere/wheninfeasibleduetositeconstraints;dieselgenerators,ifneeded,shallberatedbetween75 horsepower (hp) and 750 hp andmeet or exceed applicable Tier 4 standards.Total diesel generator usage during construction shall not exceed 312,000horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucksthatmeetorexceedthemodelyear2010emission standards. These requirements shall be included in applicable biddocumentsandsuccessfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model yearspecificationandCARBorSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
3. Volume 1, Table ES‐1, second table row for Land Use Planning on page ES‐33 is revised to add the
new Land Use Project Design Feature as follows:
PDF‐LandUse‐1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for above grade construction for theProject,theApplicantshalleither(1)recordacovenanttotietheProjectSite’stwolots;or (2)recordaphaseofanapproved tractmap for theProjectwhichmerges theSite’stwolotsintoonemastergroundlot.
4. Volume 1, Table ES‐1, Mitigation Measures column for I.1,Noise, Page ES‐35. Revise mitigation
measure MM‐NOISE‐1 as follows:
MM‐NOISE‐1:Temporaryconstructionnoisebarriersshallbeimplementedasfollows:
TheProjectshallensuretheprovisionofa5dBAnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectconstruction and the existing residential development on the northwest corner ofSelma Avenue and Argyle Avenue (existing buildings between the residentialdevelopmentandtheProjectatthetimeofconstructionmaycontributetothesound
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐6
attenuation).;andan8dBA,16foothighnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectandtheLeBonHotel(allowingforagatethatmaybeopenedfromtimetotimeforSiteentry).
IfthefollowingrelatedprojectsadjacenttotheProjectSite(i.e.atColumbiaSquare,theSelmaandVineproject,theBLVD6200projectsouthofHollywoodBoulevard,or6250 Sunset project) are occupied by new residents at the time of Projectconstruction, then temporary noise barriers shall be provided between the Projectconstruction and those occupied units. Based on the exceedance of the thresholdsnoted in the above analysis (given the distance from the Project Site and existingsoundlevelsattherespectivelocations),thebarriersshallprovideasoundreductionof5dBAbetweentheProjectSiteandthe6250Sunsetproject,andapproximately10dBAbetweentheProjectandtheremainingfutureprojects.
5. Volume 1, Table ES‐1, Impact Statements TRAF‐2 and TRAF‐4, Pages ES‐51 to ES‐54. Revise the
Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the two Impact Statements as follows:
Environmental Impacts Project Design Features (PDF‐) Mitigation Measures (MM‐) Level of Significance
ImpactStatementTRAF‐2:Whenmeasuredagainstexisting2013baselineconditions,priortomitigationProjecttrafficwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdsatthreeintersections(allintheP.M.peakhour)underOption1,Residential.UnderOption2,Residential/HoteltheProjecttrafficwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdatfivelocations(threeintheP.M.peakhour,oneintheA.M.peakhourandoneduringbothpeakhours.)Whenmeasuredagainstfuture2018baselineconditions,priortomitigationProjecttrafficwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdsatthreeintersections(oneintheP.M.peakhourandtwoinbothpeakhours)underOption1,Residential.UnderOption2,Residential/HoteltheProjecttrafficwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdatsevenlocations(fourintheP.M.peakhour,andthreeduringbothpeakhours.)WhilenotrequiredbyCEQAorLADOT,thetrafficstudyalsoconservativelyconsiderspotentialfuturenewprojectsinthestudyareawhichareunknownatthistime.Toaccountforgrowthintrafficfrompotentialfuturenewprojectsthatcouldbeproposedwithinthestudyarea,thetrafficanalysisalsoappliedanadditional0.100incrementtoV/C
NotApplicable
MitigationMeasureTRAF‐7:TheProjectshallimplementthefollowingphysicalroadwayimprovementsthatcanbeprovidedwithinexistingroadwaywidthswithoutrequiringremovalofparkingspaces: Intersection2,CahuengaBoulevard
&FranklinAvenue.Modifythesignalequipmentandoperationtoallowasouthboundprotectedleft‐turnmovementwithawestboundright‐turnoverlap.ThisimprovementwillrequirethesouthboundU‐turnsattheintersectiontoberestricted.
Intersection23,GowerStreet&FranklinAvenue.CoordinatewiththeColumbiaSquareprojectandLADOTtoarrangeforapotentialfairsharecontributiontowardstheimplementationofanimprovementproposedbytheColumbiaSquareprojectthatwouldupgradethetrafficsignalequipmenttoallowfornorthboundright‐turnoverlap.
MitigationMeasureTRAF‐87:TheProjectshallupgradetrafficsignalcontrollersfromaType170toaType2070atthefollowingsevenintersectionswithintheProjectstudyarea: YuccaStreetandWilcoxAvenue.
SelmaAvenueandWilcoxAvenue
DeLongpreAvenueandWilcox
Significantandunavoidabletrafficimpactswouldoccurasfollows:UnderExistingConditionsOption1 10. VineStreet
&SunsetBoulevard
28. GowerStreet&SunsetBoulevard
30. GowerStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
Option2 10. VineStreet
&SunsetBoulevard
12. VineStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
28. GowerStreet&SunsetBoulevard
30. GowerStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
UnderFuture2018
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐7
ratiosunderfuturebaselineconditionstoeverystudyintersection.ThisconservativelyresultedinsignificantimpactsatanadditionalthreeintersectionsunderbothOption1andOption2.
Avenue
ColeAvenueandFountainAvenue
CahuengaAvenueandFountainAvenue
ElCentroAvenueandFountainAvenue
FountainAvenueandGowerStreet
MitigationMeasureTRAF‐98:TheProjectshallimplementatraveldemandmanagement(TDM)program,consistentwiththerecommendationsofLADOT.Theexactmeasurestobeimplementedwillbedeterminedwhentheplanisprepared,priortoissuanceofafinalcertificateofoccupancyfortheProject.TheTDMprogramshallensureappropriateimplementationoftheProject’ssidewalks/plazas,streettrees/landscaping,streetandpedestrianamenities,lightingandbicycleprovisionstoencouragealternativemodesoftransportation.Itshallalsoincludeotherfeaturesasappropriate,suchas,forexample,unbundledparking,(i.e.separatingthecostofpurchasingorrentingparkingspacesfromthecostofpurchasingorrentingadwellingunit);rideshareprograms,(whichcouldincludetheprovisionofanon‐sitetransitandrideshareinformationcenterthatprovidesassistancetohelppeopleformcarpoolsoraccesstransitalternatives,and/orpriorityparkingforcarpools;and/oratransitpassdiscountprogram(thattypicallyincludesnegotiatingwithtransitserviceproviderstopurchasetransitpassesinbulkatadiscountedratewithresaletointerestedresidentsoremployeesatdiscountedprices),identificationofanon‐siteTDMcoordinator,makinginformationavailabletoresidentsandemployeesregardingalternativetransportationoptions,monitoringandsurveyingrequirements,aguaranteedridehomeprogram,participationintheLADOTMobilityHubsprogram(whichcouldincludesecurebikeparking,bike‐sharekiosks,car‐shareparkingspacesandservices,and/orelectricscooter‐share),contributingaone‐timefixed‐feeof$100,000tobedepositedintotheCity’sBicycleTrustfundtoimplementbicycleimprovementswithintheareaofthe
BuildoutConditionsOption1 26. Gower
Street&HollywoodBoulevard
28. GowerStreet&SunsetBoulevard
30. GowerStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
Option2 10. VineStreet
&SunsetBoulevard
12.VineStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
26. GowerStreet&HollywoodBoulevard
28. GowerStreet&SunsetBoulevard
30. GowerStreet&SantaMonicaBoulevard
AdditionalIntersectionswithSignificantImpactsafterAddedGrowth(Options1and2UnderFutureConditions) 9. VineStreet
&SelmaAvenue
15. ArgyleAvenue&SelmaAvenue
29. GowerStreet&FountainAvenue
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐8
Project,and/orparticipationintheHollywoodTransportationManagementOrganization(TMO)tobecreatedbyothermajoremployersinHollywoodwithinthenextfewyears.TheProjectisalsoprovidingamplebicycleparkingandon‐sitebicyclerepairfacilitiesincompliancewithLosAngelesCityMunicipalCoderequirements.
ImpactStatementTRAF‐4:Whenmeasuredagainsttheexisting2013baseline,impactstoneighborhoodstreetsegmentsunderOption1,Residential,wouldbelessthansignificant.UnderOption2,Residential/Hotel,theProjecttripswouldexceedthesignificancethresholdatoneneighborhoodsegment:ElCentroAvenuebetweenLelandWayandDeLongpreAvenue.Whenmeasuredagainstthefuture2018baseline,theProjecttripswouldnotexceedthesignificancethresholdsatanylocationunderOption1orOption2.
NotApplicable
Nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.MitigationMeasureTRAF‐10:TheProjectshallfundandcoordinateimplementationofaTrafficCalmingPlantoreduceProjectimpactsonElCentroAvenuebetweenSantaMonicaBoulevardandSunsetAvenue.ThePlanshallbeapprovedbyLADOTandincludecommunityconsultationcoordinatedthroughtheCouncilOfficeonthefinalselectionofcalmingmeasuresincluded.Itshallincludesuchphysicalmeasuresaschangesinstreetalignment,installationofbarriers,speedhumps,speedtables,raisedcrosswalks,chicanes,andchokers,and/oroperationalmeasuressuchasturnrestrictions,speedlimits,andinstallationofstopsigns.
LessthanSignificantSignificantandunavoidableunderexistingconditionsatoneneighborhoodstreetsegment.Lessthansignificantunderthe2018futurebaseline.
Section 4.B Air Quality
1. Volume 1, Section 4.B Air Quality, 3.c(1) Land Use Characteristics, Page 4.B‐35. Add reference to
added EIR information at the end of the fourth paragraph in the section as follows:
For reference purposes, selected pages from the CAPCOA guidance related to the discussion of VMT,including pages that discuss the land use transportation measures that would reduce Project VMT, areprovidedinAppendixB‐1oftheEIRErrata.ThefullCAPCOAguidancedocumentisavailablefordownloadonthe internetat the followingaddress: http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf
2. Volume 1, Section 4.B Air Quality, 3.c(2) Project Design Features, Page 4.B‐38. Revise PDF‐GHG‐1 as
follows:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetor exceed theCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipment ratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProjectconstruction.Polepower(electricitydeliveredfromtheutilitygrid)shallbetheprimarysourceofpowerforusewithon‐siteelectrictools,equipment,lighting,etc.,exceptwhere/wheninfeasibleduetositeconstraints;dieselgenerators,ifneeded,shallberatedbetween75 horsepower (hp) and 750 hp andmeet or exceed applicable Tier 4 standards.Total diesel generator usage during construction shall not exceed 312,000
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐9
horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucksthatmeetorexceedthemodelyear2010emission standards. These requirements shall be included in applicable biddocumentsandsuccessfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model yearspecificationandCARBorSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
3. Volume 1, Section 4.B.3.d(1)(b) Air Quality analysis of localized construction impacts, Page 4.B‐43.
Insert after the first paragraph, information regarding subsequent dispersion modeling, as follows:
(iii) Subsequent Dispersion Modeling
In order to address public comments subsequent to the publication of the Final EIR a supplementalassessmentoflocalizedconstructionimpactshasbeenperformed.ThesupplementalstudywasbasedonanLSTanalysisusingtheAERMODdispersionmodelprimarilyevaluatingthepotential localizedconstructionimpactsonthe1.87acresareaor theProjectSite,exclusiveof thearea inwhichthePalladiumbuilding islocated(constructionemissionsassociatedwithrenovationsrelatedtotheexistingPalladiumwerelocatedatthePalladiumbuilding).Theselectionofthesmallerlotareawaschosentofocustheanalysisonthenewdevelopment proposed for the parking lots adjacent to the Palladium building. The analysis takes intoaccount and addresses impacts at the nearest sensitive receptorswhether existing or identified as futuredevelopment.ThefullanalysisisprovidedinaTechnicalMemorandumincludedinAppendixB‐3oftheEIRErrata 1. The Technical Memorandum discusses the methodology used, the significance thresholds, theassumptions,calculations,andconclusions,withattachedworksheets.
Theresultsof theanalysis indicate that forNO2andCO, localizedconstructionemissions fromtheProjectwouldnotcauseanexceedanceoftheNAAQSorCAAQSatexistingorfuturesensitivereceptors.LocalizedconstructionemissionsfromtheProjectwouldresultinamaximumincrementalincreaseofapproximately1.3µg/m3 forPM10andapproximately0.7µg/m3 forPM2.5,atsensitivereceptors,whichwouldnotexceedthesignificancethresholdof10.4µg/m3.Asaresult,thelocalizedconstructionimpactswouldbelessthansignificant,forthisanalysisaswellasthepreviouslypreparedanalysis.
4. Volume 1, Section 4.B.3.d(2)(b) Air Quality analysis of localized operations impacts, Page 4.B‐43.
Insert at the bottom of the page, information regarding subsequent dispersion modeling, as follows:
(iii) Subsequent Dispersion Modeling
InordertoaddresspubliccommentssubsequenttopublicationoftheFinalEIR,asupplementalassessmentoflocalizedoperationsimpactshasbeenperformed.ThesupplementalstudywasbasedonanLSTanalysisusing theAERMODdispersionmodelprimarily evaluating thepotential localizedoperations impacts fromthe 1.87 acres area of the Project Site, exclusive of the area in which the Palladium building is located(operationalemissionsassociatedwiththeproposedretailuseswerelocatedatthesouthwestandsoutheastcornersofthePalladiumbuilding).TheselectionofthesmallerlotareawaschosentofocustheanalysisonthenewdevelopmentproposedfortheparkinglotsadjacenttothePalladiumbuilding. Theanalysistakesinto account and addresses impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors whether existing or identified asfuturedevelopment.ThefullanalysisisprovidedinaTechnicalMemorandumincludedinAppendixB‐3of
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐10
theEIRErrata1.TheTechnicalMemorandumdiscussesthemethodologyused,thesignificancethresholds,theassumptions,calculations,andconclusions,withattachedworksheets.
TheresultsoftheanalysisindicatethatlocalizedNO2andCOemissions(includingfromthevehiclesenteringand exiting the proposed parking structure)would not cause and exceedance of theNAAQS or CAAQS atexistingorfuturesensitivereceptors.EmissionsofPM10andPM2.5wouldresultinamaximumincrementalincreaseof2.18µg/m3atsensitivereceptors,whichwouldnotexceedtheoperationalsignificancethresholdof2.5µg/m3.Asaresult,thelocalizedoperationalimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.
54. Volume 1, Section 4.B.3.d(3)(a) Health Risk Assessment on Pages 4.B‐49 to 4.B‐50. Insert at the
end of the continuing paragraph at the top of the page, the following subsequent analysis based on
March 2015 OEHHA Guidelines, as follows:
Analysis per March 2015 OEHHA Guidelines.
ThepreviousparagraphpresentsaqualitativeanalysisoftheTAChealthriskduetoconstructionactivities.The analysis in the Draft EIR was performed according to the applicable guidelines at the time it waspublished. In March 2015, as the Final EIR was being prepared for publication, OEHHA adopted newguidelineswhichupdated thepreviousguidance forpreparingHealthRiskAssessments (HRAs)under theState’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment program by incorporating advances in riskassessmentwith consideration of infants and childrenusingAge Sensitivity Factors (ASF). These changesalso take into account different breathing rates and time spent at home. On June 5, 2015, SCAQMDincorporatedtheupdatedOEHHAguidelinesintoitsapplicablerulesthatapplytocertainstationarysourcesregulatedundertheHotSpotsprogram.1TheSCAQMDhasnotyetreleasedguidanceontheapplicabilityoftheupdatedOEHHAguidelinesforpreparingCEQAdocuments.
Nonetheless, even though SCAQMD has not recommended using the updated OEHHA guidelines forpreparingHRAsinCEQAdocuments,tobeconservative,ananalysiswasperformedusingtheseguidelines,whichisincludedasaTechnicalReportinAppendixB‐2ofErrata1.
The new analyses address both the construction impacts thatwere previously analyzed qualitatively andalsotheoperationsimpacts,previouslyquantifiedinaccordancewithOEHHAguidance.Thesupplementalanalyses consider infants and children, increased sensitivity for early‐in‐life exposure to carcinogens, andupdatedpollutantexposurefactors.
The Technical Appendices provides regulatory background information, methodology, assumptions,calculationsandconclusionsalongwithquantitativeworksheets.AsindicatedintheTechnicalAppendixB‐2theincrementalincreaseinhealthriskfromconstructionwouldbe6.5inonemillion,whichislessthanthesignificancethresholdof10inonemillionandthereforelessthansignificant.
As the 2015 OEHHA guidelines are more sensitive to the protection of the public safety than previousguidelines, more protective constructionmeasures have been incorporated into the Project’s PDF‐GHG‐1
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Minutes of the lune 5. 2015 Meeting, http://www.aqmd.gov/doc/default‐
source/Agendas/Governing‐Board/2015/2015‐Jul10‐001.pdf?sfvrsn=8,AccessedSeptember28,2015.
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐11
shownabove to incorporate theuseofCARB/USEPATier4 standards in lieuof theTier3 standards, andincreaseduseofelectricconstructionequipment. TheupdatedPDF‐GHG‐1measurewasincorporatedintotheconstructionhealthriskassessment.
6. Volume 1, Section 4.B.3.d(3)(b) Health Risk Assessment on Pages 4.B‐50 to 4.B‐52. Insert at the end
of the operations health risk assessment after Table 4.B‐12, the following subsequent analysis based
on March 2015 OEHHA Guidelines, as follows:
Analysis per March 2015 OEHHA Guidelines.
The Draft EIR determined that Project operations would result in an incremental cancer risk ofapproximately3.6inonemillion,whichislessthanthe10inonemillionsignificancethreshold.Theprimarycontributor to the risk was emissions from restaurant charbroiling. The operational HRA assesseduncontrolled TAC emissions from charbroiling. However, restaurant charbroiling would comply withSCAQMDRule1138 (ControlofEmissions fromRestaurantOperations),which requires the installationofemissions controls on charbroilers in use in theAir Basin. The cancer risk fromProject operationswithcharbroileremissionscontrolsinplacewouldbe0.7inonemillion.
WhentakingintoaccounttheagesensitivityandupdatedexposurefactorsunderthenewOEHHAguidanceforstationarysources,thecancerriskfromProjectoperationswithcharbroileremissionscontrolsinplacewouldbe2.0inonemillion,whichislessthanthe10inonemillionsignificancethreshold.Asaresult,healthriskimpactsfromProjectoperationwouldbelessthansignificantunderthenewOEHHAmethodologyforstationarysources.
Section 4.C.1 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
1. Volume 1, Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures, Page 4.C.1‐15. Revise mitigation measure MM‐
ARCH‐1 as follows:
MM‐ARCH‐1: The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor who meets theSecretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for anarchaeologist who shall be present during construction excavations such asgrading, trenching, grubbing, or any other construction excavation activityassociatedwiththeProject.Thefrequencyofmonitoringshallbedeterminedbythearchaeologicalmonitorbasedontherateofexcavationandgradingactivities,proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated(nativeversusfillsoils),andthedepthofexcavation,andiffound,theabundanceand type of archaeological resources encountered. Prior to the onset ofconstructionactivitiesanArchaeologicalResourceMitigationPlan(ARMP)shallbe prepared. The ARMP shall include protocols for implementation of theArchaeologicalMitigationMeasures;andshallalsorequire implementationofapre‐construction testing program with a sampling of soil testing atrepresentativetesttrenches.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐12
Section 4.E Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Volume 1, Section 4.E.2.b.(2) regarding Regulatory Setting, bottom of Page 4.E‐16. Insert
information regarding Executive Order B‐30‐15, and Cap and Trade Program as follows:
(l) Executive Order B‐30‐15
OnApril29,2015,CaliforniaGovernorBrownissuedExecutiveOrderB‐30‐15.Therein,GovernorBrown:
Established a new interim statewide reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percentbelow1990levelsby2030.
Ordered all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implementmeasurestoachievereductionsofGHGemissionstomeetthe2030and2050reductiontargets.
DirectedCARBtoupdatetheClimateChangeScopingPlantoexpressthe2030targetintermsofmillionmetrictonsofcarbondioxideequivalent.
CARB subsequently expressed its intention to initiate theClimateChange ScopingPlanupdateduring theSummerof2015,withadoptionscheduledfor2016.
(m) Cap and Trade Program
TheClimateChangeScopingPlanidentifiesacap‐and‐tradeprogramasoneofthestrategiesCaliforniawillemploy to reduceGHG emissions. CARBasserts that this programwill helpputCalifornia on thepath tomeetitsgoalofreducingGHGemissionsto1990levelsbytheyear2020,andultimatelyachievingan80%reductionfrom1990levelsby2050. Undercap‐and‐trade,anoveralllimitonGHGemissionsfromcappedsectorsisestablishedandfacilitiessubjecttothecapwillbeabletotradepermitstoemitGHGs.
CARBdesignedandadoptedaCaliforniaCap‐and‐TradeProgrampursuanttoitsauthorityunderAB32.Thedevelopment of this program included a multi‐year stakeholder process and consideration of potentialimpactsondisproportionately impactedcommunities. TheCap‐and‐TradeProgram2isdesignedtoreduceGHG emissions frommajor sources (deemed “covered entities”) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHGemissionsandemployingmarketmechanismstoachieveAB32’semission‐reductionmandateofreturningto1990levelsofemissionsby2020. Thestatewidecap forGHGemissionsfromthecappedsectors3(e.g.,electricitygeneration,petroleumrefining,andcementproduction)commencedin2013andwilldeclineovertime,achievingGHGemissionreductionsthroughouttheProgram’sduration.
UndertheCap‐and‐TradeProgram,CARBissuesallowancesequaltothetotalamountofallowableemissionsoveragivencomplianceperiodanddistributesthesetoregulatedentities.Coveredentitiesthatemitmorethan 25,000MTCO2e per yearmust complywith the Cap‐and‐Trade Program.4 Triggering of the 25,000
2 17CCR§§95800to96023.3 Seegenerally17CCR§§95811,95812.4 17CCR§95812.
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐13
MTCO2e per year “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions reported and verifiedunder the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MandatoryReportingRuleor“MRR”).5
Each covered entitywith a compliance obligation is required to surrender “compliance instruments”6 foreachMTCO2eofGHGtheyemit.Coveredentitiesareallocatedfreeallowancesinwholeorpart(ifeligible),buy allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. A “complianceperiod”isthetimeframeduringwhichthecomplianceobligationiscalculated.Theyears2013and2014arethe first compliance period, the years 2015–2017 are the second compliance period, and the thirdcomplianceperiodisfrom2018–2020.Attheendofeachcomplianceperiod,eachfacilitywillberequiredtosurrender compliance instruments to ARB equivalent to their total GHG emissions throughout thecomplianceperiod.Therealsoarerequirementstosurrendercomplianceinstrumentscovering30%oftheprioryear’scomplianceobligationbyNovemberofeachyear. Forexample, inNovember2014,acoveredentitywasrequiredtosubmitcomplianceinstrumentstocover30%ofits2013GHGemissions.
TheCap‐and‐TradeRegulationprovidesafirmcap,ensuringthatthe2020statewideemissionlimitwillnotbeexceeded.AninherentfeatureoftheCap‐and‐TradeProgramisthatitdoesnotguaranteeGHGemissionsreductionsinanydiscretelocationorbyanyparticularsource. Rather,GHGemissionsreductionsareonlyguaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarizedbyCARB in its FirstUpdate to theClimateChangeScopingPlan:
TheCap‐and‐TradeRegulationgivescompaniesthe flexibilitytotradeallowanceswithothersortakestepstocost‐effectivelyreduceemissionsattheirownfacilities.Companiesthatemitmorehavetoturninmoreallowancesorothercomplianceinstruments.CompaniesthatcancuttheirGHGemissionshavetoturninfewerallowances.Butasthecapdeclines,aggregateemissionsmustbereduced.7
Inotherwords,acoveredentitytheoreticallycouldincreaseitsGHGemissionseveryyearandstillcomplywith theCap‐and‐TradeProgram. However, as climate change is a global phenomenon and the effects ofGHG emissions are considered cumulative in nature, a focus on aggregate GHG emissions reductions iswarranted.
Further,thereductionsinGHGemissionsthatwillbeachievedbytheCap‐and‐TradePrograminherentlyarevariableand,therefore,impossibletoquantifywithprecision:
TheCap‐and‐TradeRegulation isdifferent frommostoftheothermeasures intheScopingPlan. The[R]egulationsetsahardcap,insteadofanemissionlimit,sotheemissionreductionsfromtheprogramvaryasourestimatesof“businessasusual”emissionsinthefutureareupdated. Inaddition,theCap‐and‐Trade Program works in concert withmany of the direct regulatorymeasures—providing anadditional economic incentive to reduce emissions. Actions taken to complywith direct regulationsreduce an entity’s compliance obligation under the Cap‐and‐Trade Regulation. So, for example,
5 17CCR§§95100‐95158.6 Complianceinstrumentsarepermitstoemit,themajorityofwhichwillbe“allowances,”butentitiesalsoareallowedto
useARB‐approvedoffsetcreditstomeetupto8%oftheircomplianceobligations.7 CARB,FirstUpdatetotheClimateChangeScopingPlan:BuildingontheFramework,at86(May2014)(emphasisadded).
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐14
increaseddeploymentofrenewableelectricitysourcesreducesautility’scomplianceobligationundertheCap‐and‐TradeRegulation.8
If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap‐and‐TradeProgramwillberesponsibleforrelativelyfeweremissionsreductions.IfCalifornia’sdirectregulatorymeasuresreduceGHGemissionslessthanexpected,thentheCap‐and‐TradeProgramwillberesponsibleforrelativelymoreemissionsreductions.Inotherwords,theCap‐and‐TradeProgramfunctionssortoflikeaninsurancepolicyformeetingCalifornia2020’sGHGemissionsreductionmandate:
TheCap‐and‐TradeProgramestablishesanoveralllimitonGHGemissionsfrommostoftheCaliforniaeconomy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are beingaccomplishedthroughdirectregulations,suchasimprovedbuildingandapplianceefficiencystandards,the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS.Whateveradditionalreductionsareneededtobringemissionswithinthecapisaccomplishedthroughprice incentivesposedbyemissionsallowanceprices. Together,directregulationandprice incentivesassurethatemissionsarebroughtdowncost‐effectivelytotheleveloftheoverallcap.9
[T]heCap‐and‐TradeRegulationprovidesassurancethatCalifornia’s2020limitwillbemetbecausetheregulationsetsafirmlimiton85percentofCalifornia’sGHGemissions.10
In sum, the Cap‐and‐Trade Programwill achieve aggregate, rather than site‐specific or project‐level, GHGemissionsreductions.Also,duetotheregulatoryarchitectureadoptedbyCARBunderAB32,thereductionsattributedtotheCap‐and‐TradeProgramcanchangeovertimedependingontheState’semissionsforecastsandtheeffectivenessofdirectregulatorymeasures.
TheCap‐and‐TradeProgramcovers theGHGemissionsassociatedwithelectricity consumed inCalifornia,whether generated in‐state or imported.11 Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’electricityusagewouldbecappedintheaggregateandsteadilyreducedbytheCap‐and‐TradeProgram.
The Cap‐and‐Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers andtransportationfuelproviders)toaddressemissionsfromsuchfuelsandfromcombustionofotherfossilfuelsnotdirectlycoveredat largesources in theProgram’s firstcomplianceperiod.12 While theCap‐and‐TradeProgramtechnicallycoveredfuelsuppliersasearlyas2012,theydidnothaveacomplianceobligation(i.e.,theywerenotfullyregulated)until2015:
Suppliersofnaturalgas,suppliersofRBOB[ReformulatedGasolineBlendstockforOxygenateBlending]and distillate fuel oils, suppliers of liquefied petroleum gas, and suppliers of liquefied natural gas
8 Id.9 Id.at88.10 Id.at86‐87;seealsoCARB’s2013AnnualComplianceObligationoftheCap‐and‐TradeProgramreported100percentcompliance
forentitiessubjecttotheprogram(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/2013compliancereport.xlsx).11 17CCR§95811(b).12 17CCR§§95811,95812(d).
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐15
specifiedinsections95811(c),(d),(e),(f),and(g)thatmeetorexceedtheannualthresholdinsection95812(d)willhaveacomplianceobligationbeginningwiththesecondcomplianceperiod.13
As of January 1, 2015, the Cap‐and‐Trade Program covered approximately 85% of California’s GHGemissions. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion oftransportation fuels in California, whether refined in‐state or imported. The point of regulation fortransportation fuels iswhen theyare “supplied” (i.e., delivered into commerce). However, transportationfuelsthatare“supplied”inCalifornia,butcanbedemonstratedtohaveafinaldestinationoutsideCalifornia,do not generate a compliance obligation. The underlying concept here is that ARB is seeking to capturetailpipe GHG emissions from the combustion of transportation fuels supplied to California end‐users.Accordingly, as with stationary source GHG emissions and GHG emissions attributable to electricity use,virtuallyall, ifnotall, ofGHGemissions fromCEQAprojects associatedwithvehicle‐miles traveled (VMT)would be capped in the aggregate and steadily reduced by the Cap‐and‐Trade Program. As discussed inmoredetailbelow,theSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistricthastakenthispositioninitsrecentlyadoptedpolicy,effectivelyconcludingthatGHGemissionsassociatedwithVMTcannotconstitutesignificantincreasesunderCEQAstartingin2015.14
2. Volume 1, Section 4.E.3.a.(2) regarding methodology for the analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Pages 4.E‐26 to 4.E‐27. Edit the sections of text beginning with the first paragraph on page 4.E‐26 and
ending at the end of the first full paragraph in the middle of Page 4.E‐27 as follows.
WithregardtothetargetsetbyExecutiveOrderS‐3‐05ofreducinggreenhousegasesto80percentbelow1990 levelsby2050, in contrast toAB32’smandate to return to1990emission levelsby2020, the2050target isnotmandatedby lawandconstitutesanaspirationalgoalsetby theCaliforniaExecutiveBranch.However, the Climate Change Scoping Plan recognizes that AB 32 establishes an emissions reductiontrajectorythatwillallowCaliforniatoachievethe2050target:“These[greenhousegasemissionreduction]measuresalsoputthestateonapathtomeetthelong‐term2050goalofreducingCalifornia’sgreenhousegas emissions to80percentbelow1990 levels. This trajectory is consistentwith the reductions that areneededgloballytohelpstabilizetheclimate.”15
CaliforniacourtshaveupheldasignificancethresholddefinedasthereductionbelowtheBAUlevelofGHGemissions calculated by CARB as necessary to achieve AB 32’s mandate. See Citizens for ResponsibleEquitableEnvironmentalDevelopmentv.CityofChulaVista,197Cal.App.4th327(Cal.App.4thDist.2011),reviewdeniedbyCASupremeCt.inCitizensforResponsibleEquitableEnvironmentalDevelopmentv.CityofChulaVista(TargetCorporation),2011Cal.LEXIS10785(Cal.Oct.19,2011);seealsoFriendsofOrovillev.CityofOroville,218Cal.App.4th1352(Cal.App.3rdDist.2013)(findingthatathresholdachievingAB32’smandate, or a reduction of approximately 15.8 percent from BAU, was a valid method to judge thesignificance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts).16 As indicated below, this section calculates and
13 Id.at§95851(b)(emphasisadded).14 San JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict,CEQADeterminationsofSignificance forProjectsSubjecttoARB’sGHGCap‐and‐
TradeRegulation,APR–2030,at6(June25,2014).15 ClimateChangeScopingPlanat15.16 TheSecondAppellateDistrictCourtalsohasupheldtheuseofthisthresholdofsignificanceandhasnotedthatthe legalityofthis
methodologyhasbeenclearlyestablishedbytheaforementionedcases:“Standardsconcerningbaselinedeterminationsareclearlyestablished. Already, twoCourtofAppealdecisionshaveheldHealthandSafetyCodesection38550mayserveas thebasis fora
(Footnotecontinuedonnextpage)
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐16
disclosesProjectGHGemissionsagainst thebaseline,existingenvironmentalsetting. But thissectionalsousesacomparisonoftheProject’sGHGemissionsagainstexpectedemissionsiftheProjectwerebuiltusingBAU design, methodology, and technology. The BAU project GHG emissions calculated herein do notconstituteanimproperhypotheticalCEQAbaselinethathasnotoccurredorisunlikelytooccurinthefuture.Rather, theBAUprojectGHGemissionscalculatedhereinrepresenta reliableprojectionof emissions thataccounts for Climate Change Scoping Plan emission reduction measures already in place (e.g., Pavley IStandards and the 33 percent RPS). Moreover, the BAU project GHG emissions were calculated viaCalEEMod,whichisacomputermodeljointlydevelopedbytheSCAQMDtoquantifypotentialGHGemissionsassociatedwithboththeconstructionandoperationoflanduseprojects.
Thedisclosureofaproject’smassGHGemissions,whilenecessaryunderCEQA,generallydoesnotprovidelead agencieswith enough relevant data to permit informeddecision‐making. Given the global nature ofclimate change, selection of amass‐based GHG emissions significance threshold for an individual projectlikelywouldbespeculativeandnotsupportedbysubstantialevidence.
Aspopulationgrowthappearsinevitableandeconomicgrowthisbothlikelyanddesirable,acomparisontoBAU is a more useful tool for lead agencies to assess the relative carbon intensity and efficiency of aparticular project. In otherwords, unless a lead agency assumes Californiawill experience no economicgrowth in the future, the key consideration is not a CEQA project’s raw GHG emissions, but ratherwhatamountofeconomicdevelopmentandactivitywouldaccompanythoseemissions.
WhilethenotionofstatewideBAUusedinCARB’sClimateChangeScopingPlanisnotdirectlyapplicableatlocal or regional scales,17 the SCAQMD recommends use of CARB’s definition of BAU until such time as aSCAQMDorlocaldefinitionofBAUisdeveloped.18UseofAB32’sGHGemissionsreductionmandateattheproject‐level allows a comparison of GHG intensities to be made, which can inform a lead agency’sdetermination of whether an individual CEQA project is consistent with the State’s drive toward amorecarbon efficient future. Moreover, use Use of AB 32’s GHG emissions reductionmandate also provides acarefullycraftedtoolsupportedbysubstantialevidence(e.g.,studiesandanalysesreliedonbyCARBintheitsadoptionofandupdatingtotheClimateChangeScopingPlan)toassessthecontributiontoclimatechangeof a particular project. As explained inmore detail below, the GHG emission reductionmeasures in theClimateChangeScopingPlanputCaliforniaonapathtomeetthelong‐termGHGemissionsreductiongoalnecessarytostabilizetheclimate(i.e.,avoidinga2°Cincreaseinglobalaveragetemperatures).Accordingly,thiscarefullycraftedtoolalso isdirectly linkedwithconsiderationof theGHGemissionsandtemperatureincreasesmostoftenassociatedwithclimateimpacts.TheBAUprojectGHGemissionscalculatedhereindonotconstituteanimproperhypotheticalCEQAbaselinethathasnotoccurredor isunlikelytooccurinthefuture.Rather,theBAUprojectGHGemissionscalculatedhereinrepresentareliableprojectionofemissionsthataccounts forClimateChangeScopingPlanemissionreductionmeasuresalready inplace(e.g.,Pavley I
significancedetermination. HealthandSafetyCodesection38550ispartofAssemblyBillNo.32(2005‐2006Reg.Sess).” CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,RecommendationAgainstPublication(April7,2014)(recommendingtoCaliforniaSupremeCourtthatunpublishedportionofopinion inCenterforBiologicalDiversityv.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(CaseNumberB245131)remainunpublished). ThisRecommendationAgainstPublicationandtherelatedopinionareattachedasappendicesheretoinAppendixE.
17 The statewideBAU isbasedonhistoric trendsacrossentireeconomic sectors,not theactivityof localgovernmentsor individualprojects(i.e.,itisatop‐downestimateofanticipatedfutureemissions).
18 SCAQMD,DraftGuidanceDocument‐InterimCEQAGHGSignificanceThreshold,AttachmentE,October2008.
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐17
Standards and the 33 percent RPS). Moreover, the BAU project GHG emissions were calculated viaCalEEMod,whichisacomputermodeljointlydevelopedbytheSCAQMDtoquantifypotentialGHGemissionsassociatedwithboththeconstructionandoperationoflanduseprojects.
ThenotionofstatewideBAUusedinCARB’sClimateChangeScopingPlanisnotdirectlyapplicableatlocalorregionalscales.Nevertheless,theSCAQMDrecommendsuseofCARB’sdefinitionofBAUuntilsuchtimeasaSCAQMD or local definition of BAU is developed.19 The statewide BAU is based on historic trends acrossentire economic sectors, not the activity of local governments or individual projects (i.e., it is a top‐downestimateofanticipatedfutureemissions).
Consequently,evaluatingthepropositionthataprojectconstitutesabreakfromBAUrequiresprovidingaquantitative estimateofBAUbasedon the specific circumstancesof theproject in the contextof relevantStateactivitiesandmandates.ThisessentiallyrequiresthreeGHGemissionsinventories(asfollows):
Baseline,existingenvironmentalsetting,GHGemissions;
BAUprojectGHGemissions;and
“Asproposed”projectGHGemissionswithprojectdesignfeatures.
3. Volume 1, Section 4.E.3(b) regarding Thresholds of Significance, Page 4.E‐30. Add the following
information at the end of the section, following the bullet at the top of the page as follows:
As indicated above, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the CEQAGuidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders acumulativeimpactinsignificant.
PerCEQAGuidelinesSection15064(h)(3),aproject’sincrementalcontributiontoacumulativeimpactcanbefoundnotcumulativelyconsiderableiftheprojectwillcomplywithanapprovedplanormitigationprogramthatprovidesspecificrequirementsthatwillavoidorsubstantiallylessenthecumulativeproblemwithinthegeographicareaoftheproject.20Toqualify,suchaplanorprogrammustbespecifiedinlaworadoptedbythe public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process toimplement,interpret,ormakespecificthelawenforcedoradministeredbythepublicagency.21Examplesofsuchprogramsincludea“waterqualitycontrolplan,airqualityattainmentormaintenanceplan,integratedwastemanagement plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, [and] plans orregulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”22 Put anotherway, CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of non‐significance for GHG emissions if a projectcomplieswithplans, programs, and regulations to reduceGHGemissions, such as theCaliforniaCap‐and‐TradeProgram.
19 SCAQMD,DraftGuidanceDocument‐InterimCEQAGHGSignificanceThreshold,AttachmentE,October2008.20 14CCR§15064(h)(3).21 Id.22 Id.(emphasisadded).
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐18
TheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict(SJVAPCD)hastakenthisapproachviatheadoptionofapolicy to provide guidance to SJVAPCD staff on how to determine significance of GHG emissions fromprojects subject to the Cap‐and‐Trade Program or occurring at entities subject to the Cap‐and‐TradeProgram.23 By its terms, this policy applies bothwhen the SJVAPCD is the lead agency andwhen it is aresponsible agency under CEQA. The SJVAPCD “has determined that GHG emissions increases that arecovered under ARB’s Cap‐and‐Trade regulation cannot constitute significant increases under CEQA….”24OtherpertinentstatementsintheSJVAPCDpolicyareasfollows:
Consistentwith [14]CCR§15064(h)(3), theDistrict finds that compliancewithARB’sCap‐and‐Traderegulationwouldavoidor substantially lessen the impactofproject‐specificGHGemissionsonglobalclimatechange.…TheDistrictthereforeconcludesthatGHGemissionsincreasessubjecttoARB’sCap‐and‐Trade regulationwouldhavea less than significant individualand cumulative impactonglobalclimatechange.25
Insum,theSJVAPCDmodifieditsexistingCEQAsignificancethresholdforGHGemissionstoacknowledgetheprogressbeingmadebythestateinregulatingandreducingsuchemissions,inparticularwithregardtotheCap‐and‐TradeProgram.
As described inmore detail above, the design of the Cap‐and‐Trade Program assures reductions in GHGemissions. Accordingly, a project’s GHG emissions subject to the Cap‐and‐Trade Program should neithercount against a projectwhen assessing its significance underCEQAnor require furthermitigation. In itsrecentlyadoptedpolicy, theSJVAPCDhas taken thesamepositionon themitigationprovidedby theCap‐and‐TradeProgram:
[I]t isreasonable toconclude that implementationof theCap‐and‐Tradeprogramwillandmust fullymitigateproject‐specificGHGemissionsforemissionsthatarecoveredbytheCap‐and‐Traderegulation.…[T]heDistrictfindsthat,throughcompliancewiththeCap‐and‐Traderegulation,project‐specificGHGemissionsthatarecoveredbytheregulationwillbefullymitigated.26
Further, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has taken this position in CEQAdocuments itproducedasa leadagency. TheSCAQMDhaspreparedthreeNegativeDeclarationsandoneDraft Environmental Impact Report that demonstrate the SCAQMD has applied its 10,000 MTCO2e/yr.significance threshold in such a way that GHG emissions covered by the Cap‐and‐Trade Program do notconstituteemissionsthatmustbemeasuredagainstthethreshold.27
23 San JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict,CEQADeterminationsofSignificance forProjectsSubjecttoARB’sGHGCap‐and‐
TradeRegulation,APR–2030(June25,2014).24 Id.at4.25 Id.at4‐5.26 San JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict,CEQADeterminationsofSignificance forProjectsSubjecttoARB’sGHGCap‐and‐
TradeRegulation,APR–2030,at5(June25,2014).27 SCAQMD,FinalNegativeDeclarationfor: UltramarInc.WilmingtonRefineryCogenerationProject,SCHNo.2012041014(October
2014)(available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/documents/permit‐projects/2014/ultramar_neg_dec.pdf?sfvrsn=2);SCAQMD,FinalNegativeDeclaration for: Phillips66LosAngelesRefineryCarsonPlant‐CrudeOilStorageCapacityProject,SCHNo.2013091029(December2014)(availableathttp://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐
(Footnotecontinuedonnextpage)
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐19
4. Volume 1, Section 4.E Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.c(1) Land Use Characteristics, Page 4.E‐30. Add
a reference to newly provide CAPCOA information at the end of the fourth paragraph in the section as
follows:
For reference purposes, selected pages from the CAPCOA guidance related to the discussion of VMT,including pages that discuss the land use transportation measures that would reduce Project VMT, areprovidedinAppendixB‐1oftheEIRErrata.ThefullCAPCOAguidancedocumentisavailablefordownloadonthe internetat the followingaddress: http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf
5. Volume 1, Section 4.B Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.c(2) Project Design Features, Page 4.E‐33.
Revise PDF‐GHG‐1 as follows:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetor exceed theCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipment ratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProjectconstruction.Polepower(electricitydeliveredfromtheutilitygrid)shallbetheprimarysourceofpowerforusewithon‐siteelectrictools,equipment,lighting,etc.,exceptwhere/wheninfeasibleduetositeconstraints;dieselgenerators,ifneeded,shallberatedbetween75 horsepower (hp) and 750 hp andmeet or exceed applicable Tier 4 standards.Total diesel generator usage during construction shall not exceed 312,000horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucksthatmeetorexceedthemodelyear2010emission standards. These requirements shall be included in applicable biddocumentsandsuccessfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model yearspecificationandCARBorSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
5. Volume 1, Section 4.E.3.a.(2) regarding Project impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Pages 4.E‐38.
Add new discussion regarding Consistency with Executive Orders S‐3‐05 and B‐30‐15 at the end of the
last paragraph on Page 4.E‐38 as follows:
(a) Consistency with Executive Orders S‐3‐05 and B‐30‐15]
Atthestatelevel,ExecutiveOrdersS‐3‐05andB‐30‐15areordersfromtheState’sExecutiveBranchforthepurposeofreducingGHGemissions.ExecutiveOrdersS‐3‐05’sgoalstoreduceGHGemissionsto1990levelsby2020wascodifiedby theLegislatureas the2006GlobalWarmingSolutionsAct (AB32). Asanalyzed
source/ceqa/documents/permit‐projects/2014/phillips‐66‐fnd.pdf?sfvrsn=2); FinalMitigatedNegativeDeclaration for: Toxic AirContaminantReductionforCompliancewithSCAQMDRules1420.1and1402attheExideTechnologiesFacilityinVernon,CA,SCHNo. 2014101040 (December 2014)( available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/documents/permit‐projects/2014/exide‐mnd_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2); Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Breitburn Santa Fe Springs Blocks400/700 Upgrade Project, SCH No: 2014121014 (April 2015)(available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/documents/permit‐projects/2015/deir‐breitburn‐chapters‐1‐3.pdf?sfvrsn=2).
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐20
above,theProjectisconsistentwithAB32.Therefore,theProjectdoesnotconflictwiththiscomponentoftheExecutiveOrders.
TheExecutiveOrdersalsoestablishthegoalstoreduceGHGemissionsto40below1990levelsby2030and80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These goal have not yet been codified.28 However, studies haveshownthat, inordertomeetthe2030and2050targets,aggressivetechnologiesinthetransportationandenergy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. In its ClimateChangeScopingPlan,CARBacknowledged that the “measuresneeded tomeet the2050are too far in thefuture todefine indetail.”29 In theFirstUpdate,however,CARBgenerallydescribed the typeof activitiesrequired to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes;large‐scaleelectrificationofon‐roadvehicles,buildings,andindustrialmachinery;decarbonizingelectricityand fuel supplies; and rapidmarket penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requiressignificant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.”30 Due to thetechnologicalshiftsrequiredandtheunknownparametersoftheregulatoryframeworkin2030and2050,quantitatively analyzing the Project’s impacts further relative to the 2030 and 2050 goals currently isspeculative for purposes of CEQA. Moreover, ARB has not calculated and released the BAU emissionsprojectionsfor2030or2050,whicharenecessarydatapointsforquantitativelyanalyzingaCEQAproject’sconsistencywiththesetargets.
Although the proposed Project’s emissions levels in 2030 and 2050 cannot yet be reliably quantified,statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State’s achievement of those goals and it is reasonable toexpecttheproposedProject’semissionslevel(8,905metrictonnesofCO2eperyearforcurrentlyproposedOption1)todeclineastheregulatoryinitiativesidentifiedbyCARBintheFirstUpdateareimplemented,andothertechnologicalinnovationsoccur.Stateddifferently,theproposedProject’semissionstotalatbuild‐outpresented in Table 4.E‐3 on page on Page 4.E‐37 of the Draft EIR, represents the maximum emissionsinventoryfortheProjectasCalifornia’semissionssourcesarebeingregulated(andforeseeablyexpectedtocontinuetoberegulatedinthefuture)infurtheranceoftheState’senvironmentalpolicyobjectives.Assuch,given the reasonably anticipated decline in proposed Project emissions once fully constructed andoperational,theproposedProjectisconsistentwiththeExecutiveOrders’goals.
TheClimateChangeScopingPlanrecognizesthatAB32establishesanemissionsreductiontrajectorythatwillallowCaliforniatoachievethemorestringent2050target:“These[greenhousegasemissionreduction]measuresalsoputthestateonapathtomeetthelong‐term2050goalofreducingCalifornia’sgreenhousegas emissions to80percentbelow1990 levels. This trajectory is consistentwith the reductions that areneededgloballytostabilizetheclimate.”31Also,CARB’sFirstUpdateprovidesthatit“laysthefoundationforestablishingabroadframeworkforcontinuedemissionreductionsbeyond2020,onthepathto80percent
28 ButseeSenateBill(SB)32,whichwillbeconsideredbytheStateLegislatureinJanuary2016,wouldcodifytheinterimgoalsetforthinExecutiveOrderB‐30‐15forGHGemissionslevelstobe40percentbelow1990levelsby2030.
29 CARB,ScopingPlan,p.117,December2008.30 CARB,FirstUpdate,p.32,May2014.31 ClimateChangeScopingPlanat15.
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐21
below1990levelsby2050,”andmanyoftheemissionreductionstrategiesrecommendedbyCARBwouldservetoreducetheproposedProject’spost‐2020emissionsleveltotheextentapplicablebylaw:32,33
EnergySector:ContinuedimprovementsinCalifornia’sapplianceandbuildingenergyefficiencyprograms and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve toreduce the proposed Project’s emissions level.34 Additionally, further additions to California’srenewableresourceportfoliowouldfavorablyinfluencetheproposedProject’semissionslevel.35
TransportationSector: Anticipateddeploymentof improvedvehicleefficiency,zeroemissiontechnologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all willservetoreducetheproposedProject’semissionslevel.36
Water Sector: The proposed Project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of furtherenhancementstowaterconservationtechnologies.37
WasteManagementSector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solidwastewillbeneficiallyreducetheproposedProject’semissionslevel.38
While the 2020 cap would remain in effect post‐2020,39 the Cap‐and‐Trade Program is not currentlyscheduled to extend beyond 2020 in terms of additional GHG emissions reductions. However, ARB hasexpressed its intention to extend the Cap‐and‐Trade Program beyond 2020 in conjunctionwith setting amid‐termtarget.The“recommendedaction”intheFirstUpdatetotheClimateChangeScopingPlanfortheCap‐and‐Trade Program is: “Develop a plan for a post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program, including costcontainment, to provide market certainty and address a mid‐term emissions target.”40 The “expectedcompletiondate”forthisrecommendedactionis2017.41
In addition to CARB’s FirstUpdate, in January 2015, during his inaugural address, Governor JerryBrownexpressedacommitmenttoachieve“threeambitiousgoals”thathewouldliketoseeaccomplishedby2030to reduce the State’s GHG emissions: (1) increasing the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030; (2) cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and (3)
32 CARB,FirstUpdate,p.4,May2014.Seealsoid.atpp.32–33[recentstudiesshowthatachievingthe2050goalwillrequirethatthe
“electricity sector will have to be essentially zero carbon; and that electricity or hydrogen will have to power much of thetransportationsector,includingalmostallpassengervehicles.”]
33 CARB,FirstUpdate,Table6:SummaryofRecommendedActionsbySector,pp.94‐99,May2014.34 CARB,FirstUpdate,pp.37‐39,85,May2014.35 CARB,FirstUpdate,pp.40‐41,May2014.36 CARB,FirstUpdate,pp.55‐56,May2014.37 CARB,FirstUpdate,p.65,May2014.38 CARB,FirstUpdate,p.69,May2014.39 CaliforniaHealth&SafetyCode§38551(a)(“Thestatewidegreenhousegasemissionslimitshallremainineffectunlessotherwise
amendedorrepealed.”).40 CARB,FirstUpdatetotheClimateChangeScopingPlan:BuildingontheFramework,at98(May2014).41 Id.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐22
doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.42 These expressions ofExecutive Branch policymay bemanifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the stateagenciesanddepartmentsresponsibleforachievingtheState’senvironmentalpolicyobjectives,particularlythoserelatingtoglobalclimatechange.
Further, recent studies shows that the State’s existing andproposed regulatory frameworkwill allow theStatetoreduceitsGHGemissionslevelto40percentbelow1990levelsby2030,andto80percentbelow1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technologicalroadmaptoachievethe2030and2050goals,theydemonstratedthatvariouscombinationsofpoliciescouldallow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through2050, suggesting that the combinationofnewtechnologiesandotherregulationsnotanalyzedinthestudycouldallowtheStatetomeetthe2030and2050targets.43
Giventheproportionalcontributionofmobilesource‐relatedGHGemissionstotheState’sinventory,recentstudiesalsoshowthatrelativelynewtrends,suchastheincreasingimportanceofweb‐basedshopping,theemergence of different driving patterns by the “millennial” generation and the increasing effect ofWeb‐basedapplicationsontransportationchoices,arebeginningtosubstantiallyinfluencetransportationchoicesandtheenergyusedbytransportationmodes. Thesefactorshavechangedthedirectionof transportationtrends in recent years, and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze futuretransportationpatternsandthecorrespondingeffectonGHGemissions.
Forthereasonsdescribedabove,theproposedProject’spost‐2020emissionstrajectoryisexpectedtofollowadecliningtrend,consistentwiththeestablishmentofthe2030and2050targets.
6. Volume 1, Section 4.E.4 regarding Cumulative Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Page 4.E‐41.
Add the following information regarding CEQA Section 15064(h)(3) at the end of the Section as
follows:
ConsistentwithCEQAGuidelinesSection15064(h)(3),thissectionalsoprovidesaqualitativeestimateoftheProject’s compliance with plans, programs, and regulations that reduce a project’s GHG emissions eitherdirectly or indirectly, including: the California Cap‐and‐Trade Program; the California Green BuildingStandardsCode;SCAG’s2012–2035RTP/SCS;theCityofLosAngelesGreenBuildingCode;andGreenLA,AnActionPlantoLeadtheNationinFightingGlobalWarming. Asdescribedabove,theProjectwouldcomplywithState, regional, and localplans,programs,andregulations that reduceGHGemissions. Indeed,manyProject‐related emissions would be capped in the aggregate and steadily reduced by the Cap‐and‐Trade
42 Transcript:Governor JerryBrown’s January5,2015, InauguralAddress,www.latimes.com/local/political/la‐me‐pc‐brown‐speech‐
text‐20150105‐story.html#page=1,accessedMarch2,2015.43 EnergyandEnvironmentalEconomics(E3),“SummaryoftheCaliforniaStateAgencies’PATHWAYSProject:Long‐termGreenhouse
Gas Reduction Scenarios” (April 2015); Greenblatt, Jeffrey, Energy Policy, “Modeling California Impacts on Greenhouse GasEmissions” (Vol. 78, pp. 158‐172). TheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard,CaliforniaEnergyCommission,CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission,andtheCaliforniaIndependentSystemOperatorengagedE3toevaluatethefeasibilityandcostofarangeofpotential2030targetsalongthewaytothestate’sgoalofreducingGHGemissionsto80%below1990levelsby2050. Withinputfromtheagencies,E3developedscenariosthatexplorethepotentialpaceatwhichemissionreductionscanbeachievedaswellasthemixoftechnologiesandpracticesdeployed.E3conductedtheanalysisusingitsCaliforniaPATHWAYSmodel.Enhancedspecificallyforthisstudy,themodelencompassestheentireCaliforniaeconomywithdetailedrepresentationsofthebuildings,industry,transportation,andelectricitysectors.
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐23
Program, such as energy, mobile, and construction emissions.44 Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3), the Project’s impactswith respect to GHG emissionswould be less than significant and notcumulativelyconsiderable.
Moreover, under the CEQAGuidelines Section 15064(h)(3) approach used by the SCAQMD, the followingcategoriesofemissions,ataminimum,wouldnotcountagainsttheSCAQMD’s10,000MTCO2e/yr.thresholddue to their coverage by theCap‐and‐TradeProgram: Construction;On‐RoadMobile Sources; Electricity;NaturalGas;andStationary(EmergencyGenerator). ForthecurrentlyproposedProjectOption1,theGHGemissionsfromcategoriespotentiallynotcoveredbytheCap‐and‐TradeProgram(Area,Water/WastewaterConveyance,andWaste)wouldbe638MTCO2e/yr.,outofa totalof8,905MTCO2e/yr. Insum,assessingsignificanceviatheSCAQMDapproachdescribedhereinwouldresultinthesamefindingthattheProject’sclimatechangeimpactsarelessthansignificantandnotcumulativelyconsiderable.
Section 4.H Land Use
1. Volume 1, Land Use Section 4.H.3.c, Project Characteristics, Page 4.H.21. Insert the following new
Project Design Feature at the end of the list of necessary approvals as shown:
InadditiontotheserequiredNecessaryApprovals,theProjectApplicanthasproposedthefollowingProjectDesignFeature:
PDF‐LandUse‐1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for above grade construction for theProject, theApplicantshalleither(1)recordacovenant to tie theProjectSite’s twolots;or(2)recordaphaseofanapprovedtractmapfortheProjectwhichmergestheSite’stwolotsintoonemastergroundlot.
2. Volume 1, Land Use Section 4.H.3.d.(2)(c), Analysis of Project Consistency with the Hollywood
Redevelopment Plan, Page 4.H‐48. Add the information and analysis regarding consistency with the
Hollywood Redevelopment plan as provided below. This added information to the analysis on page
4.H‐48 of the Draft EIR accompanies and follows additional information that was added to this
analysis on Pages 2‐36 through 2‐37 of the Final EIR.
The above cited provision of Section 506.2.3 and the related analysis address considerations regardingcharacteristicsofaprojectthatwouldqualifyforanincreaseinFARof4.5:1to6.0:1. Section506.2.3alsoincludesadditionalprovisionthatrefertotheresponsibilitiesoftheAgencyandlogisticsofapproval.Theseprovisionsareasfollows:
o Nodevelopmentinexcessof4.5:1shallbepermittedwithoutabindingwrittenagreementwiththe Agency which ensures that the proposed development will occur in conformity to theRedevelopmentPlanandthisSectionbyprovidingfor,amongotherthings,Agencyreviewandapproval of all plans and specifications, the compliance with all conditions applicable to
44 SeealsoSection4.H,LandUseandPlanningforadditionalrelevantanalysesoftheProject’sconsistencywithotherregulatoryplansand policies that are pertinent to the general concepts of “smart growth,” environmental sustainability, and the efficientuse ofresources.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐24
development in excess of a 4.5:1 site F.A.R. and the provision of adequate assurances andconsiderationsforthepurposeofeffectuatingtheobjectivesofthisPlan.
TheProjectapplicanthas initiatedanapplication foranOwnerParticipationAgreement (OPA)with the Designated Local Authority (DLA), and a copy of this initiation letter is provided asAppendixD‐1ofthisErrata.Whileredevelopmentagencieshavebeendissolved,theHollywoodRedevelopment Plan is effective until 2033. Pursuant to the legislation pertaining to thedissolution of redevelopment agencies, the DLA is obligated to carry out the HollywoodRedevelopmentPlanuntilthatdate,andtheDLAhastheauthorityto,amongotherthings,satisfytherequirementstoallowforanincreaseinfloorarearatio("FAR")ofupto6:1bymakingtherequisite findings, as well as enter into a binding written agreement – just as the formerredevelopmentagencywasableto.
Further, conformity with the above Hollywood Redevelopment Plan requirement is also metthroughthefollowingproposedDLimitation:
ProposedDLimitation:
AprojectonthissitemaybedevelopedataFloorAreaRatio(FAR)ofbetween4.5:1andnottoexceed6.0:1providedthat:
a. TheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency,anysuccessortotheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency, or the Department of City Planning of Los Angeles pursuant to the transfer byordinanceofredevelopmentlanduseplansandfunctionstotheCityofLosAngeles(C.F.No.12‐0014‐S4), finds that the project conforms to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan withfindings as required by Sec. 506.2.3 of the Redevelopment Plan and approves an OwnerParticipationAgreement;
o TheAgencyshallrequestfromthePlanningCommissionadeterminationastotheconformityoftheproposeddevelopmentwiththeCommunityPlan.ThePlanningCommissionshallmake itsdeterminationofconformitywithin thirty (30)days from thedateof theAgency'srequest. Aproposed development shall be deemed in conformance with the Community Plan if thePlanningCommissionfailstorenderadeterminationwithinthirty(30)days. AdeterminationbythePlanningCommissionmaybeappealedtotheCityCouncilifsuchappealismadewithinfifteen(15)daysofthePlanningCommission'sdetermination.
Prior tomaking a determination allowing the 6.0:1 FAR for the Project, the DLAmustmeet theabove provision regarding conformity of the Project to the Community Plan. The City PlanningCommissionwillmake a determination as to conformity and consistency of the Projectwith theCommunity Plan as part of its recommendation on the proposed General Plan Amendment andZoneChange.
o The Agency will ensure that the average floor area ratio within this [Regional CenterCommercial] designation does not exceed an F.A.R. of 4.5:1. Sites designated on theRedevelopmentPlanMapasPublicshallnotbeincludedintheaveragingofthefloorarearatio.This shallbedone, from time to time, to theextentnecessary,bycreatinganoverallbalancebetweennewdevelopmentswhichexceeda4.5:1siteF.A.R.andareasoractivitieswhichdonot
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐25
reacha4.5:1 siteF.A.R. suchasopen spacesorpublic facilitiescreatedor rehabilitatedafteradoptionoftheRedevelopmentPlan;newdevelopmentsorredevelopmentactivities(includinghistoricpreservationorrehabilitation)whicharebelow4.5:1;oranyothermeanstheAgencydeemsappropriatewhichwillmaintainthedesignation'saverageF.A.R.atorbelow4.5:1.WhentheaverageF.A.R. for thedesignationreachesaratioof2.0:1 theAgency,within90dayswillsubmittothePlanningCommission,theCityCouncil,andtheDepartmentofTransportationareportanalyzingthecumulativeimpactofCoreareadevelopmentuponthetransportationandcirculation system in the area, includingP.M. peak hour trips generated; further theAgencyshall submit to theCityPlanningCommissionand to theCityCouncilaprogramestablishingand identifying specificmethodsandmechanisms ofAgencyaction toacquire open space orotherwiserestrictordecreasedensityinordertomaintainanoverall4.5:1F.A.R.
TheDLAhasmonitored,andcontinuestomonitor,developmentinpropertieswithadesignationofRegionalCenterCommercialwithintheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanareaasrequiredinSection506.2.3.TheDLAhaspreparedaletterdatedNovember3,2015thatisincludedasAppendixD‐2tothisErrata 1.As indicated in the letter, the4.5:1 averageFARhasnot been reached. Therefore,approvaloftheProjectatadensityof6.0:1ispermitted.
Section 4.I Noise
1. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.2.b, Existing Conditions, Page 4.I‐5. Add the following to the end of the
discussion of (1) Noise Sensitive Receptors Locations as follows:
Pursuant toCEQA, theexistingbaseline forEIRs is typicallybasedonexistingusesat the timeaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)isissued. TheNOPforthePalladiumResidencesprojectwasissuedonAugust8,2013,and thenoise analysis commenced soon thereafter. TheHollywoodLeBonHotel, located at 1610ArgyleAvenue, was not identified as a sensitive receptor at the time of the NOP or start of the noise analysis,becauseaccordingtoitswebsite,itdidnotopenuntilNovember2013.45Priortoitsrenovationintoahotel,thepropertywasanofficebuilding,46which isnotanoise‐sensitiveuseunderCEQA. As thehotel isnowoccupied,ananalysisofthepotentialconstructionnoiselevelstotheLeBonHotelhasbeenperformed.TheLeBonHotelislocatedapproximately200feetfromtheProjectSite.
2. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.2.b, Existing Conditions, Page 4.I‐6. Revise the second bullet in the list
of future related projects as follows:
RelatedProject9:BLVD6200.Mixed‐usemultifamilyresidentialproject,locatedapproximately250200feetnorthoftheProjectSite.
45 http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16552621/1610‐Argyle‐Ave‐Hollywood‐CA/?PgCxtGuid=121c67ad‐6b27‐4e1c‐a409‐
63fce611d186&PgCxtFLKey=ProfileSE&PgCxtCurFLKey=PropertyRecord&PgCxtDir=Up,AccessedSeptember11,2015.46 http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16552621/1610‐Argyle‐Ave‐Hollywood‐CA/?PgCxtGuid=121c67ad‐6b27‐4e1c‐a409‐
63fce611d186&PgCxtFLKey=ProfileSE&PgCxtCurFLKey=PropertyRecord&PgCxtDir=Up,AccessedSeptember11,2015.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐26
3. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.3.d.(1) Construction Impacts, Page 4.I‐25. Add the following text after
Table 4.I‐7 as follows:
AsdescribedintheSettingSectionabove,theLeBonHotelwasnotanexistinguseatthetimetheNOPfortheProjectwasissued,howeverhassincebeenredevelopedfromanofficeusetoahoteluse. Ananalysishasbeenperformedtoidentifytheconstructionnoiseimpactsatthatlocation.Theanalysisconcludesthattheconstructionnoiselevelscouldreach75dBA,whichwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdof68dBAatlocation R4. Therefore, the mitigation noise measure, MM‐NOISE‐1, has been modified to account forimpactsattheLeBonHotelresultinginlessthansignificantimpactsatthatlocation.ThecalculationworksheetforthatestimateofconstructionnoiseattheLeBonHotelisincludedinAppendixC‐1ofthisErrata1.
4. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.3.d.(1) Construction Impacts, Page 4.I‐26. Add the following text prior
to Table 4.I‐7 as follows:
RelatedProject 9, BLVD6200,waspreviously reported in theExistingConditions Section above as beinglocatedapproximately250feetfromtheProjectSite.Thatdistancehasbeenmeasuredagainandhasbeenrevisedto200feetasindicatedabove.TheclosestreceptortothatlocationisR4,withanexistingnoiselevelof 63dBAand significance thresholdof 68dBA. That locationwas included in theanalysisof impacts atexisting sensitive receiver locations in Table 4.I‐7. As noted above, a subsequent analysis has beenperformedforimpactsattheLeBonHotel,whichislocatedapproximately200feetfromtheProjectSiteatreceptorlocationR‐4.Thatanalysisconcludesthattheconstructionnoiselevelscouldreach75dBA,whichwouldexceedthesignificancethresholdof68dBAat locationR4;andthereforemitigationnoisemeasure,MM‐NOISE‐1, has been modified to address this impact. As the BLVD 6200 project is also located atapproximately200feetaway,andatthesamereceptorlocation,theanalysisandmitigationfortheLeBonHotelwouldapplytothepotentialimpactsfortheBLVD6200projectaswell.
5. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.3.d.(1)(b) Off‐Site Construction Noise, Page, 4.I‐27. Add a note at the
end of the analysis, as follows:
ThedatainNoiseAppendixH‐1.3hasbeenreplacedwithcorrecteddatathatisconsistentwiththisSection4.INoiseanalysis. ThepreviousversionoftheAppendixwasincorrect. ThecorrectversionofthedataisincludedintheErrataAppendixC‐2.ThedatamatchestheanalysisdataintheEIRsectionanddoesnotaltertheconclusionsofthatanalysis.
6. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.3.d.(2)(a) Operational Off‐Site Roadway Traffic Noise analysis, Page,
4.I‐28. Add a note at the end of the analysis, as follows:
Draft EIR Noise Appendix H‐1.5 has the work sheets for this analysis; and the Appendix has beensupplemented with additional information regarding roadway information (number of lanes, lane width,parking lanewidthandsidewalkwidthaswellascruisespeed).Theaddedinformation isprovidedintheErrataAppendixC‐3.
7. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.3.d.(4) Vibration Impacts, Page 4.I‐40. Revise footnote 24 at the
bottom of the page to reflect added information regarding the analysis of vibration:
“VibrationsestimatesarebasedonguidanceintheTransportation‐andConstruction‐InducedVibrationGuidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program, Environmental
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐27
Engineering,Noise,Vibration, andHazardousWasteManagementOffice, June2004: PPVequip =PPVref(25/D)n;where PPVref = reference source vibration, D = Distance, n =factor for soil attenuation. Forthese calculations the N value is 1.1, the distance is approximately 5.5 feet for operation of caissondrilling.”
8. Volume 1, Noise Section 4.I.4, Mitigation Measures, Page 4.I‐44. Revise Mitigation Measure MM‐
NOISE‐1, as follows:
MM‐NOISE‐1: Temporaryconstructionnoisebarriersshallbeimplementedasfollows:
TheProjectshallensuretheprovisionofa5dBAnoisebarrierbetweentheProject construction and the existing residential development on thenorthwest corner of Selma Avenue and Argyle Avenue (existing buildingsbetween the residential development and the Project at the time ofconstructionmay contribute to the soundattenuation).; and an 8dBA, 16foothighnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectandtheLeBonHotel(allowingforagatethatmaybeopenedfromtimetotimeforSiteentry).
IfthefollowingrelatedprojectsadjacenttotheProjectSite(i.e.atColumbiaSquare, the Selma and Vine project, the BLVD 6200 project south ofHollywood Boulevard, or 6250 Sunset project) are occupied by newresidentsatthetimeofProjectconstruction,thentemporarynoisebarriersshall be provided between the Project construction and those occupiedunits. Based on the exceedance of the thresholds noted in the aboveanalysis(giventhedistancefromtheProjectSiteandexistingsoundlevelsattherespectivelocations),thebarriersshallprovideasoundreductionof5 dBA between the Project Site and the 6250 Sunset project, andapproximately 10 dBA between the Project and the remaining futureprojects.
Section 4.L Transportation and Circulation
1. Volume 1, Transportation and Circulation Section 4.L.2.a.(2) Street System. Add updated
information per Consistency with the Mobility Plan 2035, on Page 4.L‐6, at the end of the Street
System Section as follows.
ConsistencywithMobilityPlan2035
SubsequenttopreparationofthePalladiumResidencesDraftEIRinOctober2014andtheFinalEIRinMarch2015,theCityofLosAngelesadopteditsnewMobilityPlan2035,AnElementoftheGeneralPlan(LosAngelesDepartment of Planning, approved August 2015) (“Mobility Element 2035”).47 The street descriptionsprovided on pages 4.L‐2 through 4.L‐6 of the Draft EIR mentioned both the then‐current (now old)designation for each street as well as the designation as proposed in the Draft Mobility Plan 2035 as it
47 AlthoughMobilityElement2035hasbeenchallenged intheLosAngelesSuperiorCourt,thisanalysis is included intheeventthat
MobilityElement2035isupheld.IfMobilityElement2035isoverturned,theanalysisintheEIRwillstillbeaccurate.Ineithercase,nochangeinthelevelofimpactswouldoccur.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐28
existedatthattime.Forcompleteness,eachofthestreetsdescribedintheDraftEIRislistedagainwithitsfinaldesignationpertheadoptedMobilityElement2035:
SantaMonicaBoulevard–ModifiedAvenueI,TransitEnhancedNetwork
FountainAvenue–CollectorStreet,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork
SunsetBoulevard–AvenueI,VehicleEnhancedNetwork
SelmaAvenue–LocalStreet,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork(westofElCentroAvenue)
HollywoodBoulevard–AvenueI,TransitEnhancedNetwork,BicycleEnhancedNetwork
FranklinAvenue–AvenueIIeastofCahuengaBoulevard,AvenueIIIwestofCahuengaBoulevard,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork
WilcoxAvenue–ModifiedAvenueIII
CahuengaBoulevard–AvenueII,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork(ColeAvenuetoHollywoodBoulevard),BicycleLaneNetwork(northofYuccaStreet)
IvarAvenue–ModifiedLocalStreet
VineStreet–AvenueII,BicycleLaneNetwork(southofYuccaStreet)
Argyle Avenue – Local Street, Neighborhood Enhanced Network (Selma Avenue to FranklinAvenue)
ElCentroAvenue–LocalStreet,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork(DeLongpreAvenuetoSelmaAvenue)
Gower Street – Modified Avenue III, Neighborhood Enhanced Network (south of De LongpreAvenue)
GordonStreet–LocalStreet
Bronson Avenue – Avenue III, Neighborhood Enhanced Network (Carlton Way to HollywoodBoulevard)
VanNessAvenue–ModifiedCollectorStreet,NeighborhoodEnhancedNetwork(southofHaroldWay)
ThesefinaldesignationsdonotchangeanyoftheanalysesorconclusionsofthetransportationimpactstudyfortheDraftEIR.
Withthesedesignations,thethreestreetsthatimmediatelybordertheProjectsitehavestandardroadwaydimensionsestablishedintheMobilityElement2035asfollows:
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐29
SunsetBoulevard–70’roadwayin100’right‐of‐way(ROW)(35’half‐widthroadwayin50’half‐width ROW). These dimensions are consistent with the recommendation in the LADOTAssessmentLetterfortheProject(AppendixK‐2totheDraftEIR),whichrecommendedthattheapplicantberequiredtoprovidea35’half‐widthroadwayanda50’half‐widthROWalongSunsetBoulevard.
SelmaAvenue,ArgyleAvenue,andElCentroAvenue–36’roadwayin60’ROW(18’half‐widthroadwayin30’half‐widthROW).Thesedimensionsarenotconsistentwiththerecommendationin the LADOT Assessment Letter for the Project, which recommended that the applicant berequiredtoprovidea20’half‐widthroadwayanda30’half‐widthROWalongthesestreets.TheLADOTrecommendationwasbasedontheolderrequirementsforcommerciallocalstreets,notthenewMobilityElement2035. Eachof thesestreetscurrentlyhasanexistingroadwaywidthequaltoorexceeding40’andexistingROWwidthsequaltoorexceeding60’,however,consistentwiththeoriginalLADOTrecommendationandexceedingtheMobilityPlan2035dimensions,andthusnoroadwaywideningorROWdedicationisrequiredfortheproposedproject.
2. Volume 1, Transportation and Circulation Section 4.L.3.(e) Regional Public Transit System, (i)
Impacts on Existing 2013 Baseline. Revise the first paragraph on Page 4.L‐56 as follows.
(i) Impacts Based on Existing 2013 Baseline
TheTrafficReportestimated thenumberofProject residentsandvisitors thatwouldride transitvehiclesduring the A.M. and P.M. peak hours based on the CMP recommended methodology. Following thisapproach,Option1wouldgenerateanestimated3539and3943transitridersinA.M.andP.M.peakhour,respectively,fromresidentialuseand11and14transitridersinA.M.andP.M.peakhour,respectively,fromcommercial uses, or a total of 46 and 53 transit riders inA.M. andP.M. peak hour respectively. Option 2would generate an estimated 29 and 32 transit riders in A.M. and P.M. peak hour, respectively, fromresidentialuseand39and48transitridersinA.M.andP.M.peakhour,respectivelyfromcommercialuses.Thetotalridershipwouldbe46and53transitridersinA.M.andP.M.peakhour,respectively,underOption1and68and80transitridersinA.M.andP.M.peakhour,respectively,underOption2.
3. Volume 1, Transportation and Circulation Section 4.L.4.b, Discussion of the Mitigation Measures for
operations, Page 4.L‐64. Add after the second full paragraph and prior to the list of mitigation
measures the following text regarding the elimination of the Project Option 2, Residential/Hotel as
follows:
As discussed in the general/global revision to the EIR, the Project no longer includes Project Option 2,Residential/Hotel, therefore impactsassociatedsolelywith thisOption2wouldbeeliminated. ImpactsofOption 1 remain as shown in the analyses above and continue to require mitigation pursuant to CEQAGuidelines.
With the elimination of Option 2, significant traffic impacts would no longer be generated at twointersectionsforwhichfeasiblemitigationhadbeenpreviouslyidentified:theCahuengaBoulevard/FranklinAvenueandGowerStreet/FranklinAvenueintersections. Similarly, thesignificant impact identifiedattheresidentialstreetsegmentofElCentroAvenuebetweenLelandWayandDeLongpreAvenue,duringexistingconditions, also not occur. Therefore, MitigationMeasuresMM‐TRAF‐7 andMM‐TRAF‐10 are no longerrequiredandhavebeendeleted,withrenumberingofMM‐TRAF‐8toMM‐TRAF‐7,asfollows:
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐30
MM‐TRAF‐7: TheProjectshallimplementthefollowingphysicalroadwayimprovementsthatcan be providedwithin existing roadwaywidthswithout requiring removal ofparkingspaces:
Intersection2,CahuengaBoulevard&FranklinAvenue.Modifythesignalequipmentandoperationtoallowasouthboundprotectedleft‐turnmovementwithawestboundright‐turn overlap. This improvement will require the southbound U‐turns at theintersectiontoberestricted.
Intersection 23, Gower Street & Franklin Avenue. Coordinate with the ColumbiaSquareprojectandLADOTtoarrangeforapotentialfairsharecontributiontowardstheimplementationofanimprovementproposedbytheColumbiaSquareprojectthatwould upgrade the traffic signal equipment to allow for northbound right‐turnoverlap.
MM‐TRAF‐10: TheProjectshallfundandcoordinateimplementationofaTrafficCalmingPlan
toreduceProjectimpactsonElCentroAvenuebetweenSantaMonicaBoulevardand Sunset Avenue. The Plan shall be approved by LADOT and includecommunity consultation coordinated through the Council Office on the finalselectionofcalmingmeasuresincluded.Itshallincludesuchphysicalmeasuresas changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, speed humps, speedtables, raised crosswalks, chicanes, and chokers, and/or operationalmeasuressuchasturnrestrictions,speedlimits,andinstallationofstopsigns.
4. Volume 1, Transportation and Circulation Section 4.L.4.b, Mitigation Measures for TDM program,
Page 4.L‐65, after the last mitigation measure in the Section. Add information regarding LADOT
recommendations for the TDM and revise the TDM program as follows:
EnhancementstotheTransportationDemandManagementProgram
TheLADOTAssessmentLetterforthePalladiumResidencesProject(AppendixK‐2totheDraftEIR)statesthattheProject’sTDMprogramshouldincludethefollowing:
CoordinatewithLADOTtodetermineifthesitewouldbeeligibleforoneormoreoftheservicestobeprovidedbythefutureMobilityHubsprogram(securebikeparking,bike‐sharekiosks,andcar‐shareparkingspaces).
Contribute a one‐time fixed‐fee of $100,000 to be deposited into the City’s Bicycle Plan TrustFundtoimplementbicycleimprovementswithintheareaoftheproposedproject.
Guaranteedridehomeprogram.
Consider joining the Hollywood TransportationManagement Organization (TMO) thatmay becreatedbyothermajoremployersinHollywoodinthenextfewyears.
The Mobility Hubs program is an LADOT program intended to expand the reach of the regional transitsystemtosurroundingneighborhoodsbyofferingservicessuchassecuredbikeparking,bikesharing,“fold‐n‐go”bike leasingprograms,privatetransportservices(e.g.,Uber,Car2Go,Lyft,ZipCar), integratedtransit
November 2015 D. Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐31
passpurchase,centralizedweb‐basedtripplanning,real‐timeroutingandtransitscheduleinformation,andother transportation informationatavarietyof locationsaround theCity toexpand the travel choices forresidents,employees,andvisitorswhilereducingtheneedtoownavehicle.Theprogramisexpectedtobeimplementedbeginningin2017.
With regard to theHollywood TMO,MitigationMeasure K‐1 in the Draft EIR for the Paramount PicturesMaster Plan Project (City of Los Angeles, September 2015) requires that the Paramount Pictures projectapplicant initiate, fund, and market a Hollywood‐area TMO. The LADOT Assessment Letter for theParamount Pictures project (Appendix R of the Paramount Pictures Draft EIR) further clarifies that theParamountPicturesprojectapplicantwouldprovideseedfundingtolaunchtheHollywoodTMOaswellasongoingfundingtocoveraportionofthecosttooperatetheTMO.
Giventheabove,MM‐TRAF‐9isrevisedasfollows:
MM‐TRAF‐98: The Project shall implement a travel demand management (TDM) program,consistentwiththerecommendationsofLADOT.Theexactmeasurestobeimplementedwillbedeterminedwhen theplan isprepared,prior to issuanceof a final certificateofoccupancyfortheProject.TheTDMprogramshallensureappropriateimplementationoftheProject’ssidewalks/plazas,streettrees/landscaping,streetandpedestrianamenities,lightingandbicycleprovisionstoencouragealternativemodesoftransportation.Itshallalsoincludeotherfeaturesasappropriate,suchas,forexample,unbundledparking,(i.e.separatingthecostofpurchasingorrentingparkingspacesfromthecostofpurchasingorrentingadwellingunit);rideshareprograms,(whichcouldincludetheprovisionofanon‐sitetransitandrideshareinformationcenterthatprovidesassistancetohelppeopleformcarpools or access transit alternatives, and/or priority parking for carpools); and/or atransit pass discount program, (that typically includes negotiating with transit serviceproviderstopurchasetransitpassesinbulkatadiscountedratewithresaletointerestedresidents or employees at discounted prices), identification of an on‐site TDMcoordinator, making information available to residents and employees regardingalternativetransportationoptions,monitoringandsurveyingrequirements,aguaranteedride home program, participation in the LADOT Mobility Hubs program (which couldinclude secure bike parking, bike‐share kiosks, car‐share parking spaces and services,and/or electric scooter‐share), contributing a one‐time fixed‐fee of $100,000 to bedeposited into theCity’sBicycleTrust fund to implementbicycle improvementswithinthe area of the Project, and/or participation in the Hollywood TransportationManagementOrganization(TMO)tobecreatedbyothermajoremployersinHollywoodwithinthenextfewyears.TheProjectisalsoprovidingamplebicycleparkingandon‐sitebicyclerepairfacilitiesincompliancewithLosAngelesCityMunicipalCoderequirements.
D. Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 D‐32
Thispageintentionallyblank.
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 E‐1
E. EFFECTS OF CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
This Errata documents additional changes to the EIR (comprised of the Draft EIR and Final EIR). Asdemonstrated by the following discussion, the modifications to the EIR do not result in new significantimpactsanddonotwarrantrecirculationoftheEIR.
CEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5requiresthatanEIRthathasbeenmadeavailable forpublicreview,butpriortofinalcertification,berecirculatedonlyifsignificantnewinformationhasbeenaddedtotheEIR.TherelevantportionsofCEQAGuidelinessection15088.5readasfollows:
(a) A leadagency isrequiredtorecirculateanEIRwhensignificantnew information isaddedtotheEIRafterpublicnoticeisgivenoftheavailabilityofthedraftEIRforpublicreviewunderSection15087butbeforecertification. Asusedinthissection,theterm“information”canincludechangesintheprojectorenvironmentalsettingaswellasadditionaldataorotherinformation.NewinformationaddedtoanEIR isnot “significant”unless theEIR is changed inaway thatdeprives thepublicofameaningfulopportunity tocommentuponasubstantialadverseenvironmentaleffectof theprojectora feasibleway tomitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’sproponentshavedeclinedtoimplement.“Significantnewinformation”requiringrecirculationinclude,forexample,adisclosureshowingthat:
(1) Anewsignificantenvironmental impactwouldresult fromtheprojector fromanewmitigationmeasureproposedtobeimplemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severityofanenvironmental impactwouldresultunlessmitigationmeasuresareadoptedthatreducetheimpacttoalevelofinsignificance.
(3) Afeasibleprojectalternativeormitigationmeasureconsiderablydifferentfromotherspreviouslyanalyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’sproponentsdeclinetoadoptit.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature thatmeaningfulpublicreviewandcommentwereprecluded.
(b) RecirculationisnotrequiredwherethenewinformationaddedtotheEIRmerelyclarifiesoramplifiesormakesinsignificantmodificationsinanadequateEIR.
TheErrataprovideinformationregardingminorrevisionstotheProject,clarificationsandminoreditstotheDraftandFinalEIRdocuments,andnewtechnicalanalyses.AlloftheinformationaddedtotheEIRupdates,clarifies,corrects,addsto,ormakesinsignificantmodificationstoinformationintheDraftandFinalEIR.
ThedevelopmentrefinementstotheProject,includingreducingtheProjectheightsandeliminatingthehoteluses, would reduce Project impacts from the level of impacts reported in the EIR. Modifications to theentitlement requests would not change the Project or its impacts on the environment. They provideclarifications regardingProject implementationprocedures. Newand/or revisedmitigationmeasuresaremore protective of the environment and do not generate impacts on the environment beyond those
E. Effects of Corrections and Additions November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 E‐2
describedintheEIR.AdditionalanalyseselaborateuponanalysesotherwiseincludedintheEIRandsupporttheconclusionspreviouslyreported.
Therefore, themodifications to the EIR are not significant because the EIR is not changed in away thatdeprivesthepublicofameaningfulopportunitytocommentuponasubstantialadverseenvironmentaleffectof the Project. Based on the above, the clarifications to the EIRwould not result in any new significantimpactsorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofanyimpactalreadyidentifiedintheEIR.Thus,noneoftheconditionsinSection15088.5oftheCEQAGuidelinesaremet,andrecirculationisnotrequired.
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared pursuant to PublicResourcesCodeSection21081.6,whichrequiresaLeadAgencytoadopta“reportingormonitoringprogramforchangestotheprojectorconditionsofprojectapproval,adoptedinordertomitigateoravoidsignificanteffectsontheenvironment.”Inaddition,Section15097(a)oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesrequiresthat:
Inorder toensure that themitigationmeasuresandprojectrevisions identified in theEIRornegativedeclarationareimplemented,thepublicagencyshalladoptaprogramformonitoringorreportingontherevisionswhichithasrequiredintheprojectandmeasuresithasimposedtomitigateoravoidsignificantenvironmentaleffects.Apublicagencymaydelegatereportingormonitoring responsibilities toanotherpublicagencyor toaprivate entitywhichaccepts thedelegation;however,untilmitigationmeasureshavebeencompletedthe leadagencyremainsresponsibleforensuringthatimplementationofthemitigationmeasuresoccursinaccordancewiththeprogram.
TheCityofLosAngelesistheLeadAgencyfortheProjectandthereforeisresponsibleforadministeringandimplementing the MMRP. Where appropriate, the Project’s Draft and Final EIRs identified mitigationmeasurestoavoidortomitigatepotential impacts identifiedtoa levelwherenosignificant impactontheenvironmentwouldoccur,or impactswouldbereduced to theextent feasible. ThisMMRP isdesigned tomonitorimplementationoftheProject’smitigationmeasuresaswellasitsprojectdesignfeatures.
Asshownonthefollowingpages,eachrequiredmitigationmeasureandproposedprojectdesignfeaturefortheProjectislistedandcategorizedbyimpactarea,withanaccompanyingidentificationofthefollowing:
EnforcementAgency:TheagencywiththepowertoenforcetheMitigationMeasure/ProjectDesignFeature.
MonitoringAgency:Theagencytowhichreportsinvolvingfeasibility,compliance,implementationanddevelopmentaremade.
MonitoringPhase: Thephaseof theProjectduringwhich theMitigationMeasure/ProjectDesignFeatureshallbemonitored.
Monitoring Frequency: The frequency at which the MitigationMeasure/Project Design Featureshallbemonitored.
Action Indicating Compliance: The action of which the Enforcement or Monitoring Agencyindicates that compliance with the requiredMitigationMeasure/Project Design Feature has beenimplemented.
The Project’s MMRP will be in place throughout all phases of the Project. The Project applicant will beresponsible for implementing allmitigationmeasures unless otherwise noted. The applicant shall also beobligated to provide a certification report to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriateenforcement agency that compliancewith the requiredmitigationmeasure or project design feature has
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐2
beenimplemented.TheCity’sexistingplanning,engineering,review,andinspectionprocesseswillbeusedasthebasicfoundationfortheMMRPproceduresandwillalsoservetoprovidethedocumentationforthereportingprogram.
The certification report shall be submitted to the Project Planner at the Los Angeles Department of CityPlanning. Each report will be submitted to the Project Planner annually followingcompletion/implementation of the applicable mitigation measures and project design features and shallinclude sufficient information and documentation (such as building or demolition permits) to reasonablydeterminewhethertheintentofthemeasurehasbeensatisfied.TheCity,inconjunctionwiththeApplicant,shallassurethatProjectconstructionandoperationoccursinaccordancewiththeMMRP.
AfterreviewandapprovalofthefinalMMRPbytheCity,minorchangesandmodificationstotheMMRParepermitted,butcanonlybemadebytheApplicantsubjecttotheapprovalbytheCity.TheCity,inconjunctionwith any appropriate agencies or departments,will determine the adequacy of any proposed changes ormodification. The flexibility is necessary due to the nature of the MMRP, the need to protect theenvironmentinthemostefficientmanner,andtheneedtoreflectchangesinregulatoryconditions,suchasbutnotlimitedtochangestobuildingcoderequirements,updatestoLEED“Silver”standards,andchangesinSecretary of Interior Standards. No changeswill be permitted unless theMMRP continues to satisfy therequirementsofCEQA,asdeterminedbytheCity.
B. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPLEMENTATION
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforAesthetics/VisualResources
Mitigation Measures
NomitigationmeasuresarerequiredforAesthetics/VisualResources.
Air Quality
Project Design Features
SeePDF‐GHG‐1andPDF‐GHG‐2,below.
Mitigation Measures
MM‐AQ‐1: The Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the emissions of airpollutants generatedbyheavy‐dutydiesel‐poweredequipmentoperatingat theProjectSite:
Themostcurrentgradeofultra‐lowsulfurdiesel(ULSD)fuelapprovedbyCARBandavailableintheSouthCoastAirBasinshallbeusedforallheavy‐dutydiesel‐poweredequipmentoperatingand/orrefuelingattheProjectSite
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐3
Truckandequipmentidlingandqueuingtimeshallbelimitedtofiveminutesorless,when equipment is not in active use, in accordancewith the CARB Airborne ToxicControlMeasure;
Theuse of the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites shall beusedwherever available andpossible rather than electrical generatorspoweredbyinternalcombustionengines;
Utilizeconstructionequipmenthavingtheminimumpracticalenginesize(i.e.,lowestappropriatehorsepowerratingfortheintendedjob);
Allconstructionequipmentoperatingon‐siteshallbeproperlymaintained(includingengine tuning) at all times in accordance with manufacturers' specifications andschedules;
Tampering with construction equipment to increase horsepower or to defeatemissioncontroldevicesshallbeprohibited;
Theuseofallconstructionequipmentshallbesuspendedduringasecond‐stagesmogalertintheimmediatevicinityoftheProjectSite.
EnforcementAgency: SCAQMD;LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspectionsduringconstruction
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportbyProjectcontractor
Cultural Resources
Archaelogical and Paleontological Resources
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforArchaelogicalandPaleontologicalResources
Mitigation Measures
MM‐ARCH‐1:TheApplicantshallretainaqualifiedarchaeologicalmonitorwhomeetstheSecretaryofthe Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for an archaeologist who shall bepresent during construction excavations such as grading, trenching, grubbing, or anyother construction excavation activity associated with the Project. The frequency ofmonitoring shall be determined by the archaeological monitor based on the rate ofexcavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, thematerials being excavated (native versus fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and iffound, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Prior to theonsetofconstructionactivitiesanArchaeologicalResourceMitigationPlan(ARMP)shallbeprepared.TheARMPshallincludeprotocolsforimplementationoftheArchaeologicalMitigationMeasures;andshallalsorequireimplementationofapre‐constructiontestingprogramwithasamplingofsoiltestingatrepresentativetesttrenches.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐4
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicperrecommendationsofarchaeologicalmonitor
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Compliance report by qualified archaeologicalmonitor.
MM‐ARCH‐2: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbingactivities, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground‐disturbingactivitiesawayfromthevicinityofthefindsothatthefindcanbeevaluated.Workshallbeallowedtocontinueoutsideof thevicinityof the find. Allarchaeologicalresources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by thearchaeologist. The Applicant shall coordinate with the archaeologist and the City todevelop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources if they are determined to bepotentially eligible for the California Register or potentially qualify as uniquearchaeological resourcespursuant toCEQA. Treatmentmay include implementationofarchaeologicaldatarecoveryexcavationstoremovetheresourceorpreservationinplace.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Attimeofresourcediscovery,shoulditoccur
ActionIndicatingCompliance: If archaeological resources are unearthed, submittalof compliance certification report and treatment plan by aqualifiedarchaeologicalmonitor
MM‐ARCH‐3: The archaeological monitor shall prepare a final report at the conclusion ofarchaeologicalmonitoring.ThereportshallbesubmittedbytheApplicanttotheCity,theSouth Central Coastal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate orconcerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and requiredmitigationmeasures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, ifany, treatment of the resources, and evaluation of the resources with respect to theCalifornia Register. The Applicant, in consultationwith the archaeologist and the Cityshall designate repositories meeting State standards in the event that archaeologicalmaterial is recovered. Project material shall be curated in accordance with the StateHistoricalResourcesCommission’sGuidelinesforCurationofArchaeologicalCollections.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: Post‐construction
MonitoringFrequency: Onceuponcompletionofexcavation
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Compliance report by qualified archaeologicalmonitor.
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐5
MM‐ARCH‐4:IfhumanremainsareencounteredunexpectedlyduringimplementationoftheProject,StateHealth and Safety Code Section7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shalloccur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin anddisposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be ofNative American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native AmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC).TheNAHCshallthenidentifytheperson(s)thoughttobetheMostLikelyDescendent(MLD).TheMLDmay,withthepermissionoftheApplicant,inspect the site of the discovery of theNative American remains andmay recommendmeans for treating or disposing,with appropriate dignity, the human remains and anyassociated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make theirrecommendationwithin48hoursofbeinggrantedaccessbytheApplicanttoinspectthediscovery. Therecommendationmay includethescientificremovalandnondestructiveanalysisofhumanremainsanditemsassociatedwithNativeAmericanburials.UponthediscoveryoftheNativeAmericanremains,theApplicantshallensurethattheimmediatevicinity,accordingtogenerallyacceptedculturalorarchaeologicalstandardsorpractices,wheretheNativeAmericanhumanremainsarelocated, isnotdamagedordisturbedbyfurther development activity until the Applicant has discussed and conferred, asprescribedinthismitigationmeasure,withtheMLDregardingtheirrecommendations,ifapplicable,takingintoaccountthepossibilityofmultiplehumanremains.TheApplicantshall discuss all reasonable options with the descendants regarding the descendants'preferencesfortreatment.
Whenever theNAHC isunable to identify aMLD, or theMLD identified fails tomake arecommendation, or the Applicant or his or her authorized representative rejects therecommendationofthedescendantsandthemediationprovidedforinSubdivision(k)ofPRCSection5097.94,ifinvoked,failstoprovidemeasuresacceptabletotheApplicant,theApplicant or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains anditemsassociatedwithNativeAmericanhumanremainswithappropriatedignityon thepropertyinalocationnotsubjecttofurtherandfuturesubsurfacedisturbance.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Ongoingthroughgradingandexcavation
ActionIndicatingCompliance: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly,submittalofwrittenevidence to theLosAngelesDepartmentof City Planning of compliance with State Health and SafetyCode Section 7050.0 and Public Resources Code Section5097.98
MM‐PALEO‐1: A qualified Paleontologist shall attend a pre‐grade meeting and develop apaleontological monitoring program for excavations into older Quaternary Alluviumdeposits. A qualified paleontologist is defined as a paleontologistmeeting the criteriaestablishedbytheSocietyforVertebratePaleontology.ThequalifiedPaleontologistshallsupervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present during constructionexcavationsintoolderQuaternaryAlluviumdeposits.Monitoringshallconsistofvisuallyinspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate,collectingwetordryscreenedsedimentsamplesofpromisinghorizonsforsmallerfossilremains. The frequency of monitoring inspections shall be determined by the
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐6
Paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, thematerialsbeingexcavated,andthedepthofexcavation,andiffound,theabundanceandtypeoffossilsencountered.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐Construction,Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once prior to issuance of building permits for programapproval;Periodicduringexcavation
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Issuance of grading permit and development ofpaleontological resources monitoring program; Compliancereportbyqualifiedpaleontologist
MM‐PALEO‐2: If a potential fossil is found, the Paleontological Monitor shall be allowed totemporarilydivertorredirectgradingandexcavationactivitiesintheareaoftheexposedfossiltofacilitateevaluationand,ifnecessary,salvage.AtthePaleontologist’sdiscretionandtoreduceanyconstructiondelay,thegradingandexcavationcontractorshallassistinremovingrocksamplesforinitialprocessing.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Attimeofresourcediscovery,shoulditoccur
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Ifnounanticipateddiscoveriesarefoundandgradingoccurs within the older Quaternary Alluvium, compliancecertification report by qualified paleontologist; ifunanticipateddiscoveriesarefound,submittalofareportandmitigationplan(s)byaqualifiedpaleontologist.
MM‐PALEO‐3:Anyfossilsencounteredandrecoveredshallbepreparedtothepointofidentificationand catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any fossils collectedshall be donated to a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in thematerials, such as the Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County. Accompanyingnotes,maps,andphotographsshallalsobefiledattherepository.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning;
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Attimeofresourcerecovery,shouldresourcesbediscovered
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Ifnounanticipateddiscoveriesarefoundandgradingoccurs within the older Quaternary Alluvium, compliancecertification report by qualified paleontologist; ifunanticipateddiscoveriesarefound,submittalofareportbyaqualifiedpaleontologist.
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐7
MM‐PALEO‐4: Following the completion of the abovemeasures, the Paleontologist shall prepare areportsummarizingtheresultsofthemonitoringandsalvagingefforts,themethodologyusedintheseefforts,aswellasadescriptionofthefossilscollectedandtheirsignificance.The report shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the lead agency, theNaturalHistory Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate orconcerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and requiredmitigationmeasures.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Onceuponthecompletionofexcavation
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Ifnounanticipateddiscoveriesarefoundandgradingoccurs within the older Quaternary Alluvium, compliancecertification report by qualified paleontologist; ifunanticipated discoveries are found, submittal of a by aqualifiedpaleontologist
Historical Resources
Project Design Features
PDF‐HIST‐1:PalladiumPreservationandEnhancementPlan.TheApplicantshallcontributetothepreservationandenhancementofthePalladiumthroughimprovementstobeselectedatthe Applicant’s election, including from the following list of potential improvements,providedthattheproposedimprovementtobeimplementedmustbe(1)selectedbytheApplicantasapriority improvementandapprovedby its tenant for thePalladium, (2)approvedbytheDepartmentofCityPlanning’sOfficeofHistoricResources(“OHR”)and(3) in compliancewith the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, ascertified by a qualified historic preservation consultantwho shallmonitorwork underthePalladiumPreservationandEnhancementPlanforconformancewiththeStandards.
A. Timing. A draft Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan proposed by theApplicant shall be submitted to Hollywood Heritage and OHR no later than 30calendar days prior to any design review required from same and prior to theissuanceofbuildingpermitsfortheProject,andawhichwillincludeidentificationofcharacter‐defining featuresandthesignificanceofsuch features. A finalPlanshallbe approved by OHR prior to issuance of final certificates of occupancy for theProject.AttheApplicant’soption,earlierreviewbyOHRmayberequestedsuchasduring schematic design and design development. An Historic Structure ReportshallalsobepreparedinconjunctionwiththefinalPreservationandEnhancementPlan.
B. PotentialElements for Inclusion.The following includesa listofproposedpotentialimprovements to be considered for inclusionin the Palladium Preservation andEnhancementPlan.Thislistisbased,inpart,onsurveysofthePalladiumconductedby Historic Resources Group, which prepared the Project’s Historic ResourcesAssessment Report and conducted a prior historic review of the Palladium inconjunction with the Palladium’s 2008 rehabilitation. This list is also based onimprovementsrecommendedincommentlettersontheDraftEIR,aswellasneeded
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐8
functional improvements to thePalladium’soperations, toensurethat itremainsafirst‐class entertainment venue. Prior to construction of any improvements, theApplicant shall propose those improvements it determines to be priorityimprovementsandseektoobtaintheapprovalsreferencedinitems1,2and3ofthefirstparagraphabove.
– ImprovethePalladium’sexistingback‐stagespace,back‐of‐houseservice,andloadingoperations,whichdonotmeetcurrentperformanceandproductionneeds‐replacethe 2008 addition on the northern side of the Palladium, and potentially thepreviouslyaltered,originalextensioninthesamelocation,withsubterraneanand/oroverhead bridge connections to the new building on the north side. Additionally,relocate the existing outdoor truck loading area to a subterranean level; withsubterranean access from Argyle and Selma Avenues. These enhancements wouldprovide additional staging areas for the Palladium’s operations within the newbuilding; improve loading operations; eliminate any potential pedestrian‐vehicularconflictsonElCentroAvenue;andprovidesubstantiallymoreopenspaceontherearsideofthePalladiumforwalkingandgathering;
– Improve accessibility to, and utilization of, the Palladium’s existing southernstorefront spaces, better integrate the storefront spaceswith the proposedProject,and improve queuing – provide doors and potential window openings within thePalladium’swesternwalltoconnectpedestriansfromSunsetCourttothePalladium’sstorefronts;
– Prepare a design program for the Palladium’s existing southern storefront spaces.The nonstructural storefront partitions on the southern façade of the PalladiumbuildingwerealteredpriortothePalladium’s2008rehabilitationproject,andwerenotuniformorcharacter‐defining.The2008rehabilitation fundedbyCRAremovednon‐character‐defining features, reconstructed missing original features, and builtnew features such as storefronts that are compatible with the historic building.Similartotheintentandimplementationofthe2008rehabilitation,adesignprogramforthesestorefrontswouldwillincludeauniformsetofcomponentsthatprovidefora coherent design among the different storefront bays while allowing for layoutoptions that meet the needs of tenants, for instance allowing alterations of thelocationsandnumbersofdoors,windows,andmullions;
– Prepareahistoricallycompatiblesignageplan for thePalladium’sexistingsouthernstorefrontspaces,potentiallyincludingsuchelementsassigndimensionsandoptionsformaterials,construction,illumination,colors,andfinishes.Historicallytherehavebeen many different styles and types of tenant signage used on the building, andconsiderationwillbegiventohistoricsignagedesignprecedentsthataredocumentedin archival photographs of the Palladium when designing new signage for thestorefronts.Howeversignagemayormaynotbeneeded for theexistingstorefrontspaces;
– FlushopaqueentrancelobbydoorsonSunsetandArgyle‐Replacewithfullyglazeddoors that recall original design documented in the original Gordon Kaufmanndrawings;
– Ballroomceiling‐Repairandreplacetexturedacousticalplasterasneeded;
– Ballroomfloor‐Stripping,screening,varnishing,andwaxingona10yearcycle;
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐9
– Lobbyfinish,lighting,andrestoration‐Installcompatiblesconces,wallcovering,andcarpet;
– Public toilets – Remove and reinstall clean, durable multiple‐accommodationfacilities;
– Ballroomchandeliers‐Dustandwashglass;reducecorrosionandwaxmetalona10yearcycle;
– Woodroofframing‐Annualinspectionandlocaltreatmentbylicensedexterminator
– Metalflashings,fasciae,hardware‐Maintenanceoffinishesandoperatingpartsona10yearcycle;
– ExteriorWalls‐Maintenanceofpaintedsurfacesona10yearcycle;
– Neon and specialty signage and lighting ‐ Maintenance of ballasts, tubes, boxes,shields,facesona10yearcycle;
– HVACsystem‐Engineeringandreplacementofmajorcomponentsona15yearcycle;
– Roof‐Replacementona20yearcycle;
– Toilet fixtures, fittings,&accessories ‐Replacementofheavyuse toilet componentsona10yearcycle.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Office of HistoricResources
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Office of HistoricResources
MonitoringPhase: PreConstruction,Construction,Operations
MonitoringFrequency: Submittal of draft Plan prior to issuance of buildingpermits;approval of final Plan by OHR prior to issuance of finalcertificates of occupancy; periodic thereafter based on Plandetails
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Approval of Plan by OHR; Compliance report byhistoricconsultant/monitor
PDF‐HIST‐2:HistoricInterpretiveExhibit.AnHistoricInterpretiveExhibitshallbeincorporatedintotheProjectatkeylocationstoincreasegeneralpublicandpatronawarenessandappreciationof the history and significance of Hollywood and the Hollywood Palladium. The exhibit shallprovide informativevisualdisplaysand/ormedia thatmayaddresssuch topicsas: thebuilding’sarchitectural style andarchitect; identificationofotherhistoricalbuildings in theProjectvicinityandtheirrelationshiptothePalladium;useoftheProjectSitepriortoconstructionofthePalladiumandthehistoricHollywoodcontext;andthelayersofhistoryatthesite:agriculture,motionpictureindustry,musicalrecording,liveentertainment,radio,andtelevision.Thedisplayshallbedesignedand implemented pursuant to input from Hollywood stakeholders. The Historic InterpretiveExhibitmaybelocatedwithinthePalladiumbuildingitself,orasanoutdoorinterpretiveprogramreviewedandapprovedbytheOfficeofHistoricResources. TheHistoricInterpretiveExhibitwillnotbehousedinseparatenewconstructionappendedtotheexteriorofthePalladiumbuilding.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐10
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: Construction,Operations
MonitoringFrequency: Onceduringconstruction for consistencywith thePDF;Onceduringoperations
ActionIndicatingCompliance: CompliancereportbyApplicant
Mitigation Measures
NomitigationmeasuresarerequiredforHistoricalResources.
Geology
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareProposedforGeology.
Mitigation Measures
MM‐GS‐1: Priorto issuanceofagradingpermit,aqualifiedgeotechnicalengineershallprepareandsubmittotheDepartmentofBuildingandSafetyafinalgeotechnicalreportthatprovidesrecommendations forseismicsafetyanddesignrequirements for foundations,retainingwalls/shoringandexcavationtomeetapplicableStateandCityregulatoryrequirements.AqualifiedgeotechnicalengineershallberetainedbytheApplicanttobepresentontheProjectSiteduringexcavation,grading,andgeneralsitepreparationactivitiestomonitorthe implementation of the recommendations specified in theGeology and SoilsReport,finalgeotechnicalreport,andanyothersubsequentGeologyandSoilsReportspreparedfortheProject,subjecttoCityreviewandapproval.Whenandifneeded,thegeotechnicalengineer shall provide structure‐specific geologic and geotechnical recommendationswhichshallbedocumented inareporttobeapprovedbytheCityandappendedtotheProject’spreviousGeologyandSoilsReports.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐ConstructionandConstruction
MonitoringFrequency: Once, prior to issuance of grading permit; Periodic fieldinspectionsduringconstruction
Action IndicatingCompliance: Issuance of grading permits; Field inspection sign‐off;GeotechnicalEngineerssitevisitreportsasneeded
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Design Features
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipmentthatmeetorexceedtheCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐road
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐11
emissions standards for thoseequipment ratedat50hpor greaterduring the grading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProject construction.Polepower(electricitydeliveredfromtheutilitygrid)shallbetheprimarysourceofpowerforusewithon‐siteelectrictools,equipment,lighting,etc.,exceptwhere/wheninfeasibleduetositeconstraints;dieselgenerators,ifneeded,shallberatedbetween75horsepower(hp)and750hpandmeetorexceedapplicableTier4standards.Totaldieselgeneratorusageduring construction shall not exceed 312,000 horsepower‐hours. Cranes and concretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucksthatmeetorexceedthemodelyear2010emissionstandardsTheserequirementsshallbeincludedinapplicablebiddocumentsandsuccessfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment.Acopyofeachunit’scertifiedtierspecificationormodelyearspecificationandCARBorSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
EnforcementAgency: SCAQMD;LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspectionsduringconstruction
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Fieldinspectionsign‐off
PDF‐GHG‐2: GreenBuildingMeasures:TheProjectwouldbedesignedandoperatedtomeetorexceed the applicable requirements of the State of CaliforniaGreenBuilding StandardsCode and the City of Los Angeles Green Building Code andmeet the standards of theUnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC)Leadership inEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign® (LEED®) Silver Certification level or its equivalent. Greenbuildingmeasureswouldincludebutarenotlimitedtothefollowing:
The Project would implement a construction waste management plan to recycleand/or salvage a minimum of 70 percent of nonhazardous construction debris orminimize the generation of construction waste to 2.5 pounds per square foot ofbuildingfloorarea.(LEED®MaterialsandResourcesCredit5[v4]);
Treesandotherlandscaping(approximately53,600squarefeetor35percentoftheSitearea)wouldprovideshadingandcapturecarbondioxideemissions;
Roof‐top Terraces would include approximately 37,300 square feet of landscapedarea. The remaining roof‐top areaswoulduse high‐albedo/reflective roofs such aslight‐colored,build‐up“white”roofstoreduceenergyloadsandtheurbanheat‐islandeffect;
TheProjectwouldbedesignedtooptimizeenergyperformanceandreducebuildingenergy cost by 10 percent for new construction compared to the Title 24 BuildingStandardsCode.(LEED®EnergyandAtmosphereCredit2[v4]);
TheProjectwouldbedesignedtooptimizeenergyperformanceandreducebuildingenergy cost by installing energy efficient appliances thatmeet the USEPA ENERGYSTARratingstandardsorequivalent;
TheProjectwould includedouble‐panedwindows tokeepheatoutduring summermonthsandkeepheatinsideduringwintermonths;
TheProjectwouldincludelightingcontrolswithoccupancysensorstotakeadvantageofavailablenaturallight;
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐12
Theparkingstructurewouldbedesignedwithoccupancy‐sensorcontrolled lightingthat would place lighting fixtures in a low power state in unoccupied zones. AdemonstrationprojectbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergyindicatedthattheuse of occupancy‐sensor controlled lighting achieved a reduction of 50 percent ormoreinlightingenergyusecomparedtoasimilarlylightedparkingstructurewithoutoccupancy‐sensorcontrols.Forthepurposesofthisassessment,compliancewiththisfeatureisassumedtoachieveaminimum50percentreductionintheenergyrequiredforparkingstructurelighting;
The Project would reduce overall potable water use by a minimum of 30 percentcompared to baseline water consumption as defined by LEED® Water EfficiencyPrerequisite 2 [v4] by installing water fixtures that exceed applicable standards,weather‐based irrigation controllers, drip/subsurface irrigation, use of droughttolerant/Californianativeplants,andcollectionofstormwaterforuseinlandscaping.(LEED®WaterEfficiencyCredit2[v4]);
TheProjectwouldprovideon‐siterecyclingareas,consistentwithCityofLosAngelesstrategiesandordinances,with thegoalofachieving70percentwastediversionby2020,and90percentby2025;
The Project would utilize low VOC paint during building construction for allresidentialandnon‐residentialinteriorcoating;
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Operation
MonitoringFrequency: Onceatplancheckpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermit;Onceafteroperation
Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of Building Permit (Pre‐construction);Compliancecertificationreport(Operation)
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforGreenhouseGasEmissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforHazardsandHazardousMaterials.
Mitigation Measures
MM‐HAZ‐1: Priortoissuanceofabuildingpermit,theApplicantshallinvestigatethepurposeoftheon‐sitegroundwatermonitoringwellstodeterminewhethertheyarestillnecessary.Ifitisdeterminedthatthewellsarenotassociatedwithanyongoinginvestigation,theyshallbe properly abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines. In
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐13
addition,theUSTsshallberemovedpursuanttothepreviousLAFDreviewandclosureletter.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety;LAFD;RWQCB
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety: LAFD
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Onceatonsetofbuildingactivities
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Compliancereport
MM‐HAZ‐2:PriortoenhancementactivitiesinvolvinganyalterationstothePalladiuminareaswhereasbestoscouldbefound,theApplicantshallsubmitverificationtotheCityofLosAngelesDepartment of Building and Safety that an asbestos survey for the proposed area ofalteration has been conducted. If asbestos is found, the Applicant shall follow allproceduralrequirementsandregulationsoftheSCAQMDRule1403.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety;SCAQMD
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐Construction;Constructionifasbestosiffound
MonitoringFrequency: Onceprior toPalladiumbuildingalterations;on‐goingduringalterationsifasbestosisfound
ActionIndicatingCompliance: CompliancereportbyProjectcontractor
MM‐HAZ‐3: PriortoenhancementactivitiesinvolvinganyalterationstothePalladium,theApplicantshallsubmitverificationtotheCityofLosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafetythatalead‐basedpaintsurveyfortheproposedareaofalterationhasbeenconducted.Iflead‐based paint is found for the proposed area of alteration, the Applicant shall follow allproceduralrequirementsandregulationsforitsproperremovalanddisposal.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks;CalEPA
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction; Constructionifleadbasedpaintispresent
MonitoringFrequency: Onceprior toPalladiumbuildingalterations;on‐goingduringalterationsiflead‐basedpaintisfound
ActionIndicatingCompliance: CompliancereportbyProjectcontractor
MM‐HAZ‐4:Fluorescentlightballastandotherproductlabelsforexistingbuildingfeaturesthatmightbe altered during restoration activities for the Palladium shall be inspected prior todemolition.Ifthelabelsdonotincludethestatement“NoPCBs”,theproduct(s)shallbeproperly removed by a licensed PCB removal contractor and disposed of as PCB‐containingwastepriortodemolition.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety;CalEPA
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspectionsduringalterationactivities
ActionIndicatingCompliance: CompliancereportbyProjectcontractor
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐14
Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforHydrologyandWaterQuality.
Mitigation Measures
NomitigationmeasuresarerequiredforHydrologyandWaterQuality.
Land Use and Planning
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforLandUseandPlanning.
PDF‐Land Use‐1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for above grade construction for theProject,theApplicantshalleither(1)recordacovenanttotietheProjectSite’stwolots;or (2)recordaphaseofanapproved tractmap for theProjectwhichmerges theSite’stwolotsintoonemastergroundlot.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: PreConstruction
MonitoringFrequency: Onepriortoissuanceofabuildingpermit
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Reviewandsign‐offbytheDepartmentofCityPlanning.
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforLandUseandplanning.
Noise
Project Design Features
PDF‐NOISE‐1:EquipmentControl:TheProjectcontractor(s)shallequipallconstructionequipment,fixedormobile,withproperlyoperatingandmaintainednoisemufflers,consistentwithmanufacturers’standards.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: PeriodicFieldInspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance:FieldInspectionSign‐offwithincompliancereport
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐15
PDF‐NOISE‐2: Vibration Control: As a precaution to avoid or minimize potential constructionvibration damage, monitoring shall occur during excavation activities and duringplacement of foundation structures within 20 feet of the original Palladium building.Construction activitieswithin this area shall utilize lower vibratory equipment optionswhentheyareavailable.Intheeventdamageoccurs,themonitorshallbeauthorizedtohaltconstructionactivitiesuntilsuchactivitiesareadjustedtoavoidorminimizedamagetotheBuilding.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Daily observation during excavation/foundationworkwithin20feetoftheoriginalPalladiumbuilding
ActionIndicatingCompliance:FieldInspectionSign‐offwithincompliancereport
PDF‐NOISE‐3: Control of Amplified Sound: The sound levels of amplified sound equipment inground level open space areas shall be adjusted during Project operations to avoidexceedingthefollowinglimitsattheProjectpropertylines: ForthepropertylinealongArgyleAvenue–66dBA;forthepropertylinealongSunsetBoulevard–71dBA;fortheproperty line along El CentroAvenue – 66 dBA; and for the property line along SelmaAvenueProperties–62dBA.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: Operations
MonitoringFrequency: AnnuallyforfirstthreeyearsofProjectoperations
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Fieldinspectionreport
Mitigation Measures
MM‐NOISE‐1:Temporaryconstructionnoisebarriersshallbeimplementedasfollows:
TheProjectshallensuretheprovisionofa5dBAnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectconstruction and the existing residential development on the northwest corner ofSelma Avenue and Argyle Avenue (existing buildings between the residentialdevelopmentandtheProjectatthetimeofconstructionmaycontributetothesoundattenuation).;andan8dBA,16foothighnoisebarrierbetweentheProjectandtheLeBonHotel(allowingforagatethatmaybeopenedfromtimetotimeforSiteentry).
IfthefollowingrelatedprojectsadjacenttotheProjectSite(i.e.atColumbiaSquare,theSelmaandVineproject,theBLVD6200projectsouthofHollywoodBoulevard,or6250 Sunset project) are occupied by new residents at the time of Projectconstruction, then temporary noise barriers shall be provided between the Projectconstruction and those occupied units. Based on the exceedance of the thresholdsnoted in the above analysis (given the distance from the Project Site and existingsoundlevelsattherespectivelocations),thebarriersshallprovideasoundreductionof5dBAbetweentheProjectSiteandthe6250Sunsetproject,andapproximately10dBAbetweentheProjectandtheremainingfutureprojects.
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐16
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyProjectcontractor
MM‐NOISE‐2:Engineidlingfromconstructionequipmentsuchasbulldozersandhaultrucksshallbelimited,totheextentfeasible.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyProjectcontractor
Population, Housing and Employment
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforPopulation,HousingandEmployment.
Mitigation Measures
NomitigationmeasuresarerequiredforPopulation,HousingandEmployment.
Public Services‐
Fire Protection
Project Design Features
PDF‐FIRE‐1:FireandEmergencyServiceProvisions:ThefollowingVoluntaryFireandEmergencyMedicalMeasuresshallbeprovidedforthelongtermoperationsoftheProject.
OwnersuppliedAED’s(defibrillators)onselectedfloorstobeusedbyon‐sitesecurityasnecessary. SecuritypersonneltobefullytrainedontheuseandoperationoftheAED’s;
TrainingontheAED’sfortenantfloorwardensandothers;tenantstobeencouragedtopurchasetheirownAED’s;
CERT/firstaidtrainingforallfloorwardensandothers;
CERT/firstaidtrainingmadeavailableandencouragedforallbuildingoccupants,ifitcanbeaccessedon‐line;
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐17
JointtrainingsforLAFDpersonnelandbuildingpersonnelsite
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesFireDepartment
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesFireDepartment
MonitoringPhase: Operations
MonitoringFrequency: AnnuallyforfirstthreeyearsofProjectoperations
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Fieldinspectionreport
Mitigation Measures
MM‐FIRE‐1:Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit,theApplicantshallhaveadditionalconsultationwiththeLAFDandshallincorporateallfirepreventionandsuppressionfeaturesdeemedappropriatebyLAFDtothefinaldesignoftheProject.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesFireDepartment
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Fire Department; Los Angeles Department ofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once,priortoissuanceofabuildingpermit
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Approval of the plot plan by the Los Angeles FireDepartmentandDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MM‐FIRE‐2: Priortothe issuanceofbuildingpermits,Projectbuildingplans includingaplotplanandfloorplanofthebuildingsshallbesubmittedforapprovalbytheLAFDforreviewofall regulatory measures. The plot plan shall include the following minimum designfeatures: locationandgradeofaccessroadsandfirelanes,roadwaywidths,distanceofbuildingsfromanedgeofaroadwayofanimprovedstreet,accessroad,ordesignatedfirelane,turningareas,andfirehydrants.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesFireDepartment
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Fire Department; Los Angeles Department ofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once,priortoissuanceofabuildingpermit
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Approval of the plot plan by the Los Angeles FireDepartmentandDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
Police Protection
Project Design Features
PDF‐POL‐1: ProjectSecurityFeatures:TheProject'ssecurityshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,thefollowingdesignfeatures:
Installingandutilizinganextensivesecuritycameranetwork,withapproximately40‐50 cameras throughout the underground and above‐grade parking structure; the
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐18
elevators; the common and amenity spaces; the lobby areas; and the rooftop andgroundleveloutdooropenspaces.
Maintaining all security camera footage for at least 30 days, and providing suchfootagetoLAPDasneeded.
Maintainingapproximately30‐40staffonsite, includingatthelobbyconciergedeskandwithinthecarvaletareas.DesignatedstafferswillbededicatedtomonitoringtheProject's security cameras and directing staff to locations where any suspiciousactivityisviewed.
Requiringbackgroundchecksofallresidents,bothpriortoenteringintoanewleaseattheProject,andpriortorenewalofthatlease.
Controlling access to all building elevators, residences, and resident‐only commonareasthroughanelectronickeyfobspecifictoeachuser.
TrainingstaffonsoundsecuritypoliciesfortheProject'sbuildings.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesPoliceDepartment
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesPoliceDepartment
MonitoringPhase: Operations
MonitoringFrequency: AnnuallyforfirstthreeyearsofProjectoperations
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Fieldinspectionreport
PDF‐POL‐2: Site Uses: No nightclub shall be included in the Project, except that the HollywoodPalladiumispermittedtocontinueitscurrentoperationsasaneventandconcertvenue.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction
MonitoringFrequency: OnceatProjectapproval
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Certificateofoccupancy
Mitigation Measures
MM‐POL‐1: Prior to theoccupancyof theProject, theApplicant shall provide theHollywoodAreaCommanding Officer with a diagram of each portion of the property, including accessroutes,andadditionalinformationtofacilitatepotentialLAPDresponses.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesPoliceDepartment
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Police Department; Los Angeles Department ofbuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once,priortocertificateofoccupancy
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Sign‐off on LAPD reviewed diagrams; Certificate ofoccupancy
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐19
Schools
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforschools.
Mitigation Measures
MM‐ SCH‐1: The Project shall pay required school mitigation fees pursuant to Government CodeSection65995andincompliancewithSB50(paymentofdeveloperfees).
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety;LAUSD
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety;LAUSD
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐Construction
MonitoringFrequency: OnceatPlanCheck
ActionIndicatingCompliance: ReceiptofpaymentfromLAUSD
Libraries
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforlibraries.
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforLibraries.
Parks and Recreation
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforParksandRecreation.
Mitigation Measures
MM‐PRK‐1: In the event that the Project’s amenities do not provide sufficient credit against theProject’s land dedication and/or in lieu fee requirement, the Project applicant shall dooneormoreofthefollowing:(1)dedicateadditionalparklandtomeettherequirementsofLAMCSection17.12;(2)payin‐lieufeesforanylanddedicationrequirementshortfall;or(3)provideon‐siteimprovementsequivalentinvaluetosaidin‐lieufees.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks;LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks;LosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐operations
MonitoringFrequency: Oncepriortocertificationofoccupancy
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Certificateofoccupancy
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐20
Transportation and Circulation
Project Design Features
PDF‐TRAF‐1: A reciprocal easement agreement, or similar legalmechanism, shall be executed andrecorded prior to issuance of final certificates of occupancy for the Project providingaccessforthePalladiumlotlocatedat6221SunsetBoulevardacrosstheadjacentlot(s).
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning;
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once,priortoissuanceofcertificateofoccupancy
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Completionofagreementperreviewforcertificateofoccupancy
Mitigation Measures
MM‐TRAF‐1: Off‐site truck staging shall be provided in a legal area furnished by the constructiontruckcontractor. TrucksmayuseaccesspointsalongSelmaAvenue,ElCentroAvenue,ArgyleAvenueandSunsetBoulevardasneeded.Trucksshallnotbepermittedtotravelalonglocalresidentialstreets.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation;
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Fieldinspectionsign‐offandcompliancecertificationreportsubmittedbyprojectcontractor
MM‐TRAF‐2: A flagmanshallbeplacedat the truckentryandexit fromtheProjectsiteontoSelmaAvenuetocontroltheflowofexitingtrucks.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation;
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyprojectcontractor
MM‐TRAF‐3: Deliveries andpick‐upsof constructionmaterials shall be scheduledduringnon‐peaktravelperiodsandcoordinatedtoreducethepotentialoftruckswaitingtoloadorunloadforprotractedperiodsoftime.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation;
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐21
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyProjectcontractor
MM‐TRAF‐4: Accessshallremainunobstructed for landuses inproximity to theProjectsiteduringProjectconstruction.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation;
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Periodicfieldinspections
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyProjectcontractor
MM‐TRAF‐5: Permanent lane or sidewalk closures are not anticipated for the Project long‐termoperations.Temporarylaneorsidewalkclosures,whenneededforconstruction,shallbescheduledtoavoidpeakcommutehoursandpeakschooldrop‐offandpick‐uphourstotheextentpossible.Intheeventoffull‐timelaneorsidewalkclosuresforconstruction,aworksitetrafficcontrolplan,approvedbytheCityofLosAngeles,shallbeimplementedtosafelyroutetrafficorpedestriansaroundanysuchlaneorsidewalkclosures.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once at time needed for closure is identified; Periodic fieldinspectionsduringclosure
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Field inspection sign‐off; Compliance certificationreportsubmittedbyProjectcontractor
MM‐TRAF‐6:AConstructionManagementPlanshallbedevelopedbythecontractorandapprovedbythe City of Los Angeles. In addition to the measures identified above, a ConstructionManagementPlanshallincludethefollowing:
Identifythelocationsoftheoff‐sitetruckstaginganddetailmeasurestoensurethattrucks use the specified haul route, and do not travel through nearby residentialneighborhoods.
Schedulevehiclemovementstoensurethattherearenovehicleswaitingoff‐siteandimpedingpublictrafficflowonthesurroundingstreets.
Establishrequirementsforloading/unloadingandstorageofmaterialsontheProjectsite.
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐22
Establishrequirementsforthetemporaryremovalofparkingspaces,timelimitsforthereductionoftravellanesandclosingordiversionofpedestrianfacilitiestoensurethesafetyofpedestrianandaccesstolocalbusinesses.
CoordinatewiththeCityandemergencyserviceproviderstoensureadequateaccessismaintainedtotheProjectsiteandneighboringbusinesses.
During construction activities when construction worker parking cannot beaccommodated on the Project site, a Construction Worker Parking Plan shall bepreparedwhichidentifiesalternateparkinglocation(s)forconstructionworkersandthemethodoftransportationtoandfromtheProjectsite(ifbeyondwalkingdistance)for approval by the City. The Construction Worker Parking Plan shall prohibitconstruction worker parking on residential streets and prohibit on‐street parking,exceptasapprovedbytheCity.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation
MonitoringAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Once prior to issuance of Building Permit; Periodic fieldinspectionsduringconstruction
ActionIndicatingCompliancewithMitigationFeature: Approval of ConstructionTrafficManagementPlanfromtheLosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation prior to issuance of Building Permit (Pre‐construction); compliance certification report submitted byProjectcontractor(Construction)
MM‐TRAF‐7: TheProjectshallimplementthefollowingphysicalroadwayimprovementsthatcanbeprovidedwithinexistingroadwaywidthswithoutrequiringremovalofparkingspaces:
Intersection2,CahuengaBoulevard&FranklinAvenue.Modifythesignalequipmentandoperationtoallowasouthboundprotectedleft‐turnmovementwithawestboundright‐turn overlap. This improvement will require the southbound U‐turns at theintersectiontoberestricted.
Intersection 23, Gower Street & Franklin Avenue. Coordinate with the ColumbiaSquareprojectandLADOTtoarrangeforapotentialfairsharecontributiontowardstheimplementationofanimprovementproposedbytheColumbiaSquareprojectthatwould upgrade the traffic signal equipment to allow for northbound right‐turnoverlap.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Department ofPublicWorks
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Department ofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Onceatplanapproval;on‐goingduringconstruction
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Sign‐off on road construction plans; Sign‐off oncompletedconstructionwork
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐23
MM‐TRAF‐87:TheProjectshallupgradetrafficsignalcontrollersfromaType170toaType2070atthefollowingsevenintersectionswithintheProjectstudyarea:
YuccaStreetandWilcoxAvenue.
SelmaAvenueandWilcoxAvenue
DeLongpreAvenueandWilcoxAvenue
ColeAvenueandFountainAvenue
CahuengaAvenueandFountainAvenue
ElCentroAvenueandFountainAvenue
FountainAvenueandGowerStreet
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Department ofPublicWorks
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Department ofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Construction
MonitoringFrequency: Onceatplanapproval;on‐goingduringconstruction
ActionIndicatingCompliance: Sign‐off on road construction plans; Sign‐off oncompletedconstructionwork
MM‐TRAF‐98:TheProjectshallimplementatraveldemandmanagement(TDM)program,consistentwith the recommendations of LADOT. The exactmeasures to be implementedwill bedeterminedwhentheplanisprepared,priortoissuanceofafinalcertificateofoccupancyfor the Project. The TDM program shall ensure appropriate implementation of theProject’s sidewalks/plazas, street trees/landscaping, street and pedestrian amenities,lightingandbicycleprovisionstoencouragealternativemodesoftransportation.Itshallalsoincludeotherfeaturesasappropriate,suchas,forexample,unbundledparking,(i.e.separatingthecostofpurchasingorrentingparkingspacesfromthecostofpurchasingorrentingadwellingunit);rideshareprograms,(whichcouldincludetheprovisionofanon‐sitetransitandrideshareinformationcenterthatprovidesassistancetohelppeopleformcarpools or access transit alternatives, and/or priority parking for carpools); and/or atransit pass discount program, (that typically includes negotiating with transit serviceproviderstopurchasetransitpassesinbulkatadiscountedratewithresaletointerestedresidents or employees at discounted prices), identification of an on‐site TDMcoordinator, making information available to residents and employees regardingalternativetransportationoptions,monitoringandsurveyingrequirements,aguaranteedride home program, participation in the LADOT Mobility Hubs program (which couldinclude secure bike parking, bike‐share kiosks, car‐share parking spaces and services,and/or electric scooter‐share), contributing a one‐time fixed‐fee of $100,000 to bedeposited into theCity’sBicycleTrust fund to implementbicycle improvementswithinthe area of the Project, and/or participation in the Hollywood TransportationManagementOrganization(TMO)tobecreatedbyothermajoremployersinHollywoodwithinthenextfewyears.TheProjectisalsoprovidingamplebicycleparkingandon‐sitebicyclerepairfacilitiesincompliancewithLosAngelesCityMunicipalCoderequirements.
EnforcementAgency: LosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐24
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐Operation;Operation
MonitoringFrequency: Once prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy;Annuallyduringfirstthreeyearsofoperations
ActionIndicatingCompliance: LADOT approval of Traffic TDM program; Annualconsistencyreview
MM‐TRAF‐10: The Project shall fund and coordinate implementation of a Traffic Calming Plan toreduceProjectimpactsonElCentroAvenuebetweenSantaMonicaBoulevardandSunsetAvenue. The Plan shall be approved by LADOT and include community consultationcoordinated through the Council Office on the final selection of calming measuresincluded. It shall include such physical measures as changes in street alignment,installation of barriers, speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, chicanes, andchokers, and/or operational measures such as turn restrictions, speed limits, andinstallationofstopsigns.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of Transportation; Los AngelesDepartmentofPublicWorks
MonitoringPhase: Constructionandoperations
MonitoringFrequency: Once for plan approval; Periodic during construction ofcalmingmeasures
ActionIndicatingCompliance: LADOTapprovalofTrafficCalmingPlan;ComplianceapprovalbyLADOT
Utilites and Service Systesm
Water Supply
Project Design Features
PDF‐WS‐1,WaterConservationFeatures: The Project shall provide a reduction in overall use ofpotablewaterby30percent,fromthatallowedundertheCaliforniaBuildingCode(CBC)perCityOrdinanceNo.181,480. Further, it shall include towardsmeeting thisend thefollowingwatersavingfeatures:
Showerheads–nomorethanoneshowerheadperstallatcommonresidential,hotel,fitnessandcommercialuses;
HighEfficiencyClothesWashers(Commercial/Residential);
IndividualMeteringorSubmeteringforwateruseatseparatecommercialuses;
Water‐SavingPoolFilter;
LeakDetectionSystemforswimmingpoolandJacuzzi;
Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers or Cooling Tower pH ConductivityControllers;
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐25
WeatherBasedIrrigationController;
DroughtTolerantPlants(asfeasibleatlandscaping);
California native plants ‐ minimum 30% of total landscaping at ground levelcourtyards;
Drip/subsurfaceirrigation(micro‐irrigation);
Hydro‐zoning(groupplantswithsimilarwaterrequirements);
Zonedirrigation;
Separatemeteringorsubmeteringforexteriorlandscapingwateruse;
Buildingcommissioningtoensuresystemsareoperatingasdesigned;
WeatherBasedIrrigationController;
RainwaterHarvesting;and
LandscapingContouringtominimizeprecipitationrunoff.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning (approval ofmeasures and performance standards); Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety(Operation)
MonitoringPhase: Construction;Operation
MonitoringFrequency: Once prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy;Annuallyduringfirstthreeyearsofoperation
Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of final certificate of occupancy; Annualcompliancecertificationreport(Operation)
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforWaterSupply.
Wastewater
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforWastewater.
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforWastewater
Solid Waste
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforSolidWaste.
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐26
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforSolidWaste.
Electricity Service
Project Design Features
PDF‐ELEC‐1: Green BuildingMeasures: The Project shall be designed and operated to meet orexceed the applicable requirements of the State of CaliforniaGreenBuilding StandardsCode and the City of Los Angeles Green Building Code andmeet the standards of theUSGBCLEED®SilverCertificationleveloritsequivalent.Greenbuildingmeasureswouldinclude,butarenotlimitedtothefollowing:
Overall building efficiencywould exceed Title 24 (2013) Building Envelope EnergyEfficiencyStandardsby10percent;
Useofglass/windowareasforventilationanddaylightaccessibility;
Landscapingofroofdecks;
Roof top areas would be energy efficient, including landscaped terraces at somelocations,with theremainingroof‐topareasusinghigh‐albedo/reflective roofssuchas light‐colored, build‐up “white” roofs to reduce energy loads and enhance airquality;
Treesandother landscaping(approximately53,600sq.ft. , inclusiveof thepoolandrooftop terraces,or35percentof theSitearea,wouldprovideshadingandcapturecarbondioxideemissions;
Installationofenergy‐efficientappliances(EnergyStar™);
Glass/windowareasforventilationanddaylightaccessibility;
Double‐panedwindowstokeepheatoutduringsummermonthsandkeepheatinsideduringwintermonths;
Lightingcontrolswithoccupancysensorstotakeadvantageofavailablenaturallight;and
Elevator TV monitors with programming that would provide residents real‐timeupdatesonenergyusageinthebuildingandtipsonhowtheycanconserveenergy.
Occupancy‐sensorcontrolledlightingintheparkingstructure.
EnforcementAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringAgency: Los Angeles Department of City Planning; Los AngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety
MonitoringPhase: Pre‐construction;Operation
MonitoringFrequency: Annuallyduringfirstthreeyearsofoperation
ActionIndicatingCompliance:Annualcompliancecertificationreport(Operation)
November 2015 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐27
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforElectricityServices
Natural Gas
Project Design Features
NoProjectDesignFeaturesareproposedforNaturalGas.
Mitigation Measures
NoMitigationMeasuresarerequiredforNaturalGas.
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 4‐28
Thispageintentionallyblank.
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022
APPENDICES
ListofAppendices
AppendixA:HistoricResourcesCorrespondence
A‐1.CorrespondencefromtheCaliforniaOfficeofHistoricPreservationandCEQACaseStudy
AppendixB:AirQualitySupplementaryAnalyses,UpdatetoDraftEIRAppendixB
B‐1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse GasMitigationMeasures(SelectedPages)
B‐2.HealthRiskAssessmentReport
B‐3.DispersionModelingforLocalizedSignificanceThresholds
AppendixC:NoiseAddendum,UpdatetoDraftEIRAppendixH
C‐1.CalculationSheetforConstructionNoiseattheLeBonHotel
C‐2.CorrectedversionofAppendixH‐1.3.
C‐3.AdditionalinputdataforTrafficNoiseanalysisinDraftEIRAppendixH‐1.5
AppendixD:DesignatedLocalAuthorityCorrespondence
D‐1. PalladiumResidences: Request to Initiate an Owner Participation Agreement to Allow For aDevelopmentGreaterThan4.5:1intheHollywoodRedevelopmentProjectArea
D‐2. Letter from CRA/LA regarding Floor Area Ratio – Regional Center Commercial DesignationHollywoodRedevelopmentProjectArea
appendices November 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022
Thispageintentionallyblank.
Appendix A: Historic Resources Correspondence
A‐1. Correspondence from the California Office of Historic Preservation and CEQA Case Study
From: deCourcy, Sean@Parks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:27 PM To: Bryan Fahrbach <[email protected]> Cc: Paul Travis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Palladium Residences Letter Bryan, I wanted to let you know, we used the Palladium project environmental process as one of our recent CEQA Casestudy articles. While we don’t call out the project by name, we appreciated the way the Lead Agency incorporated OHP’s comments into the final environmental document and wanted to share this example with other Lead Agencies. Sincerely, Sean de Courcy State Historian II Local Government & Environmental Compliance Unit California Office of Historic Preservation (916) 445-7042 (916) 445-7053 fax [email protected] From: deCourcy, Sean@Parks Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:31 AM To: 'Bryan Fahrbach' Cc: Paul Travis Subject: RE: Palladium Residences Letter Bryan, Thank you very much for considering our comments as part of the environmental review process for the Palladium Project. Sean de Courcy State Historian II Local Government & Environmental Compliance Unit California Office of Historic Preservation (916) 445-7042 (916) 445-7053 fax [email protected] From: Bryan Fahrbach [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:48 AM To: deCourcy, Sean@Parks Cc: Paul Travis Subject: Palladium Residences Letter Dear Mr. deCourcy,
Attached please find a letter regarding the Palladium Residences Project Draft EIR. A hard copy is being sent to you by mail. Best regards, Bryan Fahrbach
Infill development is generally considered good land
use planning. Dense walkable communities with a vari-ety of housing options encourage people to live closer to their jobs, which can reduce their vehicle miles trav-eled. Urban infill can lower overall energy consump-tion for a city. When done effectively, infill develop-ment can help build stronger, more stable communities. Historic resources should be considered and incorpo-rated into infill development planning for the health and benefit of the community. In this CEQA Case Study, an applicant proposed to build two 28-story residential towers and a 3-level park-ing garage adjacent to a single story historic commercial building in southern California. The neighborhood traditionally consisted of low-rise commercial buildings, but the community’s General Plan identified the area as a future high-density, mixed-use zone. The applicant proposed to mitigate any impacts to the historic build-ing’s integrity by restoring a few finishes in the build-ing’s lobby. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project found the towers would have no impact on the historic building’s integri-ty. Historic integrity is defined by National Register Bulle-tin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evalua-tion, as containing seven aspects: location, design, set-ting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The environmental document did not focus on impacts to the historic building’s integrity of setting (physical environment) and feeling (sense of a particular period of time). If significant impacts to elements of a build-ing’s historic integrity result from infill development, it is important to acknowledge the impacts and work with the applicant to ensure as much of the building’s histor-ic integrity is preserved as possible. After receiving comments to this effect, the Final EIR
included a historic rehabilitation treatment plan as mitiga-tion for impacts to other elements of the building’s historic integrity. The project proponent agreed that the complete restoration would comply with the Secretary of the Interi-or’s Standards for Rehabilitation and they would work with a restoration architect to ensure any unforeseen conditions were approached thoughtfully. The Final EIR maintained that the impact to the historic building was therefore less than significant because the final proposal ensured five as-pects of the building’s historic integrity would remain intact despite some impact to the buildings historic setting and feeling. Given the project objectives of 1) increased density and 2) preservation/continued use of the historic building, this approach seems like reasonable means for ensuring impacts to the building are less than significant. Local government planners and preservation advocates should work with project proponents through the local preservation review process, and/or the CEQA process to incorporate historic resources into infill development de-sign. The collaborative approach, exemplified by this Case Study, has the potential to inspire more sustainable infill design when historic resources are involved.
Infill Development Projects:
Understanding Impacts to Historical
Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation
CEQA Case Studies
JUNE 2015 VOLUME IV
The California Office of Historic Preservation
comments on CEQA documents as an authority on
historic and cultural resources. This publication uses
case—studies taken from environmental documents
produced in California to help environmental analysts
and lead agencies understand historical and cultural
resource identification and evaluation.
This is not an official policy document, but the
examples included can help professionals and decision
makers understand historic and cultural resource
evaluation as an integral element in successful
completion of the CEQA process.
specific project, but one was not. When making a request for comments from OHP in such a circumstance, OHP should still be given at least two weeks prior to any final action on the project in question to respond. A shorter time frame will general-ly not provide OHP with sufficient time in which to do so. To the extent possible, the same information as described above should be provided.
OHP recognizes that there may be times when no CEQA document is prepared and it is not possible to provide OHP with sufficient information on which to act prior to a lead agency’s final action on a project. In such circumstances, and subject to OHP commenting criteria listed below, OHP may request that the lead agency provide additional time in which OHP may provide further comments. The closer the request is made to anticipated final action by a lead agency, though, the less likely it is
Requests for OHP comments from local agencies and concerned local citizens should be made at least two weeks prior to the end of the comment period for the CEQA document prepared for the project in question. Requests made any closer to the end of the comment period will gener-ally not provide OHP with sufficient time to respond to the request. Requests must be made in writing (e-mail, fax, or mail) and should include as much information as possible about the project (name, location, and project description); historical re-sources information (name of property, location, property description and signifi-cance); lead agency information (contact person, contact information, other in-volved agencies); and CEQA process (document type, comment period).
OHP is occasionally contacted by mem-bers of the public who feel that a CEQA document should have been prepared for a
that OHP will take any action.
OHP is also occasionally contacted by members of the public for advice and assis-tance with general CEQA questions not related to a specific project. OHP will attempt to respond to all written requests for advice and assistance with general CEQA questions within a timely manner. All requests should include the name and affiliation of the person making the request and contact information, including phone number, fax number, and email address. Please allow at least two weeks for OHP to respond.
Requesting CEQA Comments from OHP
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) may choose to comment on the CEQA
compliance process for specific local government projects. OHP has commented on
CEQA documents and advised lead agencies since the 1970s. However, it was not
until the adoption of the California Register of Historical Resources regulations in
1992 and the 1998 amendments to CEQA that defined historical resources, that OHP
initiated a specific CEQA program. Because OHP has no formal authority of local
government agencies in California, this program is approached in a more informal
manner than our commenting responsibilities under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act or comments on state projects under Public Resources
Code Section 5024.5, which pertains to State Owned Historic Properties.
For questions about CEQA and historic and cultural resources, please contact:
Sean de Courcy, at (916) 445-7042 or at [email protected]
Phone: 916-445-7000 Fax: 916-445-7053 E-mail:
California Office of Historic Preservation
Visit us online!
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
1725 23rd Street, Ste 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100
CEQA Case Studies
CEQA Resources
PRC Section 21083.2-
21084.1
CEQA Guidelines CCR
Section 1500-15387
Advocating for Historic
Resources Under CEQA
Appendix B: Air Quality Supplementary Analyses, Update to Draft EIR Appendix B
B‐1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (Selected Pages)
Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
A Resource for Local Government
to Assess Emission Reductions from
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
August, 2010
dE=dQ-dW
dS=dQ/T
S=klog[ (E)]
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
[T242001 x (1 - R2001-2005) x (1 - R2005-2008)] + NT24
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
August, 2010
California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association
with
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
National Association of
Clean Air Agencies
Environ
Fehr & Peers
Acknowledgements
This Report benefited from the hard work and creative insights of many people. CAPCOA appreciates the efforts of all who contributed their time and energy to the project. In particular, the Association thanks the following individuals:
Principal Author
Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD
Project Coordination
Jill Whynot, SCAQMD
Project Oversight Panel
Larry Allen, SLOAPCD Ian Peterson, BAAQMD
Aeron Arlin-Genet, SLOAPCD Tim Taylor, SMAQMD
Dan Barber, SJVAPCD Tom Thompson, PCAQMD
Jeane Berry, SMAQMD David Vintze, BAAQMD
Elaine Chang, SCAQMD Barry Wallerstein, SCAQMD
Yusho Chang, PCAQMD David Warner, SJVAPCD
Joseph Hurley, SMAQMD Jill Whynot, SCAQMD (Vice Chair)
Aaron Katzenstein SCAQMD Abby Young, BAAQMD
Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD (Chair) Mel Zeldin, CAPCOA
Paul Miller, NESCAUM Yifang Zhu, SCAQMD
External Reviewers
Martha Brook, CEC Pete Parkinson, County of Sonoma Bill Loudon, DKS Associates
Editing, Proofing & Layout
Fernando Berton, CAPCOA Arlene Farol, SCAQMD
Jessica DePrimo, NSCAPCD
Technical Analysis & Discussion of Methods
Shari Libicki, Environ Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers
David Kim, Environ Meghan Mitman, Fehr & Peers
Jennifer Schulte, Environ
Disclaimer
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared this report on quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from select mitigation strategies to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local governments. This paper is intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which a city or county chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context of projects it reviews, or in the preparation of its General Plan. This paper has been prepared at a time when California law and regulation, as well as accepted practice regarding how climate change should be addressed in government programs, is undergoing change. There is pending litigation that may have bearing on these decisions, as well as active legislation at the federal level. In the face of this uncertainty, local governments are working to understand the new expectations, and how best to meet them. This paper is provided as a resource to local policy and decision makers to enable them to make the best decisions they can during this period of uncertainty. Finally, in order to provide context for the quantification methodologies it describes, this report reviews requirements, discusses policy options, and highlights methods, tools, and resources available; these reviews and discussions are not intended to provide legal advice and should not be construed as such. Questions of legal interpretation, or requests for legal advice, should be directed to the jurisdiction’s counsel.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 Background .......................................................................................................... 3 Intent and Audience ............................................................................................. 4 Using the Document ............................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2: The Purpose of Quantifying Mitigation Measures .................................. 7 Quantification Framework .................................................................................... 7 Quantifying Measures for Different Purposes....................................................... 8 Voluntary Reductions ........................................................................................... 8 Reductions to Mitigate Current or Future Impacts ................................................ 9 Reductions for Regulatory Compliance ................................................................ 17 Reductions for Credit ........................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Quantification Concepts ........................................................................... 25 Baseline ............................................................................................................... 25 Business-as-Usual Scenario ................................................................................ 26 Mitigation Measure Types .................................................................................... 27 Mitigation Measure or Project Scope ................................................................... 29 Lifecycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 29 Accuracy and Reliability ....................................................................................... 31 Additionality .......................................................................................................... 32 Verification ........................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 4: Quantification Approaches & Methods ................................................... 33 General Emission Quantification Approach .......................................................... 33 Quantification of Baseline Emissions ................................................................... 35 Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ........................... 35 Quantification Methods ....................................................................................... 37 Limitations to Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ..... 38
Chapter 5: Discussion of Select Quantified Measures ............................................. 43
Building Energy Use ............................................................................................. 43 Outdoor Water Use .............................................................................................. 44 Indoor Water Use ................................................................................................. 45 Municipal Solid Waste .......................................................................................... 45 Public Area and Traffic Signal Lighting ................................................................ 46 Vegetation (including Trees) ................................................................................ 46 Construction Equipment ....................................................................................... 47 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 47 On-site Energy Generation................................................................................... 48 Miscellaneous ...................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 6: Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets ............................................. 51 Mitigation Strategies and Fact Sheets .................................................................. 51 Grouping of Strategies ......................................................................................... 56 Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures ....................................................... 56 Range of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ................................................... 63 Applicability of Quantification Fact Sheets Outside of California .......................... 75 How to Use a Fact Sheet to Quantify a Project .................................................... 76
Chapter 7: Quantification Fact Sheets for Individual Measures .............................. 81
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 81 Index of Fact Sheets and Cross References (Table 7-1) ..................................... 82 Measures Energy ................................................................................................................... 85 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 155 Water ..................................................................................................................... 332 Landscaping Equipment......................................................................................... 384 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................ 392 Vegetation.............................................................................................................. 402 Construction ........................................................................................................... 410 Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 433 General Plans ........................................................................................................ 444
Appendices
A. Glossary of Terms B. Calculation Methods for Unmitigated Emissions C. Transportation Methods D. Building Quantification Methods E. Select Data Tables
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
1
This report on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures was prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and with technical support from Environ and Fehr & Peers. It is primarily focused on the quantification of project-level mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project areas. The mitigation measures quantified in the Report generally correspond to measures previously discussed in CAPCOA’s earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. The Report does not provide policy guidance or advocate any policy position related to greenhouse gas emission reduction. The Report provides a discussion of background information on programs and other circumstances in which quantification of greenhouse gas emissions is important. This includes voluntary emission reduction efforts, project-level emission reduction efforts, reductions for regulatory compliance, and reductions for some form of credit. The information provided covers basic terms and concepts and again, does not endorse or provide guidance on any policy position. Certain key concepts for quantification are covered in greater depth. These include baseline, business-as-usual, types of emission reductions, project scope, lifecycle analysis, accuracy and reliability, additionality, and verification. In order to provide transparency and to enhance the understanding of underlying strengths and weaknesses, the Report includes a detailed explanation of the approaches and methods used in developing the quantification of the mitigation measures. There is a summary of baseline methods (which are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B) as well as a discussion of methods for the measures. This includes the selection process for the measures, the development of the quantification approaches, and limitations in the data used to derive the quantification. The mitigation measures were broken into categories, and an overview is provided for each category. The overview discusses specific considerations in quantifying emissions for measures in the category, as well as project-specific data the user will need to provide. Where appropriate and where data are readily available, the user is directed to relevant data sources. In addition, some tables and other information are included in the appendices. The mitigation measures are presented in Fact Sheets. An overview of the Fact Sheets is provided which outlines their organization and describes the layout of information. The Report also includes a step-by-step guide to using a Fact Sheet to quantify a project, and discusses the use of Fact Sheets outside of California. The Report also discusses the grouping of the measures, and outlines procedures and limitations for
2
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
quantifying projects where measures are combined either within or across categories. These limitations are critical to ensure that emission reductions are appropriately quantified and are not double counted. As a general guide, approximate ranges of effectiveness are provided for each of the measures, and this is presented in tables at the end of Chapter 6. These ranges are for reference only and should not be used in lieu of the actual Fact Sheets; they do not provide accurate quantification on a project-specific basis. The Fact Sheets themselves are presented in Chapter 7, which includes an index of the Fact Sheets and cross references each measure to measures described in CAPCOA’s earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. Each Fact Sheet includes a description of the measure, assumptions and limitations in the quantification, a baseline methodology, and the quantification of the measure itself. There is also a sample project calculation, and a discussion of the data and studies used in the development of the quantification. In the Appendices, there is a glossary of terms. The baseline methodology is fully explained, and there is additional supporting information for the transportation methods and the non-transportation methods. Finally, the Report includes select reference tables that the user may consult for select project-specific factors that are called for in some of the Fact Sheets.
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
3
Background
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared the report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (Quantification Report, or Report), in collaboration with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and with contract support from Environ, and Fehr & Peers, who performed the technical analysis. The Report provides methods for quantifying emission reductions from a specified list of mitigation measures, primarily focused on project-level mitigation. The emissions calculations include greenhouse gases (GHGs), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and reactive organic gases (ROG), as well as toxic air pollutants, where information is available. The measures included in this Report were selected because they are frequently considered as mitigation for GHG impacts, and standardized methods for quantifying emissions from these projects were not previously available. Measures were screened on the basis of the feasibility of quantifying the emissions, the availability of robust and meaningful data upon which to base the quantification, and whether the measures (alone or in combination with other measures) would result in appreciable reductions in GHG emissions. CAPCOA does not mean to suggest that other measures should not be considered, or that they might not be effective or quantifiable; on the contrary, there are many options and approaches to mitigate emissions of GHGs. CAPCOA sought to provide a high quality quantification tool to local governments with the broadest applicability possible, given the resource limitations for the project. CAPCOA encourages local governments to be bold and creative as they approach the challenge of climate change, and does not intend this Report to limit the scope of measures considered for mitigation. The majority of the measures in the Report have been discussed in CAPCOA’s previous resource documents: CEQA and Climate Change, and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. The measures in this Report are cross-referenced to those prior reports. The quantification methods provided here are largely project-level in nature; they can certainly inform planning decisions, however a complete planning-level analysis of mitigation strategies will entail additional quantification. In developing the quantification methods, CAPCOA and its contractors conducted an extensive literature review. The goal of the Report was to provide accurate and reliable quantification methods that can be used throughout California and adapted for use outside of the state as well.
4
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Intent and Audience This document is intended to further support the efforts of local governments to address the impacts of GHG emissions in their environmental review of projects and in their planning efforts. Project proponents and others interested in quantifying mitigation measures will also find the document useful. The guidance provided in this Report specifically addresses appropriate procedures for applying quantification methods to achieve accurate and reliable results. The Report includes background information on programs and concepts associated with the quantification of GHG emissions. The Report does not provide policy guidance on any of these issues, nor does it dictate how any jurisdiction should address questions of policy. Policy considerations are left to individual agencies and their governing boards. Rather, this Report is intended to support the creation of a standardized approach to quantifying mitigation measures, to allow emission reductions and measure effectiveness to be considered and compared on a common basis. Because the quantification methods in this Report were developed to meet the highest standards for accuracy and reliability, CAPCOA believes they will be generally accepted for most quantification purposes. The decision to accept any quantification method rests with the reviewing agency, however. Further, while the Report discusses the quantification of GHG emissions for a variety of purposes, including the quantification of reductions for credit, using these methods does not guarantee that credit will be awarded. Using the Document Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report discuss programs and concepts associated with GHG quantification. They are intended to provide background information for those interested in the context in which reductions are being made. Chapter 4 discusses the underpinnings of the quantification methods and specifically addresses limitations in the data used as well as limitations in applying the methods; it is important for anyone using this Report to review Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the mitigation measure categories, including key considerations in the quantification of emission reductions in those categories. Chapter 6 explains how to use the fact sheets for each measure’s quantification method, and also discusses the effectiveness of the measures and how combining measures changes the effectiveness. Once the user understands the quantification context, and the limitations of the methods, the fact sheets can be used like recipes in a cookbook . In using the fact sheets, however, CAPCOA strongly advises the reader to pay careful attention to the assumptions and limitations set forth for each individual measure, and to make sure that these are respected and appropriately considered.
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 1
5
The fact sheets with the actual quantification methods for each individual measure are contained in Chapter 7. The baseline methods are explained in Appendix B. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure that all data inputs are provided as called for in the methods, and that the data are of appropriate quality. CAPCOA will not be able to provide case-by-case review or adjustments for specific projects outside of the provision for project-specific data inputs that is part of each fact sheet. Questions about individual projects may be referred to your local air district. As a final note, the methods contained in this document include generalized information about the measures themselves. This information includes emission factors, usage rates, and other data from various sources, most commonly published data from public agencies. The data were carefully reviewed to ensure they represent the best information available for this purpose. The use of generalized information allows the quantification methods to be used across a range of circumstances, including variations in geographical location, climate, and population density, among others. Where good quality, project-specific data is available that provides a superior characterization of a particular project, it should be used instead of the more generalized data presented here. The methods provided for baseline and mitigated emissions scenarios allow for such substitution. The local agency reviewing the project should review the project-specific data, however, to ensure that it meets standards for data quality and will not result in an inappropriate under- or overestimation of project emissions or mitigation.
Chapter 6
51
Chapter 6: Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
This chapter of the Report explains how the quantification of individual strategies is presented in Fact Sheets, how those fact sheets are designed and organized, and how to use them. This chapter also explains how and why mitigation measures have been grouped, and provides detailed discussion of how to apply the quantification methods when more than one strategy is being applied to the same project. A summary of the range of effectiveness for different measures is also provided for general information purposes, in table form, however it is very important that those generalized ranges NOT be used in place of the more specific quantification methods for the measure as detailed in the measure Fact Sheet. Finally, at the end of the Chapter there are step-by-step instructions on using the Fact Sheets, including an example. Mitigation Strategies and Fact Sheets: Accurate and reliable quantification depends on properly identifying the important variables that affect the emissions from an activity or source, and from changes to that activity or source. In order to provide a clear summary of those variables and usable instructions on how to find and apply the data needed, we have designed a Fact Sheet format to present each strategy or measure. Types of Mitigation Strategies: There are three different types of mitigation strategies described in Chapter 7: Quantified measures, Best Management Practices, and General Plan strategies. Quantified Measures: Quantified measures are fully quantified, project-level mitigation strategies. They are presented in categories where the nature of the underlying emissions sources are the same; the categories are discussed under “Organization of Fact Sheets” below. In addition, the measures may either stand alone, or be considered in connection with one or more other measures (that is, “grouped”). Groups of measures are always within a category; more detailed explanation is provided in “Grouping of Strategies” below. The majority of the strategies in this Report are fully Quantified Measures, and a strategy may be assumed to be of this type unless the Fact Sheet notes otherwise. Best Management Practices: Several strategies are denoted as Best Management Practice (BMP). These measures are of two types. The first type of BMPs are quantifiable and describe methods that can be used to quantify the GHG mitigation reductions provided the project Applicant can provide substantial evidence supporting the values needed to quantify the reduction. These are listed as BMPs since there is not adequate literature at this time to generalize the mitigation measure reductions. However, the project Applicant may be able to provide the site specific information necessary to quantify a reduction. The second type of BMPs do not have methods for quantifying GHG mitigation reductions. These measures have preliminary evidence suggesting they will reduce GHG emissions if implemented, however, at this time adequate literature and methodologies are not available to quantify these reductions or
52
Understanding and Using
the Fact Sheets
they involve life-cycle GHG emission benefits. The measures are encouraged to be implemented nonetheless. Local Agencies may decide to provide incentives to encourage implementation of these measures. General Plan Strategies: The measures listed under the General Plan category are measures that will have the most benefit when implemented at a General Plan level, but are not quantifiable or applicable at the project specific level. While on a project basis some of these measures may not be quantifiable, at the General Plan level they may be quantified under the assumption that this will be implemented on a widespread basis. Local Agencies may decide to provide incentives or allocate the General Plan level reductions to specific projects by weighting the overall effect by the number of projects the General Plan reduction would apply to. Introduction to the Fact Sheets: This Report presents the quantification of each mitigation measure in a Fact Sheet format. Each Fact Sheet includes: a detailed summary of each measure’s applicability; the calculation inputs for the specific project; the baseline emissions method; the mitigation calculation method and associated assumptions; a discussion of the calculation and an example calculation; and finally a summary of the preferred and alternative literature sources for measure efficacy. The Fact Sheets are found in Chapter 7. Layout of the Fact Sheets: Each Fact Sheet describes one mitigation measure. The mitigation measure has a unique number and is provided at the bottom of each page in that measure’s Fact Sheet. This will assist the end user in determining where a mitigation measure fact sheet begins and ends while still preserving consecutive page numbers in the overall Report. At the top of each Fact Sheet, the name of the measure category appears on the left, and the subcategory on the right. Cross-references to prior CAPCOA documents appear at the top left, below the category name. Specifically, measures labeled CEQA #: are from the CAPCOA 2008 CEQA & Climate Change1 and measures labeled MP#: are from the CAPCOA 2009 Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans2. This cross-referencing is also included in the list of measures at the beginning of Chapter 7, and is intended to allow the user to move easily between the documents. The measure number is at the bottom of the page, on the right-hand side. The fact sheets begin with a measure description. This description includes two critical components:
(1) Specific language regarding the measure implementation – which should be consistent with the implementation method suggested by the project Applicant; and
1 Available online at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf 2 Available online at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-ModelPolicies-6-12-09-
915am.pdf
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 6
53
(2) A discussion of key support strategies that are required for the reported range of effectiveness.
Appendices with additional calculations and assumptions for some of the fact sheets are provided at the end of this document. Default assumptions should be carefully reviewed for project applicability. Appendix B details the methodologies that should be used to calculate baseline GHG emissions for a project. Organization of the Fact Sheets – Categories and Subcategories: The Fact Sheets are organized by general emission category types as follows:
Energy Transportation Water Landscape Equipment Solid Waste
Vegetation Construction Miscellaneous Categories General Plans
Several of these main categories are split into subcategories, for ease of understanding how to properly address the effects of combining the measures. Strategies are organized into categories and subcategories where they affect similar types of emissions sources. As an example, the category of “Energy” includes measures that reduce emissions associated with energy generation and use. Within that category, there are subcategories of measures that address “Building Energy Use,” “Alternative Energy,” and “Lighting,” each with one or more measures in it. The measures in the subcategory are closely related to each other. Categories and subcategories for the measures are illustrated in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, below. Chart 6-1 shows all of the measure categories EXCEPT the Transportation category, including their subcategories; note that not all categories have subcategories. Measures in the Transportation category are shown in Chart 6-2. There are a number of subcategories associated with the Transportation category. As shown in Chart 6-2, the primary measures in each subcategory are indicated in bold type, and the measures shown in normal type are either support measures, or they are explicitly “grouped” measures. It is important to note that subcategories are NOT the same as “grouped” measures / strategies. The grouping of strategies connotes a specific relationship, and is explained in the next section, below.
54
U
nd
ers
tan
din
g a
nd
Us
ing
th
e F
ac
t S
hee
ts
Ene
rgy
W
ate
r
Are
a La
nd
scap
ing
BE
A
E
LE
W
SW
W
UW
A
Bu
ildin
g En
erg
y
Alt
ern
ativ
e En
erg
y
Ligh
tin
g
Wat
er
Sup
ply
Wat
er
U
se
La
nd
scap
ing
Eq
uip
me
nt
Exce
ed
Tit
le
24
On
site
R
en
ew
able
En
erg
y
Inst
all
Hig
h
Effi
cacy
Li
ghti
ng
A
do
pt
a W
ate
r
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Str
ate
gy
Pro
hib
it g
as
Po
wer
ed
La
nd
scap
e
Equ
ipm
en
t
OR
Inst
all E
ne
rgy
Effi
cie
nt
Ap
plia
nce
s
Uti
lize
C
om
bin
ed
H
eat
&
Po
wer
Li
mit
O
utd
oo
r Li
ghti
ng
U
se
Re
clai
me
d
Wat
er
In
stal
l Lo
w-F
low
Fi
xtu
res
Imp
lem
ent
Law
nm
ow
er
Exch
ange
P
rogr
am
Red
uct
ion
: G
rou
ped
Inst
all
Pro
gram
mab
le
Ther
mo
stat
s R
edu
ctio
n:
Gro
up
ed
Es
tab
lish
M
eth
ane
R
eco
very
Rep
lace
Tr
affi
c Li
ghts
w
ith
LED
R
edu
ctio
n:
Ad
dit
ion
al
U
se
Gra
ywat
er
De
sign
W
ate
r-Ef
fici
en
t La
nd
scap
es
Elec
tric
Yar
d
Equ
ipm
ent
Co
mp
atib
ility
R
edu
ctio
n
Gro
up
ed
O
bta
in 3
rd
Par
ty
Co
mm
issi
on
ing
Red
uct
ion
: G
rou
ped
Use
Lo
cally
So
urc
ed
W
ate
r
U
se W
ater
-Ef
fici
en
t Ir
riga
tio
n
Re
du
ce
Turf
Pla
nt
Nat
ive
or
Dro
ugh
t-R
esis
tan
t V
eget
atio
n
Not
e: S
trat
egie
s in
bol
d te
xt a
re p
rimar
y st
rate
gies
with
rep
orte
d V
MT
red
uctio
ns;
non-
bold
ed s
trat
egie
s ar
e su
ppor
t or
grou
ped
stra
tegi
es.
Solid
Was
te
V
ege
tati
on
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Mis
cella
ne
ou
s
Ge
ne
ral
Pla
ns
SW
V
C
M
isc
GP
Solid
Was
te
V
ege
tati
on
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Mis
cella
ne
ou
s
Ge
ne
ral
Pla
ns
Inst
itu
te o
r Ex
ten
d
Rec
yclin
g &
C
om
po
stin
g Se
rvic
es
P
lan
t U
rban
Tr
ees
Use
A
lte
rnat
ive
Fu
els
fo
r C
on
stru
ctio
n
Equ
ipm
en
t
Esta
blis
h C
arb
on
Se
qu
est
rati
on
Fun
d
Ince
nti
ves
for
Ener
gy
Effi
cien
cy
Rec
ycle
D
emo
lish
ed
Co
nst
ruct
ion
M
ater
ial
Ne
w
Ve
geta
ted
O
pe
n
Spac
e
Use
Ele
ctri
c o
r H
ybri
d
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Eq
uip
me
nt
Es
tab
lish
Off
-sit
e
Mit
igat
ion
Esta
blis
h a
Lo
cal
Farm
er's
M
arke
t
Lim
it
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Eq
uip
men
t Id
ling
Im
ple
men
t an
In
no
vati
ve
Stra
tegy
Esta
blis
h
Co
mm
un
ity
Gar
den
s
Inst
itu
te a
H
eavy
-Du
ty
Off
-Ro
ad
Veh
icle
Pla
n
U
se L
oca
l an
d
Sust
ain
able
B
uild
ing
Mat
eria
ls
Pla
nt
Urb
an
Shad
e Tr
ees
Imp
lem
ent
a C
on
stru
ctio
n
Veh
icle
In
ven
tory
Tr
acki
ng
Syst
em
R
equ
ire
BM
P in
A
gric
ult
ure
an
d
An
imal
Op
erat
ion
s
Imp
lem
ent
Stra
tegi
es
to R
edu
ce
Urb
an
Hea
t-Is
lan
d
Effe
ct
Req
uir
e En
viro
nm
enta
lly
Res
po
nsi
ble
P
urc
has
ing
Ch
art
6-1
: N
on
-Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
Str
ate
gie
s O
rga
niz
ati
on
Ch
ap
ter
6
55
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Mea
sure
s (F
ive
Sub
cate
gorie
s) G
loba
l Max
imum
Red
uctio
n (a
ll V
MT
):
urba
n =
75
%; c
ompa
ct in
fill =
40%
; sub
urba
n ce
nter
or
subu
rban
with
NE
V =
20
%; s
ubur
ban
= 1
5%
Glo
bal C
ap fo
r R
oad
Pric
ing
need
s fu
rthe
r st
udy
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Mea
sure
s (F
our
Cat
egor
ies)
Cro
ss-C
ateg
ory
Max
Red
uctio
n (a
ll V
MT
):
urb
an =
70
%; c
ompa
ct in
fill =
35%
; sub
urba
n ce
nter
or
subu
rban
with
NE
V =
15
%; s
ubur
ban
= 1
0%
Max
Red
uctio
n =
15%
ov
eral
l; w
ork
VM
T =
25%
; sc
hool
VM
T =
65%
;
Max
Red
uctio
n =
25
% (
all V
MT
)
La
nd U
se /
Loca
tion
N
eigh
borh
ood
/ Site
E
nhan
cem
ent
P
arki
ng P
olic
y /
Pric
ing
Tr
ansi
t Sys
tem
Im
prov
emen
ts
C
omm
ute
Trip
R
educ
tion
(ass
umes
mix
ed u
se)
R
oad
Pric
ing
Man
agem
ent
V
ehic
les
Max
Red
uctio
n:
urba
n =
65%
; com
pact
infil
l =
30%
; sub
urba
n ce
nter
= 1
0%;
subu
rban
= 5
%
M
ax R
educ
tion:
with
out N
EV
= 5
%;
w
ith N
EV
= 1
5%
M
ax R
educ
tion
= 2
0%
M
ax R
educ
tion
= 1
0%
Max
Red
uctio
n =
25%
Max
Red
uctio
n =
25%
(w
ork
VM
T)
D
ensi
ty (
30%
)
Ped
estr
ian
Net
wor
k (2
%)
P
arki
ng S
uppl
y Li
mits
(1
2.5%
)
Net
wor
k E
xpan
sion
(8
.2%
)
CT
R P
rogr
am
R
equi
red
= 2
1% w
ork
VM
T
Vol
unta
ry =
6.2
% w
ork
VM
T
C
ordo
n P
ricin
g (2
2%)
E
lect
rify
Load
ing
Doc
ks
Des
ign
(21.
3%)
T
raffi
c C
alm
ing
(1%
)
Unb
undl
ed P
arki
ng C
osts
(1
3%)
S
ervi
ce F
requ
ency
/ S
peed
(2.
5%)
T
rans
it F
are
Sub
sidy
(20%
wor
k V
MT
)
Tra
ffic
Flo
w
Impr
ovem
ents
(4
5% C
O2)
Util
ize
Alte
rnat
ive
Fue
led
Veh
icle
s
Lo
catio
n E
ffici
ency
(65
%)
NE
V N
etw
ork
(14.
4)
<
NE
V P
arki
ng>
On-
Str
eet M
arke
t Pric
ing
(5
.5%
)
Bus
Rap
id T
rans
it (3
.2%
)
Em
ploy
ee P
arki
ng C
ash
-out
(7
.7%
wor
k V
MT
)
Req
uire
d C
ontr
ibut
ions
by
Pro
ject
Util
ize
Ele
ctric
or
Hyb
rid
Veh
icle
s
D
iver
sity
(30
%)
C
ar S
hare
Pro
gram
(0.
7%)
Res
iden
tial A
rea
Par
king
P
erm
its
A
cces
s Im
prov
emen
ts
Wor
kpla
ce P
arki
ng P
ricin
g (1
9.7%
wor
k V
MT
)
Des
tinat
ion
Acc
essi
bilit
y (2
0%)
Bic
ycle
Net
wor
k
<
Lane
s> <
Par
king
>
<La
nd D
edic
atio
n fo
r T
rails
>
S
tatio
n B
ike
Par
king
Alte
rnat
ive
Wor
k S
ched
ules
&
Tel
ecom
mut
e
(5
.5%
wor
k V
MT
)
Tra
nsit
Acc
essi
bilit
y (2
5%)
Urb
an N
on-M
otor
ized
Z
ones
Loca
l Shu
ttles
CT
R M
arke
ting
(5.5
% w
ork
VM
T)
BM
R H
ousi
ng (
1.2%
)
Par
k &
Rid
e Lo
ts*
Em
ploy
er-S
pons
ored
V
anpo
ol/S
huttl
e
(1
3.4%
wor
k V
MT
)
O
rient
atio
n T
owar
d N
on-
Aut
o C
orrid
or
Rid
e S
hare
Pro
gram
(15%
wor
k V
MT
)
P
roxi
mity
to B
ike
Pat
h
Bik
e S
hare
Pro
gram
End
of T
rip F
acili
ties
N
ote:
Str
ateg
ies
in b
old
text
are
prim
ary
stra
tegi
es w
ith
repo
rted
VM
T r
educ
tions
; non
-bol
ded
stra
tegi
es a
re
supp
ort o
r gr
oupe
d st
rate
gies
.
Pre
fere
ntia
l Par
king
Per
mit
Sch
ool P
ool
(1
5.8%
sch
ool V
MT
)
Sch
ool B
us
(6.3
% s
choo
l VM
T)
Ch
art
6-2
: T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
Str
ate
gie
s O
rga
niz
ati
on
56
Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets
Grouping of Strategies Strategies noted as “grouped” are separately documented in individual Fact Sheets but must be paired with other strategies within the category. When these “grouped” strategies are implemented together, the combination will result in either an enhancement to the primary strategy by improving its effectiveness or a non-negligible reduction in effectiveness that would not occur without the combination. Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures Mitigation measures or strategies are frequently implemented together with other measures. Often, combining measures can lead to better emission reductions than implementing a single measure by itself. Unfortunately, the effects of combining the measures are not always as straightforward as they might at first appear. When more and more measures are implemented to mitigate a particular source of emissions, the benefit of each additional measure diminishes. If it didn’t, some odd results would occur. For example, if there were a series of measures that each, independently, was predicted to reduce emissions from a source by 10%, and if the effect of each measure was independent of the others, then implementing ten measures would reduce all of the emissions; and what would happen with the eleventh measure? Would the combination reduce 110% of the emissions? No. In fact, each successive measure is slightly less effective than predicted when implemented on its own. On the other hand, some measures enhance the performance of a primary measure when they are combined. This Report includes a set of rules that govern different ways of combining measures. The rules depend on whether the measures are in the same category, or different categories. Remember, the categories include: Energy, Transportation, Water, Landscape Equipment, Solid Waste, Vegetation, Construction, Miscellaneous Categories, and General Plans. Combinations Between Categories: The following procedures must be followed when combining mitigation measures that fall in separate categories. In order to determine the overall reduction in GHG emissions compared to the baseline emissions, the relative magnitude of emissions between the source categories needs to be considered. To do this, the user should determine the percent contribution made by each individual category to the overall baseline GHG emissions. This percent contribution by a category should be multiplied by the reduction percentages from mitigation measures in that category to determine the scaled GHG emission reductions from the measures in that category. This is done for each category to be combined. The scaled GHG emissions for each category can then be added together to give a total GHG reduction for the combined measures in all of the categories. For example, consider a project whose total GHG emissions come from the following categories: transportation (50%), building energy use (40%), water (6%), and other (4%). This project implements a transportation mitigation measure that results in a 10% reduction in VMT. The project also implements mitigation measures that result in a 30% reduction in water usage. The overall reduction in GHG emissions is as follows:
Chapter 6
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 6
57
Reduction from Transportation: 0.50 x 0.10 = 0.5 or 5% Reduction from Water: 0.06 x 0.30 = 0.018 or 1.8% Total Reduction: 5% + 1.8% = 6.8%
This example illustrates the importance of the magnitude of a source category and its influence on the overall GHG emission reductions. The percent contributions from source categories will vary from project to project. In a commercial-only project it may not be unusual for transportation emissions to represent greater than 75% of all GHG emissions whereas for a residential or mixed use project, transportation emissions would be below 50%. Combinations Within Categories: The following procedures must be followed when combining mitigation measures that fall within the same category. Non-Transportation Combinations: When combining non-transportation subcategories, the total amount of reductions for that category should not exceed 100% except for categories that would result in additional excess capacity that can be used by others, but which the project wants to take credit for (subject to approval of the reviewing agency). This may include alternative energy generation systems tied into the grid, vegetation measures, and excess graywater or recycled water generated by the project and used by others. These excess emission reductions may be used to offset other categories of emissions, with approval of the agency reviewing the project. In these cases of excess capacity, the quantified amounts of excess emissions must be carefully verified to ensure that any credit allowed for these additional reductions is truly surplus.
Category Maximum- Each category has a maximum allowable reduction for the combination of measures in that category. It is intended to ensure that emissions are not double counted when measures within the category are combined. Effectiveness levels for multiple strategies within a subcategory (as denoted by a column in the appropriate chart, above) may be multiplied to determine a combined effectiveness level up to a maximum level. This should be done first to mitigation measures that are a source reduction followed by those that are a reduction to emission factors. Since the combination of mitigation measures and independence of mitigation measures are both complicated, this Report recommends that mitigation measure reductions within a category be multiplied unless a project applicant can provide substantial evidence indicating that emission reductions are independent of one another. This will take the following form:
GHG emission reduction for category = 1-[(1-A) x (1-B) x (1-C)] Where: A, B and C = Individual mitigation measure reduction percentages for the strategies to be
combined in a given category.
58
Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets
Global Maximum- A separate maximum, referred to as a global maximum level, is also provided for a combination across subcategories. Effectiveness levels for multiple strategies across categories may also be multiplied to determine a combined effectiveness level up to global maximum level. For example, consider a project that is combining 3 mitigation strategies from the water category. This project will install low-flow fixtures (measure WUW-1), use water-efficient irrigation (measure WUW-4, and reduce turf (measure WUW-5). Reductions from these measures will be:
low-flow fixtures 20% or 0.20 (A) water efficient irrigation 10% or 0.10 (B) turf reductions 20% or 0.20 (C)
To combine measures within a category, the reductions would be = 1-[(1-A) x (1-B) x (1-C)] = 1-[(1-.20) x (1-.10) x (1-.20)] = 1-[(0.8) x (0.9) x (.8)] = 1-0.576 = 0.424 = 42.4%
Transportation Combinations: The interactions between the various categories of transportation-related mitigation measures is complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. Combining these measures can have a substantive impact on the quantification of the associated emission reductions. In order to safeguard the accuracy and reliability of the methods, while maintaining their ease of use, the following rules have been developed and should be followed when combining transportation-related mitigation measures. The rules are presented by sub-category, and reference Chart 6-2 Transportation Strategies Organization. The maximum reduction values also reflect the highest reduction levels justified by the literature. The chart indicates maximum reductions for individual mitigation measures just below the measure name.
Cross-Category Maximum- A cross-category maximum is provided for any combination of land use, neighborhood enhancements, parking, and transit strategies (columns A-D in Chart 6-1, with the maximum shown in the top row). The total project VMT reduction across these categories should be capped at these levels based on empirical evidence.3 Caps are provided for the location/development type of the project. VMT reductions may be multiplied across the four categories up to this maximum. These include:
Urban: 70% VMT Compact Infill: 35% Suburban Center (or Suburban with NEV): 15% Suburban: 10% (note that projects with this level of reduction must include a diverse
land use mix, workforce housing, and project-specific transit; limited empirical evidence is available)
(See blue box, pp. 58-59.) 3 As reported by Holtzclaw, et al for the State of California.
Chapter 6
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 6
59
As used in this Report, location settings are defined as follows:
Urban: A project located within the central city and may be characterized by multi-family housing, located near office and retail. Downtown Oakland and the Nob Hill neighborhood in San Francisco are examples of the typical urban area represented in this category. The urban maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average (assumed analogous to an ITE baseline) for the following locations:
Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita
Central Berkeley -48%
San Francisco -49%
Pacific Heights (SF) -79%
North Beach (SF) -82%
Mission District (SF) -75%
Nob Hill (SF) -63%
Downtown Oakland -61%
The average reflects a range of 48% less VMT/capita (Central Berkeley) to 82% less VMT/capita (North Beach, San Francisco) compared to the statewide average. The urban locations listed above have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are within the CBD or less than five miles from the CBD (downtown Oakland and
downtown San Francisco). o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: jobs-rich (jobs/housing ratio greater than 1.5) o Density character
typical building heights in stories: six stories or (much) higher
typical street pattern: grid
typical setbacks: minimal
parking supply: constrained on and off street
parking prices: high to the highest in the region o Transit availability: high quality rail service and/or comprehensive bus service at 10 minute headways or less in peak hours
Compact infill: A project located on an existing site within the central city or inner-ring suburb with high-frequency transit service. Examples may be community redevelopment areas, reusing abandoned sites, intensification of land use at established transit stations, or converting underutilized or older industrial buildings. Albany and the Fairfax area of Los Angeles are examples of typical compact infill area as used here. The compact infill maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average for the following locations:
Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita
Franklin Park, Hollywood -22%
Albany -25%
Fairfax Area, Los Angeles -29%
Hayward -42%
The average reflects a range of 22% less VMT/capita (Franklin Park, Hollywood) to 42% less VMT/capita (Hayward) compared to the statewide average. The compact infill locations listed above have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 5 to 15 miles outside a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: balanced (jobs/housing ratio ranging from 0.9 to 1.2) o Density character
typical building heights in stories: two to four stories
typical street pattern: grid
typical setbacks: 0 to 20 feet
parking supply: constrained
parking prices: low to moderate o Transit availability: rail service within two miles, or bus service at 15 minute peak headways or less
60
Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets
Global Maximum- A global maximum is provided for any combination of land use, neighborhood enhancements, parking, transit, and commute trip reduction strategies (the first five columns in the organization chart). This excludes reductions from road-pricing measurements which are discussed separately below. The total project VMT reduction across these categories, which can be combined through multiplication, should be capped
As used in this Report, additional location settings are defined as follows:
Suburban Center: A project typically involving a cluster of multi-use development within dispersed, low-density, automobile dependent land use patterns (a suburb). The center may be an historic downtown of a smaller community that has become surrounded by its region’s suburban growth pattern in the latter half of the 20th Century. The suburban center serves the population of the suburb with office, retail and housing which is denser than the surrounding suburb. The suburban center maximum reduction is derived from the average of the percentage difference in per capita VMT versus the California statewide average for the following locations:
Location Percent Reduction from Statewide VMT/Capita
Sebastopol 0%
San Rafael (Downtown) -10%
San Mateo -17%
The average reflects a range of 0% less VMT/capita (Sebastopol) to 17% less VMT/capita (San Mateo) compared to the statewide average. The suburban center locations listed above have the following characteristics:
o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 20 miles or more from a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: balanced o Density character
typical building heights in stories: two stories
typical street pattern: grid
typical setbacks: 0 to 20 feet
parking supply: somewhat constrained on street; typically ample off-street
parking prices: low (if priced at all) o Transit availability: bus service at 20-30 minute headways and/or a commuter rail station
While all three locations in this category reflect a suburban “downtown,” San Mateo is served by regional rail (Caltrain) and the other locations are served by bus transit only. Sebastopol is located more than 50 miles from downtown San Francisco, the nearest urban center. San Rafael and San Mateo are located 20 miles from downtown San Francisco.
Suburban: A project characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb). Suburbs typically have the following characteristics: o Location relative to the regional core: these locations are typically 20 miles or more from a regional CBD o Ratio or relationship between jobs and housing: jobs poor o Density character
typical building heights in stories: one to two stories
typical street pattern: curvilinear (cul-de-sac based)
typical setbacks: parking is generally placed between the street and office or retail buildings; large-lot residential is common
parking supply: ample, largely surface lot-based
parking prices: none o Transit availability: limited bus service, with peak headways 30 minutes or more
The maximum reduction provided for this category assumes that regardless of the measures implemented, the project’s distance from transit, density, design, and lack of mixed use destinations will keep the effect of any strategies to a minimum.
Chapter 6
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 6
61
at these levels based on empirical evidence.4 Maximums are provided for the location/development type of the project. The Global Maximum values can be found in the top row of Chart 6-2. These include:
Urban: 75% VMT Compact Infill: 40% VMT Suburban Center (or Suburban with NEV): 20% Suburban: 15% (limited empirical evidence available)
Specific Rules for Subcategories within Transportation- Because of the unique interactions of measures within the Transportation Category, each subcategory has additional rules or criteria for combining measures.
Land Use/Location Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Land use measures apply
to a project area with a radius of ½ mile. If the project area under review is greater than this, the study area should be divided into subareas of radii of ½ mile, with subarea boundaries determined by natural “clusters” of integrated land uses within a common walkshed. If the project study area is smaller than ½ mile in radius, other land uses within a ½ mile radius of the key destination point in the study area (i.e. train station or employment center) should be included in design, density, and diversity calculations. Land use measures are capped based on empirical evidence for location setting types as follows:5
Urban: 65% VMT Compact Infill: 30% VMT Suburban Center: 10% VMT Suburban: 5% VMT
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The
neighborhood/site enhancements category is capped at 12.7% VMT reduction (with Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) and 5% without NEVs based on empirical evidence (for NEVs) and the multiplied combination of the non-NEV measures.
Parking Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Parking strategies should be
implemented in one of two combinations: Limited (reduced) off-street supply ratios plus residential permit parking and
priced on-street parking (to limit spillover), or Unbundled parking plus residential permit parking and priced on-street
parking (to limit spillover).
4 As reported by Holtzclaw, et al for the State of California. Note that CTR strategies must be converted to overall VMT
reductions (from work-trip VMT reductions) before being combined with strategies in other categories. 5 As reported for California locations in Holtzclaw, et al. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic
Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.” Transportation Planning and Technology, 2002, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27.
62
Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets
Note: The reduction maximum of 20% VMT reflects the combined (multiplied) effect of unbundled parking and priced on-street parking.
Transit System Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The 10% VMT reduction
maximum for transit system improvements reflects the combined (multiplied) effect of network expansion and service frequency/speed enhancements. A comprehensive transit improvement would receive this type of reduction, as shown in the center overlap in the Venn diagram, below.
Commuter Trip Reductions (CTR) Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: The
most effective commute trip reduction measures combine incentives, disincentives, and mandatory monitoring, often through a transportation demand management (TDM) ordinance. Incentives encourage a particular action, for example parking cash-out, where the employee receives a monetary incentive for not driving to work, but is not punished for maintaining status quo. Disincentives establish a penalty for a status quo action. An example is workplace parking pricing, where the employee is now monetarily penalized for driving to work. The 25% maximum for work-related VMT applies to comprehensive CTR programs. TDM strategies that include only incentives, only disincentives, and/or no mandatory monitoring, should have a lower total VMT reduction than those with a comprehensive approach. Support strategies to strengthen CTR programs include guaranteed-ride-home, taxi vouchers, and message boards/marketing materials. A 25% reduction in work-related VMT is assumed equivalent to a 15% reduction in overall project VMT for the purpose of the global maximum; this can be adjusted for project-specific land use mixes.
Two school-related VMT reduction measures are also provided in this category. The maximum reduction for these measures should be 65% of school-related VMT based on the literature.
Chapter 6
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures Chapter 6
63
Road Pricing/Management Strategies – Maximum Reduction Factors: Cordon pricing is the only strategy in this category with an expected VMT reduction potential. Other forms of road pricing would be applied at a corridor or region-wide level rather than as mitigation applied to an individual development project. No domestic case studies are available for cordon pricing, but international studies suggest a VMT reduction maximum of 25%. A separate, detailed, and project-specific study should be conducted for any project where road pricing is proposed as a VMT reduction measure.
Additional Rules for Transportation Measures- There are also restrictions on the application of measures in rural applications, and application to baseline, as follows:
Rural Application: Few empirical studies are available to suggest appropriate VMT
reduction caps for strategies implemented in rural areas. Strategies likely to have the largest VMT reduction in rural areas include vanpools, telecommute or alternative work schedules, and master planned communities (with design and land use diversity to encourage intra-community travel). NEV networks may also be appropriate for larger scale developments. Because of the limited empirical data in the rural context, project-specific VMT reduction estimates should be calculated.
Baseline Application: As discussed in previous sections of this report, VMT
reductions should be applied to a baseline VMT expected for the project, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 8th Edition Trip Generation Manual and associated typical trip distance for each land use type. Where trip generation rates and project VMT provided by the project Applicant are derived from another source, the VMT reductions must be adjusted to reflect any “discounts” already applied.
Range of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures The following charts provide the range of effectiveness for the quantified mitigation measures. Each chart shows one category of measures, with subcategories identified. The charts also show the basis for the quantification, and indicate applicable groupings. IMPORTANT: these ranges are approximate and should NOT be used in lieu of the specific quantification method provided in the fact sheet for each measure. Restrictions on combining measures must be observed.
Chapter 6
65
Understanding
Fact Sheets
Chapter 6
Transportation
Category Measure Number
Strategy BMP Grouped With #
Range of Effectiveness
Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions
Basis
Land
Use
/ Lo
catio
n
LUT-1 Increase Density 1.5-30.0% VMT
LUT-2 Increase Location Efficiency 10-65% VMT
LUT-3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)
9-30% VMT
LUT-4 Incr. Destination Accessibility 6.7-20% VMT
LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility 0.5-24.6% VMT
LUT-6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 0.04-1.20% VMT
LUT-7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor NA
LUT-8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane NA
LUT-9 Improve Design of Development 3.0-21.3% VMT
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d / S
ite D
esig
n
SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements
0-2% VMT
SDT-2 Traffic Calming Measures 0.25-1.00% VMT
SDT-3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network
0.5-12.7% VMT
SDT-4 Urban Non-Motorized Zones SDT-1 NA
SDT-5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site)
LUT-9 NA
SDT-6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects
LUT-9 NA
SDT-7 Provide Bike Parking in Multi-Unit Residential Projects LUT-9 NA
SDT-8 Provide EV Parking SDT-3 NA SDT-9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails LUT-9 NA
Par
king
P
olic
y / P
ricin
g
PDT-1 Limit Parking Supply 5-12.5%
PDT-2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost
2.6-13%
PDT-3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
2.8-5.5%
PDT-4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits
PDT-1, 2 & 3
NA
Table 6-2: Transportation Category
66
Understanding Fact Sheets
Transportation - continued
Category Measure Number
Strategy BMP Grouped With #
Range of Effectiveness Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions
Basis
Trip
Red
uctio
n P
rogr
ams
TRT-1 Implement Voluntary CTR Programs
1.0-6.2% Commute
VMT
TRT-2 Implement Mandatory CTR Programs – Required Implementation/Monitoring
4.2-21.0% Commute
VMT
TRT-3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs
1-15% Commute
VMT
TRT-4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Prog.
0.3-20.0% Commute
VMT
TRT-5 Provide End of Trip Facilities
TRT-1, 2
& 3 NA
TRT-6 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
0.07-5.50% Commute
VMT
TRT-7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
0.8-4.0% Commute
VMT
TRT-8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program
TRT-1, 2
& 3 NA
TRT-9 Implement Car-Sharing Program
0.4-0.7% VMT
TRT-10 Implement School Pool Program
7.2-15.8% School VMT
TRT-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 0.3-13.4%
Commute VMT
TRT-12 Implement Bike-Sharing Program
SDT-5, LUT-9
NA
TRT-13 Implement School Bus Program 38-63%
School VMT
TRT-14 Price Workplace Parking 0.1-19.7% Commute
VMT
TRT-15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 0.6-7.7%
Commute VMT
Chapter 6
67
Understanding
Fact Sheets
Chapter 6
Transportation - continued
Category Measure Number
Strategy BMP Grouped With #
Range of Effectiveness
Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions
Basis
Tran
sit S
yste
m Im
prov
emen
ts TST-1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit
System 0.02-3.2% VMT
TST-2 Implement Transit Access Improvements
TST-3, TST-4
NA
TST-3 Expand Transit Network 0.1-8.2% VMT
TST-4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 0.02-2.5% VMT
TST-5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
TST-3, TST-4
NA
TST-6 Provide Local Shuttles TST-3, TST-4
NA
Roa
d P
ricin
g /
Man
agem
ent
RPT-1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 7.9-22.0% VMT
RPT-2 Improve Traffic Flow 0-45% VMT
RPT-3 Require Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects
RPT-2, TST-1 to 6
NA
RPT-4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots
RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3,
TST-1 to 6
NA
Veh
icle
s
VT-1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems
26-71% Truck
Idling Time
VT-2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles Varies
VT-3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 0.4-20.3% Fuel Use
Chapter 7
81
Chapter 7: Fact Sheets 1.0 Introduction
Chapter 7 is made up of a series of Fact Sheets. Each sheet summarizes the quantification methodology for a specific mitigation measure. As described in Chapter 6, the measures are grouped into Categories, and, in some cases, into subcategories. For information about the development of the Fact Sheets, please see Chapter 4. For a discussion of specific quantification issues in select measure categories or subcategories, please refer to Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a detailed explanation of the organization and layout of the Fact Sheets, including rules that govern the quantification of measures that have been, or will be, implemented in combination.
In order to facilitate navigation through, and the use of, the Fact Sheets, they have been color coded to reflect the Category the measure is in, and if applicable, the subcategory. The color scheme is shown in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, and also in Table 7-1 (below).
The colored bar at the top of each Fact Sheet corresponds to the Category color as shown in Charts 6-1 and 6-2, and in Table 7-1; the Category name is shown in the colored bar at the left hand margin. The second colored bar, immediately below the first one, shows the name of the subcategory, if any, and corresponds to subcategory color in those charts and tables. The subcategory name appears at the right hand margin.
At the left hand margin, below the Category name, is a cross-reference to the corresponding measure in the previous two CAPCOA reports (CEQA and GHG; and Model Polices for GHG in General Plans). The term “MP#” refers to a measure in the Model Policies document. The term CEQA# refers to a measure in the CEQA and GHG report.
At the bottom of the page is a colored bar that corresponds to the Category, and, where applicable, there is a colored box at the right hand margin, contiguous with the colored bar. This color of the box corresponds to the subcategory, where applicable. The box contains the measure number.
The layout of information in each Fact Sheet is covered in detail in Chapter 6.
Table 7-1, below, provides an index and cross-reference for the measure Fact Sheets. It is color-coded, as explained above, and may be used as a key to more quickly and easily navigate through the Fact Sheets
Fact Sheets
82
Table 7-1: Measure Index & Cross Reference
Section Category Page
# Measure
# BMP
MP #
CEQA #
2.0 Energy 85
2.1 Building Energy Use 85
2.1.1 Buildings Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards By X% 85 BE-1
EE-2 MM-E6
2.1.2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers 99 BE-2 x EE-2 -
2.1.3 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings 101 BE-3 x EE-2 -
2.1.4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances 103 BE-4
EE-2.1.6 MM E-19
2.1.5 Install Energy Efficient Boilers 111 BE-5
- -
2.2 Lighting 115
2.2.1 Install Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting 115 LE-1
EE-2.1.5 -
2.2.2 Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements 119 LE-2 x EE-2.3
2.2.3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights 122 LE-3
EE-2.1.5 -
2.3 Alternative Energy Generation 125
2.3.1 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Generic 125 AE-1
AE-2.1 MM E-5
2.3.2 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Solar Power 128 AE-2
AE-2.1 MM E-5
2.3.3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems-Wind Power 132 AE-3
AE-2.1 MM E-5
2.3.4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System 135 AE-4
AE-2 -
2.3.5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills 143 AE-5
WRD-1 -
2.3.6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants 149 AE-6
3.0 Transportation 155
3.1 Land Use/Location 155
3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1
LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 MM D-1 & D-4
3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2
LU-3.3 -
3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3
LU-2 MM D-9 & D-4
3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4
LU-2.1.4 MM D-3
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5
LU-1,LU-4 MM D-2
3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6
LU-2.1.8 MM D-7
3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7
LU-4.2 LUT-3
3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8
- LUT-4
3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9
- -
3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186
3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1
LU-4 MM-T-6
3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2
LU-1.6 MM-T-8
3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3
TR-6 MM-D-6
3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4
LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-1
3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5
TR-4.1 LUT-9
3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6
TR-4.1 MM T-1
3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7
TR-4.1.2 MM T-3
3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8
TR-5.4 MM T-17 & E-11
3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9
TR-4.1 LUT-9
3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207
3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1
LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4 -
3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2
LU-1.7 -
3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3
- -
3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4
-
PDT-1, PDT-2, PDT-3
Fact Sheets
83
Section Category Page
# Measure
# BMP
MP #
CEQA #
3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218
3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1
- -
3.4.2
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring 223 TRT-2
MO-3.1 T-19
3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3
MO-3.1 -
3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4
MO-3.1 -
3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5
MO-3.2
TRT-1, TRT-2, TRT-3
3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6
TR-3.5 -
3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7
- -
3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8
TR-3.1
TRT-1, TRT-2, TRT-3
3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9
- -
3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10
- -
3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11
MO-3.1 -
3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12
- SDT-5, LUT-9
3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13
TR-3.4 -
3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14
- -
3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15
TR-5.3 MM T-9
3.5 Transit System Improvements 270
3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1
- MS-G3
3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2
LU-3.4.3 TST-3, TST-4
3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3
- MS-G3
3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4
- MS-G3
3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5
TR-4.1.4 TST-3, TST-4
3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6
TST-3, TST-4
3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287
3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1
TR-3.6 -
3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2
TR-2.1, TR-2.2 -
3.6.3
Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects 297 RPT-3
-
RPT-2, TST-1 to 6
3.6.4
Install Park-and-Ride Lots
298
RPT-4
TR-1
RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3, TST-1 to 6
3.7 Vehicles 300
3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1
TR-6 -
3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2
- MM T-21
3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3
- MM T-20
4.0 Water 332
4.1 Water Supply 332
4.1.1 Use Reclaimed Water 332 WSW-1
COS-1.3 MS-G-8
4.1.2 Use Gray Water 336 WSW-2
COS-2.3 -
4.1.3 Use Locally Sourced Water Supply 341 WSW-3
- -
4.2 Water Use 347
4.2.1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures 347 WUW-1
EE-2.1.6; COS 2.2 MM-E23
4.2.2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy 362 WUW-2
COS-1. MS-G-8
4.2.3 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes 365 WUW-3
COS-2.1 -
4.2.4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems 372 WUW-4
COS-3.1 MS-G-8
4.2.5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns 376 WUW-5
- -
4.2.6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation 381 WUW-6 x COS-3.1 MM D-16
Fact Sheets
83
Section Category Page
# Measure
# BMP
MP #
CEQA #
5.0 Area Landscaping 384
5.1 Landscaping Equipment 384
5.1.1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment. 384 A-1
- -
5.1.2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program 389 A-2 x EE-4.2 MM D-13
5.1.3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility 391 A-3 x MO-2.4
A-1 or A-2; MM D-14
6.0 Solid Waste 392
6.1 Solid Waste 392
6.1.1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services 401 SW-1 x WRD-2 MM D-14
6.1.2 Recycle Demolished Construction Material 402 SW-2 x WRD-2.3 MM C-4
7.0 Vegetation 402
7.1 Vegetation 402
7.1.1 Urban Tree Planting 402 V-1
COS-3.3, COS 3.2 GP-4, MM T-14
7.1.2 Create New Vegetated Open Space 406 V-2
COS-4.1 -
8.0 Construction 410
8.1 Construction 410
8.1.1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment 410 C-1
TR-6, EE-1 MM C-2
8.1.2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment 420 C-2
TR-6, EE-1 -
8.1.3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling beyond Regulation Requirements 428 C-3
TR-6.2 -
8.1.4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan 431 C-4 x
TR-6.2, EE-1 Any C
8.1.5 Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System 432 C-5 x - -
9.0 Miscellaneous 433
9.1 Miscellaneous 433
9.1.1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project 433 Misc-1
LU-5 -
9.1.2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation 435 Misc-2
- -
9.1.3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials 437 Misc-3 x EE-1 MM C-3, E-17
9.1.4 Require Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations 439 Misc-4 x - -
9.1.5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing 440 Misc-5 x MO-6.1 -
9.1.6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation 442 Misc-6 x - -
10.0 General Plans 444
10.1 General Plans 444
10.1.1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency 444 GP-1 x - -
10.1.2 Establish a Local Farmer's Market 446 GP-2 x LU-2.1.4 MM D-18
10.1.3 Establish Community Gardens 448 GP-3 x LU-2.1.4 MM D-19
10.1.4 Plant Urban Shade Trees 450 GP-4 x COS-3.2 V-1, MM T-14
10.1.5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect 455 GP-5 x LU-6.1 MM E-8, E-12
8
4
84
Section Category Page
# Measure
#
3.0 Transportation
155
3.1 Land Use/Location 155
3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1
3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2
3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3
3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5
3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6
3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7
3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8
3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9
3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186
3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1
3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2
3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3
3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4
3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5
3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6
3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7
3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8
3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9
3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207
3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1
3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2
3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3
3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4
3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218
3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1
3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required
Implementation/Monitoring
223 TRT-2
3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3
3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4
3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5
3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6
3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7
3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8
3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9
3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10
3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11
3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12
3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13
3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14
3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15
Section Category Page
# Measure
#
3.5 Transit System Improvements 270
3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1
3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2
3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3
3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4
3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5
3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6
3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287
3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1
3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2
3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure
Improvement Projects
297 RPT-3
3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots 298 RPT-4
3.7 Vehicles 300
3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1
3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2
3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location
155 LUT-1
3.0 Transportation
3.1 Land Use/Location
3.1.1 Increase Density
Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 30.0% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.8 – 30.0% reduction in GHG emissions.
Measure Description:
Designing the Project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance reduces GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwellings per unit area. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. This strategy also provides a foundation for implementation of many other strategies which would benefit from increased densities. For example, transit ridership increases with density, which justifies enhanced transit service.
The reductions in GHG emissions are quantified based on reductions to VMT. The relationship between density and VMT is described by its elasticity. According to a recent study published by Brownstone, et al. in 2009, the elasticity between density and VMT is 0.12. Default densities are based on the typical suburban densities in North America which reflects the characteristics of the ITE Trip Generation Manual data used in the baseline estimates.
Measure Applicability:
Urban and suburban context o Negligible impact in a rural context
Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method:
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location
156 LUT-1
Inputs:
The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:
Number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre Mitigation Method:
% VMT Reduction = A * B [not to exceed 30%]
Where: A = Percentage increase in housing units per acre or jobs per job acre33 = (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre – number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) / (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) For small and medium sites (less than ½ mile in radius) the calculation of housing and jobs per acre should be performed for the development site as a whole, so that the analysis does not erroneously attribute trip reduction benefits to measures that simply shift jobs and housing within the site with no overall increase in site density. For larger sites, the analysis should address the development as several ½-mile-radius sites, so that shifts from one area to another would increase the density of the receiving area but reduce the density of the donating area, resulting in trip generation rate decreases and increases, respectively, which cancel one another. B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density (from literature) Detail:
A: [not to exceed 500% increase] o If housing: (Number of housing units per acre – 7.6) / 7.6
(See Appendix C for detail) o If jobs: (Number of jobs per acre – 20) / 20
(See Appendix C for detail) B: 0.07 (Boarnet and Handy 2010)
Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references:
Boarnet, Marlon and Handy, Susan. 2010. “DRAFT Policy Brief on the Impacts of Residential Density Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature.” http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm; Table 1.
33 This value should be checked first to see if it exceeds 500% in which case A = 500%.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location
157 LUT-1
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions34 CO2e 1.5-30% of running PM 1.5-30% of running CO 1.5-30% of running NOx 1.5-30% of running SO2 1.5-30% of running ROG 0.9-18% of total
Discussion:
The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in density versus the typical suburban residential and employment densities in North America (referred to as “ITE densities”). These densities are used as a baseline to mirror those densities reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.
There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of housing units or jobs per acre (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing residential density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as density). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.
Example:
Sample calculations are provided below for housing:
Low Range % VMT Reduction (8.5 housing units per acre) = (8.5 – 7.6) / 7.6 *0.07 = 0.8%
High Range % VMT Reduction (60 housing units per acre)
9.66.7
6.760
or 690% Since greater than 500%, set to 500%
= 500% x 0.07 = 0.35 or 35% Since greater than 30%, set to 30%
34 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location
158 LUT-1
Sample calculations are provided below for jobs:
Low Range % VMT Reduction (25 jobs per acre) = (25 – 20) / 20 *0.12 = 3%
High Range % VMT Reduction (100 jobs per acre)
420
20100
or 400%
=400% x 0.12 = 0.48 or 48% Since greater than 30%, set to 30% Preferred Literature:
-0.07 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density Boarnet and Handy’s detailed review of existing literature highlighted three individual studies that used the best available methods for analyzing data for individual households. These studies provided the following elasticities: -0.12 - Brownstone (2009), -0.07 – Bento (2005), and -0.08 – Fang (2008). To maintain a conservative estimate of the impacts of this strategy, the lower elasticity of -0.07 is used in the calculations.
Alternative Literature:
-0.05 to -0.25 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density The TRB Special Report 298 literature suggests that doubling neighborhood density across a metropolitan area might lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.
Alternative Literature References:
TRB, 2009. Driving and the Built Environment, Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf . Accessed March 2010. (p. 4)
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
Transportation
MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location
159 LUT-2
3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency
Range of Effectiveness: 10-65% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 10-65% reduction in GHG emissions
Measure Description:
This measure is not intended as a separate strategy but rather a documentation of empirical data to justify the “cap” for all land use/location strategies. The location of the Project relative to the type of urban landscape such as being located in an urban area, infill, or suburban center influences the amount of VMT compared to the statewide average. This is referred to as the location of efficiency since there are synergistic benefits to these urban landscapes.
To receive the maximum reduction for this location efficiency, the project will be located in an urban area/ downtown central business district. Projects located on brownfield sites/infill areas receive a lower, but still significant VMT reduction. Finally, projects in suburban centers also receive a reduction for their efficient location. Reductions are based on the typical VMT of a specific geographic area relative to the average VMT statewide.
Measure Applicability:
Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects
Baseline Method:
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Inputs:
No inputs are needed. VMT reduction ranges are based on the geographic location of the project within the region.
Mitigation Method:
% VMT reduction =
Transportation
MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location
160 LUT-2
Urban: 65% (representing VMT reductions for the average urban area in California versus the statewide average VMT)
Compact Infill: 30% (representing VMT reductions for the average compact infill area in California versus the statewide average VMT)
Suburban Center: 10% (representing VMT reductions for the average suburban center in California versus the statewide average VMT)
Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references:
Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27.
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions35 CO2e 10-65% of running PM 10-65% of running CO 10-65% of running NOx 10-65% of running SO2 10-65% of running ROG 6-39% of total
Discussion:
Example:
N/A – no calculations needed
Alternative Literature:
13-72% reduction in VMT for infill projects Preferred Literature:
Holtzclaw, et al., [1] studied relationships between auto ownership and mileage per car and neighborhood urban design and socio-economic characteristics in the Chicago, Los
35 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
MP# LU-3.3 LUT-2 Land Use / Location
161 LUT-2
Angeles, and San Francisco metro areas. In all three regions, average annual vehicle miles traveled is a function of density, income, household size, and public transit, as well as pedestrian and bicycle orientation (to a lesser extent). The annual VMT for each neighborhood was reviewed to determine empirical VMT reduction “caps” for this report. These location-based caps represent the average and maximum reductions that would likely be expected in urban, infill, suburban center, and suburban locations.
Growing Cooler looked at 10 studies which have considered the effects of regional location on travel and emissions generated by individual developments. The studies differ in methodology and context but they tend to yield the same conclusion: infill locations generate substantially lower VMT per capita than do greenfield locations, ranging from 13 - 72% lower VMT.
Literature References:
[1] Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27.
[2] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. (p.88, Figure 4-30)
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4
MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location
162 LUT-3
3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)
Range of Effectiveness: 9-30% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 9-30% reduction in GHG emissions.
Measure Description:
Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below.
Urban:
The urban project will be predominantly characterized by properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial/institutional locations (and vice versa). The residential units should be within ¼-mile of parks, schools, or other civic uses. The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping.
Suburban:
The suburban project will have at least three of the following on site and/or offsite within ¼-mile: Residential Development, Retail Development, Park, Open Space, or Office. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial locations (and vice versa). The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping.
Measure Applicability:
Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context (unless the project is a master-planned
community) Appropriate for mixed-use projects
Baseline Method:
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4
MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location
163 LUT-3
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Inputs:
The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:
Percentage of each land use type in the project (to calculate land use index)
Mitigation Method:
% VMT Reduction = Land Use * B [not to exceed 30%] Where Land Use = Percentage increase in land use index versus single use development
= (land use index – 0.15)/0.15 (see Appendix C for detail)
Land use index = -a / ln(6) (from [2])
a = ii
i aa ln6
1
ai = building floor area of land use i / total square feet of area considered
o a1 = single family residential o a2 = multifamily residential o a3 = commercial o a4 = industrial o a5 = institutional o a6 = park
if land use is not present and ai is equal to 0, set ai equal to 0.01
B = elasticity of VMT with respect to land use index (0.09 from [1])
not to exceed 500% increase
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4
MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location
164 LUT-3
Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references:
[1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.
[2] Song, Y., and Knaap, G., “Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34 (2004) 663-680. (p. 669) http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sugie/papers/RSUE/RSUE2005_Measuring%20the%20effects%20of%20mixed%20land%20use.pdf
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions36 CO2e 9-30% of running PM 9-30% of running CO 9-30% of running NOx 9-30% of running SO2 9-30% of running ROG 5.4-18% of total
Discussion:
In the above calculation, a land use index of 0.15 is used as a baseline representing a development with a single land use (see Appendix C for calculations).
There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of land use index (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing the land use index by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as diversity). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.
36 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4
MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location
165 LUT-3
Example:
Sample calculations are provided below:
90% single family homes, 10% commercial o Land use index = -[0.9*ln(0.9)+ 0.1*ln(0.1)+ 4*0.01*ln(0.01)] / ln(6) =
0.3 o Low Range % VMT Reduction = (0.3 – 0.15)/0.15 *0.09 = 9%
1/6 single family, 1/6 multi-family, 1/6 commercial, 1/6 industrial, 1/6 institutional, 1/6 parks
o Land use index = -[6*0.17*ln(0.17)] / ln(6) = 1 o High Range % VMT Reduction (land use index = 1) o Land use = (1-0.15)/0.15 = 5.6 or 566%. Since this is greater than
500%, set to 500%. o % VMT Reduction = (5 x 0.09) = 0.45 or 45%. Since this is greater
than 30%, set to 30%. Preferred Literature:
-0.09 = elasticity of VMT with respect to land use index The land use (or entropy) index measurement looks at the mix of land uses of a development. An index of 0 indicates a single land use while 1 indicates a full mix of uses. Ewing’s [1] synthesis looked at a total of 10 studies, where none controlled for self-selection37. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to the land use mix index is -0.09. The methodology for calculating the land use index is described in Song and Knaap [2].
Alternative Literature:
Vehicle trip reduction = [1 - (ABS(1.5*h-e) / (1.5*h+e)) - 0.25] / 0.25*0.03 Where : h = study area housing units, and e = study area employment. Nelson\Nygaard’s report [3] describes a calculation adapted from Criterion and Fehr & Peers [4]. The formula assumes an “ideal” housing balance of 1.5 jobs per household and a baseline diversity of 0.25. The maximum trip reduction with this method is 9%.
37 Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4
MP# LU-2 LUT-3 Land Use / Location
166 LUT-3
Alternative Literature References:
[3] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf
[4] Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001.
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-3
MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location
167 LUT-4
3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility
Range of Effectiveness: 6.7 – 20% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 6.7-20% reduction in GHG emissions.
Measure Description:
The project will be located in an area with high accessibility to destinations. Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of the project also increases the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces the VMT.
Measure Applicability:
Urban and suburban context Negligible impact in a rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects
Baseline Method:
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Inputs:
The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:
Distance to downtown or major job center Mitigation Method:
% VMT Reduction = Center Distance * B [not to exceed 30%] Where
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-3
MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location
168 LUT-4
Center Distance = Percentage decrease in distance to downtown or major job center versus typical ITE suburban development = (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development – distance to downtown/job center for project) / (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development) Center Distance = 12 - Distance to downtown/job center for project) / 12
See Appendix C for detail B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown or major job center (0.20 from [1]) Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references:
[1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions38 CO2e 6.7 – 20% of running PM 6.7 – 20% of running CO 6.7 – 20% of running NOx 6.7 – 20% of running SO2 6.7 – 20% of running ROG 4 – 12% of total
Discussion:
The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in distance to key destinations versus the standard suburban distance in North America. This distance is used as a baseline to mirror the distance to destinations reflected in the land uses for the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.
The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as destination accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density,
38 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-3
MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location
169 LUT-4
design, diversity, destination, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.
Example:
Sample calculations are provided below:
Low Range % VMT Reduction (8 miles to downtown/job center) =
6.7%0.2012
812
High Range % VMT Reduction (0.1 miles to downtown/job center) =
20.0%0.2012
0.112
Preferred Literature:
-0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto -0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown
The Ewing and Cervero report [1] finds that VMT is strongly related to measures of accessibility to destinations. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto is -0.20 (looking at five total studies). The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown is -0.22 (looking at four total studies, of which one controls for self selection39).
Alternative Literature:
10-30% reduction in vehicle trips The VTPI literature [2] suggests a 10-30% reduction in vehicle trips for “smart growth” development practices that result in more compact, accessible, multi-modal communities where travel distances are shorter, people have more travel options, and it is possible to walk and bicycle more.
Alternative Literature References:
[2] Litman, T., 2009. “Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). Website: http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf. Accessed March 2010. (p. 7, Table 3)
39 Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-3
MP# LU-2.1.4 LUT-4 Land Use / Location
170 LUT-4
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-2
MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location
171 LUT-5
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility
Range of Effectiveness: 0.5 – 24.6% VMT reduction and therefore 0.5-24.6% reduction in GHG emissions.40
Measure Description:
Locating a project with high density near transit will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the Project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced VMT. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a rail or bus station, is called a transit-oriented development (TOD). The project description should include, at a minimum, the following design features:
A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a 5-10 minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile from stop to edge of development), and/or
o A rail station located within a 20 minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from station to edge of development)
Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations
Neighborhood designed for walking and cycling In addition to the features listed above, the following strategies may also be implemented to provide an added benefit beyond what is documented in the literature:
Mixed use development [LUT-3] Traffic calmed streets with good connectivity [SDT-2] Parking management strategies such as unbundled parking, maximum parking
requirements, market pricing implemented to reduce amount of land dedicated to vehicle parking [see PPT-1 through PPT-7]
Measure Applicability:
Urban and suburban context Appropriate in a rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail
station with convenient rail service to a major employment center Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects
Baseline Method:
40 Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-2
MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location
172 LUT-5
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Inputs:
The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:
Distance to transit station in project Mitigation Method:
% VMT = Transit * B [not to exceed 30%] Where Transit = Increase in transit mode share = % transit mode share for project - % transit mode share for typical ITE development (1.3% as described in Appendix C) % transit mode share for project (see Table)
Distance to transit Transit mode share calculation equation (where x = distance of project to transit)
0 – 0.5 miles -50*x + 38 0.5 to 3 miles -4.4*x + 15.2 > 3 miles no impact Source: Lund et al, 2004; Fehr & Peers 2010 (see Appendix C for calculation detail)
B = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, see Appendix C for detail)
Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references: [1] Lund, H. and R. Cervero, and R. Willson (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. (p. 79, Table 5-25)
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-2
MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location
173 LUT-5
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions41 CO2e 0.5 – 24.6% of running PM 0.5 – 24.6% of running CO 0.5 – 24.6% of running NOx 0.5 – 24.6% of running SO2 0.5 – 24.6% of running
ROG 0.3 – 14.8% of total
Discussion:
The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as transit accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, transit accessibility, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.
Example:
Sample calculations are provided below for a rail station:
Low Range % VMT Reduction (3 miles from station) = [(-4.4*3+15.2) – 1.3%] * 0.67 = 0.5%
High Range % VMT Reduction (0 miles from station) = [(-50*0+38) – 1.3%] * 0.67 = 24.6%
Preferred Literature:
13 to 38% transit mode share (residents in TODs with ½ mile of rail station) 5 to 13% transit mode share (residents in TODs from ½ mile to 3 miles of rail
station) The Travel Characteristics report [1] surveyed TODs and surrounding areas in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, and Bay Area regions. Survey sites are all located in non-central business district locations, are within walking distance of a transit station with rail service headways of 15 minutes or less, and were intentionally developed as TODs.
41 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-2
MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location
174 LUT-5
Alternative Literature:
Alternate:
-0.05 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to nearest transit stop Ewing and Cervero’s meta-analysis [2] provides this weighted average elasticity based on six total studies, of which one controls for self-selection. The report does not provide the range of distances where this elasticity is valid.
Alternate:
5.9 – 13.3% reduction in VMT The Bailey, et al. 2008 report [3] predicted a reduction of household daily VMT of 5.8 miles for a location next to a rail station and 2.6 miles for a location next to a bus station. Using the report’s estimate of 43.75 daily average miles driven, the estimated reduction in VMT for rail accessibility is 13.3% (5.8/43.75) and for bus accessibility is 5.9% (2.6/43.75).
Alternate:
15% reduction in vehicle trips 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share
TCRP Report 128 [4] concludes that transit-oriented developments, compared to typical developments represented by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, have 47% lower vehicle trip rates and have 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share. TCRP Report 128 notes that the ITE Trip Generation Manual shows 6.67 daily trips per unit while detailed counts of 17 residential TODs resulted in 3.55 trips per unit (a 47% reduction in vehicle trips). This study looks at mid-rise and high-rise apartments at the residential TOD sites. A more conservative comparison would be to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for high-rise apartments, 4.2 trips per unit. This results in a 15% reduction in vehicle trips.
Alternative Literature References:
[2] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.
[3] Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Little, A. (2008). “The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.” ICF International. (Table 4 and 5)
[4] TCRP, 2008. TCRP Report 128 - Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf (p. 11, 69).
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-2
MP# LU-1,LU-4 LUT-5 Land Use / Location
175 LUT-5
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
Transportation
CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site
Enhancement
186 SDT-1
3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements
3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements
Range of Effectiveness: 0 - 2% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0 - 2% reduction in GHG emissions.
Measure Description:
Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. The project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project will minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated.
Measure Applicability:
Urban, suburban, and rural context Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network
improvements on site and connections to the larger off-site network. Baseline Method:
See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions
Inputs:
The project applicant must provide information regarding pedestrian access and connectivity within the project and to/from off-site destinations.
Transportation
CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site
Enhancement
187 SDT-1
Mitigation Method:
Estimated VMT Reduction Extent of Pedestrian Accommodations Context
2% Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site Urban/Suburban 1% Within Project Site Urban/Suburban
< 1% Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site Rural Assumptions:
Data based upon the following references:
Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html (accessed March 2010)
1000 Friends of Oregon (1997) “Making the Connections: A Summary of the LUTRAQ Project” (p. 16): http://www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/resources/lut_vol7.html
Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:
Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions45 CO2e 0 - 2% of running PM 0 - 2% of running CO 0 - 2% of running NOx 0 - 2% of running SO2 0 - 2% of running ROG 0 – 1.2% of total
Discussion:
As detailed in the preferred literature section below, the lower range of 1 – 2% VMT reduction was pulled from the literature to provide a conservative estimate of reduction potential. The literature does not speak directly to a rural context, but an assumption was made that the benefits will likely be lower than a suburban/urban context.
Example:
N/A – calculations are not needed.
Preferred Literature:
45 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.
Transportation
CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site
Enhancement
188 SDT-1
1 - 2% reduction in VMT
The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) attributes a 1% reduction in VMT from pedestrian-oriented design assuming this creates a 5% decrease in automobile mode share (e.g. auto split shifts from 95% to 90%). This mode split is based on the Portland Regional Land Use Transportation and Air Quality (LUTRAQ) project. The LUTRAQ analysis also provides the high end of 10% reduction in VMT. This 10% assumes the following features:
Compact, mixed-use communities Interconnected street network Narrower roadways and shorter block lengths Sidewalks Accessibility to transit and transit shelters Traffic calming measures and street trees Parks and public spaces
Other strategies (development density, diversity, design, transit accessibility, traffic calming) are intended to account for the effects of many of the measures in the above list. Therefore, the assumed effectiveness of the Pedestrian Network measure should utilize the lower end of the 1 - 10% reduction range. If the pedestrian improvements are being combined with a significant number of the companion strategies, trip reductions for those strategies should be applied as well, based on the values given specifically for those strategies in other sections of this report. Based upon these findings, and drawing upon recommendations presented in the alternate literature below, the recommended VMT reduction attributable to pedestrian network improvements, above and beyond the benefits of other measures in the above bullet list, should be 1% for comprehensive pedestrian accommodations within the development plan or project itself, or 2% for comprehensive internal accommodations and external accommodations connecting to off-site destinations.
Alternative Literature:
Alternate:
Walking is three times more common with enhanced pedestrian infrastructure 58% increase in non-auto mode share for work trips
Transportation
CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4 SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site
Enhancement
189 SDT-1
The Nelson\Nygaard [1] report for the City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR summarized studies looking at pedestrian environments. These studies have found a direct connection between non-auto forms of travel and a high quality pedestrian environment. Walking is three times more common with communities that have pedestrian friendly streets compared to less pedestrian friendly communities. Non-auto mode share for work trips is 49% in a pedestrian friendly community, compared to 31% in an auto-oriented community. Non-auto mode share for non-work trips is 15%, compared to 4% in an auto-oriented community. However, these effects also depend upon other aspects of the pedestrian friendliness being present, which are accounted for separately in this report through land use strategy mitigation measures such as density and urban design.
Alternate:
0.5% - 2.0% reduction in VMT The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions [2] attributes 1% reduction for a project connecting to existing external streets and pedestrian facilities. A 0.5% reduction is attributed to connecting to planned external streets and pedestrian facilities (which must be included in a pedestrian master plan or equivalent). Minimizing pedestrian barriers attribute an additional 1% reduction in VMT. These recommendations are generally in line with the recommended discounts derived from the preferred literature above.
Preferred and Alternative Literature Notes:
[1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix – Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401). http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/
Nelson\Nygaard looked at the following studies: Anne Vernez Moudon, Paul Hess, Mary Catherine Snyder and Kiril Stanilov (2003), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/432.1.pdf; Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch (1995), Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, http://www.uctc.net/papers/281.pdf;
[2] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p. 11) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf
Other Literature Reviewed:
None
B‐2. Health Risk Assessment Report
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
FortheProposed
PalladiumResidences6201WestSunsetBoulevardand6210WestSelmaAvenue
LosAngeles,CA90028
Preparedfor:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 201NFigueroaStreet#4LosAngeles,CA90012
Preparedby:
PCRSERVICESCORPORATION201SantaMonicaBoulevard,Suite500
SantaMonica,CA90401TEL310.451.4488FAX310.451.5279
October2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation i
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................................ES‐1
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 ProjectDescription...............................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 ExistingAirQualityConditions.......................................................................................................................................1
2.0 REGULATIONSANDSIGNIFICANCETHRESHOLDS.........................................................................................5 2.1 RegulatorySetting................................................................................................................................................................5
3.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................7 3.1 HealthRiskAnalysisintheDraftEIR...........................................................................................................................7 3.1 SourceIdentification...........................................................................................................................................................7
3.1.1Construction......................................................................................................................................................................7 3.1.2Operations..........................................................................................................................................................................8
3.2 EmissionsCalculations.......................................................................................................................................................8 3.2.1Construction......................................................................................................................................................................8 3.2.2Operations.......................................................................................................................................................................12
3.3 DispersionModeling.........................................................................................................................................................12 3.3.1Construction...................................................................................................................................................................13 3.3.2Operations.......................................................................................................................................................................13
3.4 CancerRiskandHealthRiskCalculations...............................................................................................................14
4.0 IMPACTANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................................19
5.0 SUMMARYOFRESULTS........................................................................................................................................21
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA:HEALTHRISKASSESSMENTWORKSHEETSANDOUTPUTFILES
List of Figures
Figure Page
ES‐1 VicinityLocationMap..................................................................................................................................................ES‐3 1 ProjectSiteandSurroundingLandUses....................................................................................................................3 2 ConstructionSource‐ReceptorDiagram..................................................................................................................15 3 OperationsSource‐ReceptorDiagram......................................................................................................................16
List of Tables
Table Page
ES‐1 MaximumCancerRiskImpactforOff‐siteSensitiveReceptors.................................................................ES‐2 1 ConstructionEquipmentComparisonbetweentheDEIRandCurrentAnalysis....................................10 2 ConstructionAssumptionComparisonbetweentheDEIRandCurrentAnalysis..................................12 3 OEHHARecommendedResidentialDailyBreathingRatesforPointEstimateDose
Calculations(L/kgbodyweight)..............................................................................................................................17 4 OEHHARecommendationsforFractionofTimeatHome(FAH)forEvaluatingResidential
CancerRisk..........................................................................................................................................................................18 5 SummaryofCarcinogenicRisksforOff‐siteSensitiveReceptors.................................................................19
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Description
Basin SouthCoastAirBasin
CARB CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard
CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
City CityofLosAngeles
CPF CancerPotencyFactor
DPM dieselexhaustparticulatematter
HARP HotspotsAnalysisandReportingProgram
HRA HealthRiskAssessment
MATESIV MultipleAirToxicsExposureStudy,May2015
SCAQMD SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictTAC toxicaircontaminants
USEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation ES‐1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Health Risk Assessment Technical Report is to assess and discuss the impacts ofpotential construction related toxic air contaminants (TACs) that may impact off‐site residents in closeproximitytothePalladiumResidences(theProject).CHPalladium,LLC,theApplicant,proposesamixed‐usedevelopmentona3.6‐acreparcellocatedat6201WestSunsetBoulevardand6210WestSelmaAvenue(theProjectSiteorSite)intheHollywoodcommunityoftheCityofLosAngeles(theCity).
TheProjectSiteshowninFigureES‐1,VicinityLocationMap,islocatedintheHollywoodcommunityoftheCity of Los Angeles. The Project would add two new buildings to the Project Site, replacing the surfaceparkinglotsonthenortheastandsouthwestportionsoftheProjectSite.TheProjectincludesexcavationforsubterraneanparking,andconstructionofbuildings.
InMarch2015,astheFinalEIRwasbeingpreparedforpublicationOEHHAadoptednewguidelineswhichupdatedthepreviousguidanceforpreparingHealthRiskAssessments(HRAs)undertheState’sAirToxics“Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment program by incorporating advances in risk assessment withconsideration of infants and children using Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF). These changes also take intoaccount different breathing rates and time spent at home. On June 5, 2015, SCAQMD incorporated theupdatedOEHHAguidelinesintoitsapplicablerulesthatapplytocertainstationarysourcesregulatedundertheHot Spots program. The SCAQMDhas not yet released guidance on the applicability of the updatedOEHHA guidelines for preparing CEQA documents. Nonetheless, even though SCAQMD has notrecommended using the update OEHHA guidelines for preparing HRAs in CEQA documents, to beconservative, ananalysiswasperformedusing theseguidelines. Newanalyseswereperformedusing thenewOEHHAguidelinestoaddressboththeconstructionimpactsthatwerepreviouslyanalyzedqualitativelyandalsotheoperationsimpacts,previouslyquantifiedinaccordancewith2003OEHHAguidance.
TheHealthRiskAssessmentincludesthreeseparatecomponents: (1)Emissionsinventory;(2)DispersionModeling;and(3)HealthRiskCalculations. Emissions fromtheconstructionandoperationof theProjectwerecalculatedusingtheCaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel(CalEEMod)andemissionfactorsfromtheCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFACmodel. Dispersionmodelingwas performedusing theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA)AERMODmodelwithmeteorologicaldatafromtheclosestSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD)monitoringstation.Sensitivereceptorsusedformodelingwereplacedatthelocationofexistingandfuturepotentialresidentialbuildingswithin500feetoftheSite.HealthriskcalculationswereperformedusingtheCARBHotspotsAnalysisandReportingProgram(HARP),version2spreadsheetmethodology.
Asshown inTableES‐1,MaximumCancerRiskImpactforOff‐siteSensitiveReceptors, below, cancer riskatthe maximum impacted receptor was below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million.Therefore, impacts to off‐site receptors were less than significant and no mitigation measures werenecessary.
Executive Summary November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation ES‐2
Table ES‐1
Maximum Cancer Risk Impact for Off‐site Sensitive Receptors
Risk Scenario Carcinogenic Risk Per One Million*
Construction:MaximumExposedIndividual(MEI) 6.5Operations:MaximumExposedIndividual(MEI) 2.0SCAQMDSignificanceThreshold 10ExceedThreshold? No
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.
£¤101
N El
Centr
o Ave
FIGURE
Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2014.
0 0.125 0.25 Miles
Palladium Residences
Regional and Vicinity Location MapoES-1
^PROJECT SITE
Project Boundary
Executive Summary November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation ES‐4
Thispageintentionallyblank.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TheProjectSiteisimmediatelyborderedbySunsetBoulevardtothesouth,ArgyleAvenuetothewest,SelmaAvenuetothenorth,andNorthElCentroAvenuetotheeast,asshownintheaerialphotographpresentedinFigure 1, ProjectSiteandSurroundingLandUses. The northwest corner of the block is under differentownershipandisnotapartoftheProjectSite.Landusesinthenorthwestcornerareprimarilycommercial.Landusestothenorth,acrossSelmaAvenue,includeaTraderJoe’sgrocerystore,the1600Vinemulti‐familyresidential building, the W Hollywood Hotel, The Argyle nightclub and cocktail lounge, and the RicardoMontalbanTheater. Landuses to the south, acrossSunsetBoulevard, consistof retail stores, restaurants,Nickelodeonstudios,andacarwash. Landuses to theeastandwestacrossElCentroAvenueandArgyleAvenue,respectively,arepredominantlycommercialwithsomefuturemulti‐familyresidentialdevelopment.
TheProjectSiteisgenerallyflat,withagentleslopetothesouthandanaverageelevationofapproximatelyfeet abovemean sea level. TheProject Site currently contains theHollywoodPalladium in the southeastquadrantoftheSiteandassociatedsurfaceparkinginthesouthwestandnortheastquadrants.TheparkinglotisaccessedviatwodrivewaysonArgyleAvenueandElCentroAvenue.
The Project, as described in the Draft EIR, included two development options to provide flexibility forchangingmarketconditions. UnderOption1,Residential, theProjectwouldcontainup to731residentialunits.UnderOption2,Residential/Hotel,theProjectwouldhaveprovidedupto598residentialunitsanda250 room hotelwith related hotel facilities such as banquet andmeeting area. Under both Options, theProject’stwonewbuildingswouldbeupto28storiesandapproximately350feetinheight,asdefinedbytheLosAngelesMunicipalCode, andwouldbe constructedwith the same structural configurations, includingthe same massing of above‐ground and below‐ground structures. Both Options would also includeapproximately24,000squarefeetofstreetlevelretailandrestaurantuses,includingactivationofcurrentlyvacant retail space in the Palladium building along Sunset Boulevard. Parking would be located in asubterraneanstructureaswellas inanabove‐gradestructurealong thenorthernedgeof theProjectSite.TheApplicantisnolongerproposingthedevelopmentofOption2.
1.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
TheSCAQMDhasreleasedadraftfinalBasin‐wideairtoxicsstudy(MATESIV,MultipleAirToxicsExposureStudy,May2015). TheMATESIVStudyrepresentsoneof themostcomprehensiveair toxicsstudieseverconducted in an urban environment. The Study was aimed at estimating the cancer risk from toxic aircontaminant(TAC)emissionsthroughouttheBasinbyconductingacomprehensivemonitoringprogram,anupdatedemissionsinventoryofTACs,andamodelingefforttofullycharacterizehealthrisksforthoselivingin the Basin. The Study concluded that the average carcinogenic risk from air pollution in the Basin isapproximately420inonemillion.Mobilesources(e.g.,cars,trucks,trains,ships,aircraft,etc.)representthegreatest contributors. Approximately 75 percent of the risk is attributed to diesel particulate emissions,approximately20percenttoothertoxicsassociatedwithmobilesources(includingbenzene,butadiene,andformaldehyde), and approximately 5 percent of all carcinogenic risk is attributed to stationary sources(whichincludeindustriesandothercertainbusinesses,suchasdrycleanersandchromeplatingoperations).
1.0 Introduction November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 2
As part of theMATES IV study, the SCAQMDhas prepared a series ofmaps that show regional trends inestimatedoutdoorinhalationcancerriskfromtoxicemissions,aspartofanongoingefforttoprovideinsightinto relative risks. The maps’ estimates represent the number of potential cancers per million peopleassociatedwitha lifetimeofbreathingair toxics (24hoursperdayoutdoors for70years) inpartsof thearea.TheMATESIVwebinteractivemapisthemostrecentlyavailablemaptorepresentexistingconditionsneartheProjectarea. Theestimatedcancerriskisapproximately469cancerspermillion.1Generally,theriskfromairtoxicsislowernearthecoastline;increasinginland,withhigherrisksconcentratednearlargedieselsources(e.g.,freeways,airports,andports).
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study Iv – Model Estimated Cancer Risk, (2015),
http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/OI.Web/OI.aspx?jurisdictionID=AQMD.gov&shareID=73f55d6b‐82cc‐4c41‐b779‐4c48c9a8b15b.AccessedOctober12,2015.
£¤101
Selma Avenue
N El C
entro
Aven
ue
Sunset Boulevard
Argy
le Av
enue
Hollywood Boulevard
Vine S
treet N G
ower
Stree
t
De Longpre Avenue
Yucca StreetIva
r Ave
nue
HollywoodPalladium
CapitalRecords
PantagesTheatre
W. Hoteland
Residences
Mixed Use Residential and
Commercial
Sunset & Vine Mixed Use
Commercial and
Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Sunset & Vine Tower
CBSColumbia
Square
NickelodeonStudio
Low/Medium Density
Residential
Commercial
Sunset Gower Studios
Arclight Cinemas/Cinerama Dome
Sunset Media Tower
Office and Commercial
HollywoodCommunity
Hospital
Low/Medium Density
Residential
Residential and Commercial
LA Fitness
Selma Avenue
Harold Way
La B
aig Av
enue
CommercialLA FilmSchool
Columbia Square(under
construction)
BLVD 6200(under
construction)
Commercial
Commercial ParkingStructure
Selma and Vine Mixed Use
(under construction)
FIGURE
Source: ESRI, 2010; PCR Services Corporation, 2014.
0 400 800 Feet
Palladium Residences
Project Site andSurrounding Land Useso 1
Project Boundary
Selma Avenue Area
Sunset Boulevard Area
1.0 Introduction November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 4
Thispageintentionallyblank.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 5
2.0 REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
2.1 REGULATORY SETTING
Certainairpollutantshavebeenrecognizedtocausenotablehealthproblemsandconsequentialdamagetothe environment either directly or in reaction with other pollutants, due to their presence in elevatedconcentrationsintheatmosphere.Suchpollutantshavebeenidentifiedandregulatedaspartoftheoverallendeavor to prevent further deterioration and facilitate improvement in air quality. The SCAQMDperiodicallyassesseslevelsofTACsintheAirBasin.ATACisdefinedbyCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCodeSection39655:
“Toxicaircontaminant”meansanairpollutantwhichmaycauseorcontributetoanincreaseinmortalityorinseriousillness,orwhichmayposeapresentorpotentialhazardtohumanhealth.Asubstancethatislistedasahazardousairpollutantpursuanttosubsection(b)ofSection112ofthefederalact(42U.S.C.Sec.7412(b))isatoxicaircontaminant.
TACsrefertoadiversegroupofairpollutantsthatarecapableofcausingchronic(i.e.,oflongduration)andacute (i.e., severe but of shortduration) adverse effects onhumanhealth. TACs includeboth organic andinorganic chemical substances thatmay be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasolinestations,motorvehicles,drycleaners,industrialoperations,paintingoperations,andresearchandteachingfacilities.TACsaredifferent than “criteria”pollutants in that ambient airquality standardshavenotbeenestablishedforTACs,largelybecausetherearehundredsofairtoxics,andtheireffectsonhealthtendtobefeltonalocalscaleratherthanonaregionalbasis.
In 1998, The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) identified diesel exhaust particulatematter(DPM)asaTACbasedonitspotentialtocausecancer,prematuredeath,andotherhealthproblems.The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction is related to diesel particulate matteremissionsassociatedwithheavy‐dutyequipment.Duringlong‐termoperations,sourcesofDPMmayincludeheavydutydieseltrucksandstationaryemergencygenerators.
The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is responsible for developing andrevisingguidelinesforperforminghealthriskassessments(HRAs)undertheState’stheAirToxicsHotSpotsProgram Risk Assessment (AB2588) regulation. In March 2015, OEHHA adopted new guidelines whichupdates thepreviousguidanceby incorporatingadvances inriskassessmentwithconsiderationof infantsandchildrenusingAgeSensitivityFactors(ASF). Thesechangesalsotakeintoaccountdifferentbreathingratesandtimespentathome. Childrenhaveahigherbreathingratecomparedtoadultsandwould likelyspendmoretimeathomeresulting in longerexposuredurations. OnJune5,2015,SCAQMDincorporatedtheseguidelinesintorelevantrulesapplicabletopermittingofstationarysources.2TheSCAQMDhasnotyetreleasedguidanceontheapplicabilityoftheupdatedOEHHAguidelinesforpreparingCEQAdocuments.
TheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholdsGuideandtheSCAQMDhasestablishedthatasignificant impactwouldoccuriftheprojectwouldexposesensitivereceptorstoTACsresultinginanincrementalcancerriskimpactgreaterorequalto10inonemillion.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes of the June 5, 2015 Meeting, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐
source/Agendas/Governing‐Board/2015/2015‐Jul10‐001.pdf?sfvrsn=8,AccessedSeptember28,2015
2.0 Regulations and Significance Thresholds November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 6
Thispageintentionallyblank.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 7
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS IN THE DRAFT EIR
As discussed previously, construction health risk impacts in the DEIR were addressed qualitatively,consistentwithSCAQMDCEQAguidelinesatthetimeofEIRpreparation.TheDEIRwasmadeavailableforpublicreviewinOctober2014,withthereviewperiodendingDecember2014.
Asindicatedabove,OEHHAadoptednewriskassessmentguidelinesinMarch2015.InJune2015,SCAQMDhas incorporated these guidelines into rules that apply to stationary sources. The SCAQMD has not yetreleased guidance on the applicability of the updated OEHHA guidelines for preparing CEQA documents.Nonetheless,eventhoughSCAQMDhasnotrecommendedusingtheupdateOEHHAguidelinesforpreparingHRAs in CEQA documents, to be conservative, an analysis was performed using these guidelines. Newanalyseswereperformedusing thenewOEHHAguidelines to addressboth the construction impacts thatwerepreviouslyanalyzedqualitativelyandalsotheoperationsimpacts,previouslyquantifiedinaccordancewith2003OEHHAguidance.
Healthriskanalysesconsistofseveralcomponentstoassesshealthimpactstonearbysensitive(residential)uses including an emissions inventory, dispersion modeling, and health risk calculations. Duringconstruction activities, diesel particulate matter emitted from heavy equipment and trucks would beanalyzed for impacts to human health. During operational activities, emissions from charbroilers,maintenanceandtestingoftwoon‐siteemergencygenerators,andon‐siteidlingofmedium‐andheavy‐dutytrucksandtransportationrefrigerationunits(TRUs)wouldbeanalyzed.
Project‐related construction DPM emissions were calculated for on‐site equipment usage and haul trucktrafficduringconstructionactivities. Operationalemissionswerecalculated forcharbroilers,maintenanceandtestingoftwoon‐siteemergencygenerators,andon‐siteidlingofmedium‐andheavy‐dutytrucksandTRUs. Dispersion modeling was performed to determine pollutant concentrations at nearby off‐sitesensitivereceptors.HealthimpactswerecalculatedusingriskfactorsobtainedfromOEHHA.Thefollowingsection discusses the analysis of project‐related construction and operational health risk based on therevisedOEHHAguidelines.TherevisedanalysiswouldbebasedonthesameassumptionsusedintheDEIR.
3.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
3.1.1 Construction
Due to the short‐term nature of construction activities (3 years), health risk impacts were analyzedqualitativelyintheDEIR.However,intheairqualitysectionoftheDEIR,criteriapollutantemissionswerecalculatedforvariousproject‐relatedconstructionactivitiesandlocations. Thesesourcesofairpollutantsincludeheavyequipmentusage(bulldozers,backhoes,tractors,andforklifts)andtrucksidlingandtravellingtoandfromthesite(concrete,excavation). EmissionswerealsocalculatedseparatelyforconstructionofthetowersandrehabilitationofthePalladium.
3.0 Methodology November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 8
3.1.2 Operations
OperationalhealthriskimpactswereanalyzedquantitativelyintheDEIR. TheProject’soperationalhealthriskimpactswasreassessedusingtheupdatedOEHHAguidelines,takingintoaccountagesensitivityfactorsaswellastheupdatedexposurefactors.Asdiscussedpreviously,sourcesofemissionsincludecharbroilers,maintenanceandtestingoftwoon‐siteemergencygenerators,andon‐siteidlingofmedium‐andheavy‐dutytrucksandTRUs.
As shown in Figure 2, ConstructionSource‐ReceptorDiagram, a 0.25 mile radius was selected based onSCAQMDrecommendationsforsitingsourcesoftoxicsinrelationtosensitivereceptors(schools,residentialuses).3
3.2 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
3.2.1 Construction
Project‐relatedconstructionemissionswereestimatedconsistentwiththeDEIRwhichusedtheCalEEMod(Version 2013.2.2) software, an emissions inventory software program recommended by the SCAQMD.CalEEModisbasedonoutputsfromOFFROAD2011andEMFAC2011,whichareemissionsestimationmodelsdevelopedbyCARBandusedtocalculateemissionsfromconstructionactivities,includingon‐andoff‐roadvehicles.AlthoughthecurrentversionofCalEEModisbasedonEMFAC2011,theanalysisfortheProjecthasbeen updated with EMFAC2014 which was released in December 2014. The input values used in thisanalysis were adjusted to be Project‐specific based on equipment types and the construction schedule.Emissionswere calculated for diesel particulatematter resulting from heavy equipment usage and truckengines.
Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure Included in the Draft EIR
Projectdesignfeatures(PDF)andmitigationmeasuresassumedintheDEIRwerealsoincorporatedintotheanalysis. Project design features and mitigation measures applicable to project‐related constructionactivitiesinclude:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstruction equipment thatmeet or exceed the CARB andUSEPATier 3 off‐roademissions standards for those equipment rated at 50 hp or greater during thegrading,concretepouringandbuildingconstructionphasesofProjectconstruction.The Project shall utilize on‐road haul trucks that meet or exceed the model year2010emissionstandards Acopyofeachunit’scertifiedtierspecificationormodelyear specification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall beavailable upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit ofequipment.
MM‐AQ‐1: TheApplicantshallimplementthefollowingmeasurestoreducetheemissionsofairpollutants generated by heavy‐duty diesel‐powered equipment operating at theProjectSite:
3 AirQualityIssuesinSchoolSiteSelection,SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict,June2005.
November 2015 3.0 Methodology
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 9
Themostcurrentgradeofultra‐lowsulfurdiesel(ULSD)fuelapprovedbyCARBandavailableintheSouthCoastAirBasinshallbeusedforallheavy‐dutydiesel‐poweredequipmentoperatingand/orrefuelingattheProjectSite
Truckandequipmentidlingandqueuingtimeshallbelimitedtofiveminutesorless,whenequipmentisnotinactiveuse,inaccordancewiththeCARBAirborneToxicControlMeasure;
Theuseof theelectricity infrastructuresurrounding theconstructionsitesshallbe used wherever available and possible rather than electrical generatorspoweredbyinternalcombustionengines;
Utilize construction equipment having the minimum practical engine size (i.e.,lowestappropriatehorsepowerratingfortheintendedjob);
All construction equipment operating on‐site shall be properly maintained(including engine tuning) at all times in accordance with manufacturers'specificationsandschedules;
Tampering with construction equipment to increase horsepower or to defeatemissioncontroldevicesshallbeprohibited;
Theuseofallconstructionequipmentshallbesuspendedduringasecond‐stagesmogalertintheimmediatevicinityoftheProjectSite.
Refinements to Project Design Feature
SincethepreparationoftheDEIR,thedeveloperhasrefinedandincorporatedadditionalemissionscontrolmeasuresinPDF‐GHG‐1inordertoreduceimpactsduetoconstructiondieselparticulatematteremissions.Thesemeasuresincludeelectrificationofcertainequipmentusedon‐siteanduseofUSEPATier4emissionscompliantequipmenton‐site.TherevisedPDFisprovidedbelow:
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetorexceedtheCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipmentratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading, concretepouringandbuilding constructionphasesofProject construction.Pole power (electricity delivered from the utility grid) shall be the primarysource of power for usewith on‐site electric tools, equipment, lighting, etc.,except where/when infeasible due to site constraints; diesel generators, ifneeded, shallbe ratedbetween75horsepower (hp)and750hpandmeetorexceed applicable Tier 4 standards. Total diesel generator usage duringconstructionshallnotexceed312,000horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucks that meet or exceed the model year 2010 emission standards. Theserequirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment.Acopyofeach unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB orSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment.
Construction Emissions
TheemissionsreductionsassociatedwithrevisedPDF‐GHG_1havebeentakenintoaccountinthisanalysis.The developer has agreed to electrify cranes and pumps (concrete) used during construction activities.
3.0 Methodology November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 10
Dieselpoweredgeneratorswerealsoremovedfromtheequipmentfleetmix,andelectricalpowerwouldbeprovided by a power pole. As a result, cranes, pumps, and generators were removed from the projectconstruction equipment mix. In addition, the Project design has been revised to reduce the size of thesubterranean parking structure. As a result, the amount of excavation requiredwould be reduced from235,000cubicyardsto153,000cubicyards.Therefore,theamountofequipmentandnumberoftrucktripsusedduringexcavationwasreducedaccordinglyforthepurposesofthisanalysis.
Table1,ConstructionEquipmentComparisonbetweentheDEIRandCurrentAnalysis,providesacomparisonbetween the construction equipment fleetmix assumed in theDEIR and the current project constructionrequirements.
Table 1
Construction Equipment Comparison between the DEIR and Current Analysis
DEIR Current
Phase Equipment Qty. Hrs./Day
Engine hp Load
Level of Mitigation Qty.
Hrs./ Day
Engine hp Load
Level of Mitigation
Grading/Excavation
Crane 2 8 226 0.29Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 ‐‐ ‐‐ Electric
DrillRig 2 8 205 0.50Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 205 0.50 Tier4
Excavators 4 8 162 0.38Tier3withLevel3DPF
4 8 162 0.38 Tier4
OtherMaterialHandlingEquipment
1 8 167 0.40Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 167 0.40 Tier4
RubberTiredDozers
1 8 255 0.40Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 255 0.40 Tier4
RubberTiredLoaders
2 8 200 0.36Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 200 0.36 Tier4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Tier3withLevel3DPF 2 8 97 0.37 Tier4
Concrete–Continuous
ConcretePumps 8 14 84 0.74Tier3withLevel3DPF
8 14 ‐‐ ‐‐ Electric
Pour RubberTiredDozers
1 14 255 0.40Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 14 255 0.40 Tier4
RubberTiredLoaders
1 14 200 0.36Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 14 200 0.36 Tier4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 14 97 0.37Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 14 97 0.37 Tier4
Concrete–Normal
ConcretePumps 4 8 84 0.74Tier3withLevel3DPF
4 8 ‐‐ ‐‐ Electric
RubberTiresDozers
1 8 255 0.40Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 255 0.40 Tier4
BuildingConstruction
Concrete/IndustrialSaw
1 8 81 0.73Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 81 0.73 Tier4
Cranes 2 7 226 0.29Tier3withLevel3DPF 2 7 ‐‐ ‐‐ Electric
Forklifts 1 8 89 0.20Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 89 0.20 Tier4
GeneratorSets 4 8 84 0.74Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 84 0.74ReducedNumber,Tier4
November 2015 3.0 Methodology
Table 1 (Continued)
Construction Equipment Comparison between the DEIR and Current Analysis
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 11
DEIR Current
Phase Equipment Qty. Hrs./Day
Engine hp Load
Level of Mitigation Qty.
Hrs./ Day
Engine hp Load
Level of Mitigation
AerialLift 2 8 62 0.31Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 62 0.31 Tier4
OtherConstructionEquipment
2 8 171 0.42Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 171 0.42 Tier4
Pumps 4 8 84 0.74Tier3withLevel3DPF
4 8 ‐‐ ‐‐ Electric
RubberTiredLoaders
1 8 200 0.36Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 200 0.36 Tier4
SkidSteerLoader 2 8 65 0.37Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 8 65 0.37 Tier4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 7 97 0.37 Tier3withLevel3DPF
2 7 97 0.37 Tier4
PavingCementandMortarMixers
1 6 9 0.56 None 1 6 9 0.56 Tier4
Pavers 1 8 125 0.42Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 125 0.42 Tier4
PavingEquipment 1 6 130 0.36Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 6 130 0.36 Tier4
Rollers 1 6 80 0.38Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 6 80 0.38 Tier4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8 97 0.37Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 97 0.37 Tier4
RehabilitationAerialLift
1 8 62 0.31Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 62 0.31 Tier4
Dumpers/Tenders
1 8 16 0.38Tier3withLevel3DPF
1 8 16 0.38 Tier4
DPF – diesel particulate filter
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.
AtthetimeofDEIRpreparation,theCARBEMFAC2011on‐roadvehicleemissionsmodelwasusedtoanalyzehaulandconcretetruckemissions.TheEMFAC2011emissionsmodelwasthemostrecentmodelavailablefromCARBat the timetheDEIRwasprepared. However,since that time,CARBreleasedtheEMFAC2014model inDecember2014,which is anupdate toEMFAC2011. Inorder to incorporate the latestavailableemissionfactors, theconstructionemissionsanalysiswasrevisedto includeEMFAC2014emission factors.Consistentwith PDF‐GHG‐1 identified in theDEIR, excavation haul trucksweremodeled as year 2010 ornewer.TheseupdatestotheHRAanalysisaresummarizedinTable2,ConstructionAssumptionComparisonbetweentheDEIRandCurrentAnalysis. As the analysis focuseson impacts tonearby receptors, emissionswerecalculatedfortruckstravellingonstreetsadjacenttotheproject.
TherevisionsshowninTable1andTable2wereincorporatedintotheCalEEModandemissionsmodelingspreadsheets for this analysis. Project‐related constructionDPM emissionswere calculated on an annualbasisforhealthriskcalculations.EmissionswerecalculatedseparatelyforconstructionofthenewbuildingassociatedwiththeProjectandrehabilitationoftheexistingPalladium.DetailedconstructionTACemissionscalculationsandCalEEModfilesareprovidedinAppendixA.1ofthisreport.
3.0 Methodology November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 12
Table 2
Construction Assumption Comparison between the DEIR and Current Analysis
Parameter DEIR Current
ExcavationVolume 235,000 cubicyards 153,000cubicyardsEmissionFactormodel EMFAC2011 EMFAC2014
HaulTruckFleetModelYear 2010 ornewer 2010ornewer
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.
3.2.2 Operations
Project‐relatedoperationalemissionswereestimatedasdiscussedintheDEIR.Asdiscussedonpage4.B‐27oftheDEIR,TACemissionsduringoperationwouldberelatedtocharbroilingactivitiesthatmayoccurattheproposed restaurant uses and diesel emissions from trucks and the emergency generators. The DEIRdeterminedthattheprimarycontributortotheriskwasemissionsfromrestaurantcharbroiling. Althoughrisks were determined to be less than significant, the DEIR relied on uncontrolled TAC emissions fromcharbroiling. However, restaurant charbroiling in the South Coast Air Basin is required to comply withSCAQMDRule1138 (ControlofEmissions fromRestaurantOperations),which requires the installationofemissions controls on charbroilers. For the purposes of this reassessment using the updated OEHHAguidelines,controlledTACemissions fromrestaurantcharbroilingwasusedconsistentwithSCAQMDRule1138,whichresultsinareductionofTACemissionsbyapproximately83percent.DetailedoperationalTACemissionsareprovidedinAppendixA.2ofthisreport.
3.3 DISPERSION MODELING
Dispersion modeling was performed using the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), version 14134.Meteorologicaldata from theSCAQMD’sDowntownLAmonitoring stationwithinSourceReceptorArea1wasusedtorepresentlocalweatherconditionsandprevailingwindsdata.TerraindatafromU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)wasusedtoassignelevationstosourcesandmodelingreceptors.
Sensitive receptors considered in the DEIRwere also analyzed in this HRA. Existing sensitive receptorsinclude:
ResidentialAreas: Existing multi‐family uses are located in a mixed‐use developmentapproximately275feettothenorthwestoftheProjectSiteonthenorthwestcornerofArgyleAvenueand SelmaAvenue. Lowdensity residential neighborhoodswith single andmulti‐family units arelocatedapproximately400feettothesouthoftheProjectSiteonthesouthernsideofLelandWay;andapproximately500feettotheeastoftheProjectSiteontheeastsideofGowerStreet.
Other Sensitive Uses: Additional existing sensitive receptors are located farther away from theProjectSite than those listedabove. TheHollywoodCommunityHospital is locatedapproximately550 feet to thesouthof theProjectSiteon thenorthsideofDeLongpreAvenue. TheMontessoriShir‐HashirimSchool is located approximately 700 feet to the northeast of theProject Site on thenorthsideofCarltonWay.
November 2015 3.0 Methodology
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 13
BeyondtheexistingdevelopmentthatcouldpotentiallybeimpactedbyProjectconstruction,therearefourfuture residential projects in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site that could be impacted should theybecomeconstructedandoccupiedpriortotheconstructionoftheProject.FuturesensitivelandusesincloseproximitytotheProjectSiteincludethefollowing:
Related Project 11: Selma and Vine Project. Mixed use multi‐family residential project locatedapproximately85feet,caddycornerfromtheProjectSiteacrossArgyleAvenue.
RelatedProject9:BLVD6200.Mixed‐usemultifamilyresidentialproject,locatedapproximately250feetnorthoftheProjectSite.
Related Project 44: Columbia Square. Mixed‐use project with a residential tower locatedapproximate140feeteastoftheProjectSite,acrossElCentroAvenue.
RelatedProject60: 6250SunsetProject. Mixed‐usemulti‐familyresidentiallocatedapproximately100feetsouthoftheProjectSite,acrossSunsetBoulevard.
Dispersionmodelingwasperformedatexistingand futurepotentialsensitivereceptors. Maximumhealthrisk impacts were identified at sensitive receptors, existing or future, that would result in the highestconcentrationsofTACsaccordingtotheAERMODdispersionmodelinganalysis.
3.3.1 Construction
Asdiscussedabove,constructionemissionswerecalculatedforthreeseparatesources:(1)Constructionofthetowers;(2)Haultruckidlingandtravelonstreetsadjacenttotheproject;and(3)RehabilitationofthePalladium. These sources (construction, truck, rehabilitation)were entered into the AERMODdispersionmodelseparatelyaslinevolumesources.Constructionactivitiesandassociatedemissionswereassumedtooccur during allowable construction hours (7AM‐9PM). A scalar emission rate (1 g/s) was used for allsourcesforlaterinputintotheHotspotsAnalysisandReportingProgram(HARP).
ReceptorswereplacedatnearbyexistingandfuturesensitivereceptorsasdiscussedaboveandidentifiedintheDEIR.Receptorsrepresentnearbyresidentialuses.However,residentialbuildingsneartheprojectsitetypically contain a lobby on the first floorwith residential uses starting on the second floor. Therefore,residentialreceptorsweremodeledata20footheight(flagpolereceptor)torepresent2ndstorywindows.Thesource‐receptorconfigurationforconstructiondispersionmodelingisshownasFigure2.
3.3.2 Operations
Asdiscussedabove,operationalemissionswerecalculatedforthefollowingseparatesources:(1)restaurantcharbroilers;(2)maintenanceandtestingoftwoon‐siteemergencygenerators;(3)on‐siteidlingofmedium‐andheavy‐dutytrucks;and(4)on‐siteidlingofTRUs. Operationalemissionsfromrestaurantcharbroilingwere modeled as area sources coinciding with the proposed restaurant uses. Emissions from the twoemergency generators as a result ofmaintenance and testingweremodeled as stationary point sources.Buoyancyeffects from theexhaustplume temperatureand flowrate andeffects frombuildingdownwashwereincorporatedintothestackemissionsfromtheemergencygenerators.Incidentalemissionsfromon‐site idling of medium‐ and heavy‐duty trucks and transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) were alsoincludedastheanalysisasareasourcesatloading/unloadingareas.
3.0 Methodology November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 14
Sensitive receptors were represented as Cartesian grid receptors and were placed at 20‐meter intervalsoutsidetheboundaryoftheProjectSiteatsensitivereceptorlocationstocovernearbyexistingandpotentialfuturesensitivereceptors.Thesource‐receptorconfigurationforoperationaldispersionmodelingisshownasFigure3.
3.4 CANCER RISK AND HEALTH RISK CALCULATIONS
Cancerriskforproject‐relatedconstructionactivitieswascalculatedusingtheCARB’smostrecentversionofHARP(version2)whichwasreleasedMarch2015.ThisversionofHARPincorporatesthemostrecentOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment(OEHHA)guidelinesforhealthriskassessments.Theexposureduration was assumed to be 3 years for construction and 30 years for long‐term operation activities.ExposurewasbasedondefaultvaluesprovidedbyOEHHAandwithinHARP (whichhasbeenupdated toaccountforthemostrecentOEHHAguidelinesforhealthriskassessments).Operationalhealthriskimpactswere originally assessed using spreadsheet methodology in the DEIR. The operational HRA has beenupdatedbasedonthemorerecentOEHHAguidelinesconsistentwithHARP(version2).
Inperforminghealthriskcalculations,carcinogeniccompoundsarenotconsideredtohavethresholdlevels(i.e.,doselevelsbelowwhichtherearenorisks). Anyexposure,therefore,willhavesomeassociatedrisk.Incremental health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds is defined in terms of theprobability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. Under adeterministic approach (i.e., point estimate methodology), the cancer risk probability is determined bymultiplyingthechemical’sannualconcentrationbyitsunitriskfactor(URF). TheURFisameasureofthecarcinogenicpotentialofachemicalwhenadoseisreceivedthroughtheinhalationpathway.Itrepresentsanupperboundestimateof theprobabilityofcontractingcancerasaresultofcontinuousexposure toanambientconcentrationofonemicrogrampercubicmeter(µg/m3)overa70‐yearlifetime.TheURFsutilizedin the assessment and the corresponding cancer potency factors (CPF) were obtained principally fromOEHHAGuidance.
Rec
epto
rs
Sou
rce:
Tow
er C
onst
ruct
ion
Sou
rce:
Reh
abili
tatio
n
Sou
rce:
Hau
l Rou
te
FIG
UR
EC
on
stru
co
n S
ou
rce
- R
ece
pto
r D
iagr
am
Pal
lad
ium
Re
sid
en
ces
2So
urc
e: P
CR
Ser
vice
s C
orp
ora
on
, 20
15
.
PC
R
0.2
km
N
Pro
ject
Site
Sen
sitiv
e R
ecep
tors
Hig
h-R
ise
Bui
ldin
gs
Est
imat
ed C
ance
r B
urde
n A
rea
FIG
UR
EO
pe
rao
ns
Sou
rce
- R
ece
pto
r D
iagr
am
Pal
lad
ium
Re
sid
en
ces
3So
urc
e: P
CR
Ser
vice
s C
orp
ora
on
, 20
14
.
PC
R
0.2
km
N
November 2015 3.0 Methodology
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 17
Fortheinhalationpathway,thecancerriskcharacterizationprocedurerequirestheincorporationofseveraldiscrete variables to effectively quantify dose. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by thecancer potency factor (CPF) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day(mg/kg/day)‐1andotherexposurefactorstoderivethecancerriskestimate.Therefore,toaccommodatetheuniqueexposuresassociatedwiththesensitivereceptors,thefollowingdosealgorithmwasutilized.
CDI=(CAIR×{BR/BW}×A×EF)
Where: CDI = Chronicdailyintake(mg/kg/day); CAIR = Concentrationofcontaminantinair(mg/m3); {BR/BW} = DailyBreathingRatenormalizedtobodyweight(l/kgbodyweight‐day); EF = Exposurefrequency(days/year); A = Inhalationabsorptionfactor(unitless).
OEHHArecommendeddefaultvalues for theparameters listedabovewereused in theHRAanalysis. Thedailybreathing rate {BR/BW}used in the analysiswasbasedonwasbasedonOEHHArecommendationswhichvarydependingonagewhichareshowninTable3,OEHHARecommendedResidentialDailyBreathingRatesforPointEstimateDoseCalculations(L/kgbodyweight). Therecommendedexposurefrequency(EF)is350daysperyearwhich isequivalent to0.96(350days/365daysayear). The inhalationabsorptionfactor(A)isassumedtobe1forinhalationbasedriskassessment.4
Oncedoseiscalculated,cancerriskiscalculatedbyaccountingforcancerpotencyofthespecificpollutant,agesensitivity,exposureduration,averagingtimeforlifetimecancerrisk,andfractionoftimespentathome(sensitive receptor). The Cancer Potency Factor (CPF) is specific for each pollutant and is determinedthroughpeerreviewedscientificstudies.OEHHAhasdeterminedthatDieselparticulatematter(DPM)hasaunitriskfactorof3.0E‐4(ug/m3)‐1andaslopefactorof1.1(mg/kg‐day)‐1.5TheAgeSensitivityFactor(ASF)accountsforgreatersusceptibilityinearlylife,startingfromthe3rdtrimesterofpregnancyto70years.Thefraction of time at home (FAH) takes into account the time actually residing at the sensitive receptorlocation. Fraction of time at home also takes into account time spent at time for various age groups.Exposuredurationforpurposesofthishealthriskassessmentwasassumedtobe3yearsforconstructionand30yearsforlong‐termoperations,consistentwithOEHHArecommendationsforresidentialuses.
4 OEHHA,AirToxicsHotSpotsProgramGuidanceManualforPreparationofHealthRiskAssessments,(August2003)5‐16.5 OEHHAHotSpotsUnitRiskandCancerPotencyFactors.May2009.
Table 3
OEHHA Recommended Residential Daily Breathing Rates for Point Estimate Dose Calculations (L / kg body weight)
3rd Trimester 0 < 2 Years 2 < 9 Years 2 < 16 Years 16 < 30 Years
Average 225 658 535 452 21095thPercentile 361 1090 861 745 335
Source: OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. February 2015.
3.0 Methodology November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 18
Asshownintheequationbelow,theincrementalincreaseincancerriskistheproductofthedoseandthepollutant‐specificCPF,ASF,ED,andFAHvalues.Cancerriskiscalculatedbymultiplyingtheinhalationdoseby the inhalation cancer potency factor to yield thepotential inhalation excess cancer risk. The followingequationillustratestheformulaforcalculatingcancerrisk.Toconvertthisriskvaluetochancespermillionofdevelopingcancer,thepotentialcancerriskismultipliedby106.
CancerRisk=Dose(mg/kg‐day)×CPF(mg/kg‐day)‐1xASFxED/ATxFAH
Where: Dose = Amountofaspecificpollutantapersonisexposedto(mg/kg‐day) CPF = CancerPotencyFactor,thecancerpotencyofaspecificpollutant(mg/kg‐day)‐1 ASF = AgeSensitivityFactor(unitless)
ED/AT = ExposureDuration,howlongapersonwillbeexposedtoaspecificpollutantintheirlifetime (years)/Averaging Time, length of time over which the average dose iscalculated(days)
FAH = Fractionoftimeathome(unitless)
Asindicatedintheequationabove,eachagegrouphasdifferentexposureparameterswhichrequirecancerrisk to be calculated separately for each age group. FAH values are presented in Table 4, OEHHARecommendationsforFractionofTimeatHome(FAH)forEvaluatingResidentialCancerRisk. DetailedhealthriskcalculationsareprovidedinAppendixA.
Table 4
OEHHA Recommendations for Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) for Evaluating Residential Cancer Risk
Age Range Fraction of Time at Residence
3rdTrimesterand0<2Years 0.852<16Years 0.7216–70Years 0.73
Source: OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. February 2015.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 19
4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Health risk impacts (cancer risk) were assessed for existing and future off‐site sensitive receptors(residential uses). Table5,SummaryofCarcinogenicRisksforOn‐SiteSensitiveReceptors, summarizes thecarcinogenicriskforrepresentativereceptorslocatedthroughouttheSite.Forcarcinogenicexposures,thecancerriskfromDPMemissionsfortheProjectSiteresultedinamaximumcarcinogenicriskof6.5peronemillionforthe3‐yearconstructionduration. Maximumimpactswouldoccuratsensitivereceptorseastofthe site. Riskatnearby receptors to the southandwest of the sitewould rangebetween3and5 inonemillion. This scenario isbasedonahighlyconservative3‐year (construction)or30‐year (operation),24‐hours‐per‐day, seven‐days‐per‐week exposure. As discussed above, the lifetime exposure under OEHHAguidelinestakesintoaccountearlylife(infantandchildren)exposure.Itshouldbenotedthatthecalculatedcancerriskassumessensitivereceptors(residentialuses)wouldnothaveanymitigationsuchasmechanicalfiltration and exposure with windows open. The current City of Los Angeles Building Code requiresmechanical filtration with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11 or higher for newconstruction.ThiswouldreducetypicalindoorPM10concentrationsbyatleast85percent.Therefore,actualcancerriskimpactstooff‐sitesensitivereceptorswouldbelowerthanthosereportedinTable5.
The HRA worksheets (provided in Appendix A) provide a detailed breakdown of these calculations. Insummary,theProjectSite’sworst‐caselocationwouldnotbeexposedtocancerriskinexcessoftheSCAQMDsignificancethresholdof10peronemillion.Asaresult,off‐siteresidentialreceptorswouldbeprovidedanadequate health‐based separation distance from the project construction and operational activities andwouldbeconsideredlessthansignificant.
Table 5
Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for Off‐site Sensitive Receptors
Risk Scenario Carcinogenic Risk Per One Million*
ProjectConstructionMaximumExposedIndividual(MEI)–EastofSite 6.5ProjectOperationMaximumExposedIndividual(MEI)–EastofSite 2.0
See calculation worksheets presented in Appendix. *The significance threshold is 10 per million. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
4.0 Impact Analysis November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 20
Thispageintentionallyblank.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 21
5.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
A constructionHRAwas conducted for the Project pursuant to the newOEHHAmethodology adopted inMarch2015.Inaddition,theoperationalHRAprovidedintheDEIRwasupdatedtoreflectthenewOEHHAmethodology. Since the preparation of the DEIR, the developer has agreed to refine and incorporateadditionalemissionscontrolmeasuresinPDF‐GHG‐1inordertoreduceimpactsduetoconstructiondieselparticulatematteremissions.Thesemeasuresincludeelectrificationofcertainequipmentusedon‐siteanduse of USEPA Tier 4 emissions compliant equipment on‐site. The revised PDF, provided below, wasincorporatedintotheanalysis.
PDF‐GHG‐1: Construction Measures: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐poweredconstructionequipment thatmeetorexceedtheCARBandUSEPATier3Tier4off‐roademissionsstandards for thoseequipmentratedat50hporgreaterduring thegrading, concretepouringandbuilding constructionphasesofProject construction.Pole power (electricity delivered from the utility grid) shall be the primarysource of power for usewith on‐site electric tools, equipment, lighting, etc.,except where/when infeasible due to site constraints; diesel generators, ifneeded, shallbe ratedbetween75horsepower (hp)and750hpandmeetorexceed applicable Tier 4 standards. Total diesel generator usage duringconstructionshallnotexceed312,000horsepower‐hours.Cranesandconcretepumpsshallbeelectrifiedwithpolepower.TheProjectshallutilizeon‐roadhaultrucks that meet or exceed the model year 2010 emission standards. Theserequirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successfulcontractor(s)mustdemonstratetheabilitytosupplysuchequipment.Acopyofeach unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB orSCAQMDoperatingpermit(ifapplicable)shallbeavailableuponrequestatthetimeofmobilizationofeachapplicableunitofequipment
TheoperationalHRAin theDEIRdeterminedthat theprimarycontributor to theriskwasemissions fromrestaurant charbroiling. Riskswere determined to be less than significant; however, the DEIR relied onuncontrolled TAC emissions from charbroiling. Restaurant charbroiling in the South Coast Air Basin isrequired to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations), whichrequirestheinstallationofemissionscontrolsoncharbroilers.ForthepurposesofthisreassessmentusingtheupdatedOEHHAguidelines,controlledTACemissionsfromrestaurantcharbroilingwasusedconsistentwithSCAQMDRule1138,whichresultsinareductionofTACemissionsbyapproximately83percent.
Basedonanexposuredurationof3years forproject constructionand30years for long‐termoperations,health risk impacts to off‐site sensitive receptors due to TAC emissions fromproject‐related constructionandoperationswouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired. Receptorslocatedfartherawayfromtheproject‐sitewouldresultinareducedcancerriskimpacts.
In summary, the Project Site’s worst‐case location would not be exposed to cancer risk in excess of theSCAQMDsignificancethresholdof10peronemillion.Asaresult,off‐siteresidentialuseswouldprovideanadequatehealth‐basedseparationdistancefromsourcesofprojectemissionsandwouldbeconsideredlessthansignificant,consistentwiththefindingsintheDEIR.
5.0 Summary of Results November 2015
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation 22
Thispageintentionallyblank.
PalladiumResidences HealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportPCRServicesCorporation
APPENDIX A HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS AND OUTPUT FILES
PalladiumResidencesHealthRiskAssessmentTechnicalReportAppendixA,HealthRiskAssessmentWorksheetsandOutputFilesA.1 ConstructionHRA
A.1.1 EmissionsInventory
A.1.1.1 Construction
ConstructionEquipmentList
CalEEModAnnualOutput
A.1.1.2 Rehabilitation
RehabilitationEquipmentList
CalEEModAnnualOutput
A.1.1.3 HaulRoad
EMFAC2014Output
HaulTruck(AnnualEmissions)
A.1.1.4 DieselParticulateEmissionsSummary
A.1.2 AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagram
(AERMODOutputavailableelectronically)
A1.3 HARPOutputFiles
A.2 OperationsHRA
A.2.1 EmissionsInventory
SourceParameters
DeliveryTruck
TransportationRefrigerationUnitEmissions
DieselEmergencyGeneratorEmissions
CharbroilingEmissions
A.2.2 AERMODDispersionModeling
A.2.2.1 AERMODInputs
SourceProperties
BuildingHeights
A.2.2.2 AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagram
A.2.3 HealthRiskFactorsandAcuteSpeciation
DieselTruckExhaustEmissions
StationaryDieselEngineExhaustEmissions
CharbroilingEmissions
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
A.2.4.1 MaximumIndividualCancerRisk(MICR)
MICRforages0to2
MICRforages2to16
MICRforages16to30
MICRforages31to70
A.2.4.2 MaximumIndividualCancerRiskbySource
A.2.4.3 MICR–OldOEHHAMethodology,WithControlledCharbroilerEmissions
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1 EmissionsInventoryA.1.2 AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagramA1.3 HARPOutputFiles
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1EmissionsInventoryA.1.1.1 ConstructionA.1.1.2 RehabilitationA.1.1.3 HaulRoadA.1.1.4 DieselParticulateEmissionsSummary
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1EmissionsInventoryA.1.1.1 Construction
ConstructionEquipmentList
CalEEModAnnualOutput
Pal
lad
ium C
on
stru
ctio
n E
qu
ipm
en
t
Co
nst
ruct
ion P
has
eEq
uip
me
nt
Cal
EEM
od E
qu
ipm
en
tFu
el
Nu
mb
er
Hrs
/Day
HP
Load
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Cra
ne
Ru
bb
er T
ired
Do
zers
Ele
ctri
c2
8
22
60
.29
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Dri
ll R
igG
rad
ers
Die
sel
2
8
20
50
.50
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Exca
vato
rsEx
cava
tors
Die
sel
4
8
16
20
.38
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Oth
er M
ater
ial H
and
ling
Equ
ipm
ent
Exca
vato
rsD
iese
l1
8
16
70
.40
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Ru
bb
er T
ired
Do
zers
Ru
bb
er T
ired
Do
zers
Die
sel
1
8
25
50
.40
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Ru
bb
er T
ired
Lo
ader
sG
rad
ers
Die
sel
2
8
20
00
.36
Gra
din
g /
Exca
vati
on
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Die
sel
2
8
97
0
.37
Co
ncr
ete‐
Co
nti
no
us
Po
ur
Co
ncr
ete
Pu
mp
sTr
acto
rs/L
oad
ers/
Bac
kho
esEl
ect
ric
8
14
84
0
.74
Co
ncr
ete‐
Co
nti
no
us
Po
ur
Ru
bb
er T
ires D
oze
rsR
ub
ber T
ires D
oze
rsD
iese
l1
14
25
50
.40
Co
ncr
ete‐
Co
nti
no
us
Po
ur
Ru
bb
er T
ired
Lo
ader
sR
ub
ber T
ires D
oze
rsD
iese
l1
14
20
00
.36
Co
ncr
ete‐
Co
nti
no
us
Po
ur
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Die
sel
1
14
97
0
.37
Co
ncr
ete‐
No
rmal
Co
ncr
ete P
um
ps
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Ele
ctri
c4
8
84
0
.74
Co
ncr
ete‐
No
rmal
Ru
bb
er T
ires D
oze
rsR
ub
ber T
ires D
oze
rsD
iese
l1
8
25
50
.40
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nC
on
cret
e/In
du
stri
al S
awG
ener
ato
r Se
tsD
iese
l1
8
81
0
.73
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nC
ran
esC
ran
esEl
ect
ric
2
7
22
60
.29
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nFo
rklif
tsFo
rklif
tsD
iese
l1
8
89
0
.20
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nG
ener
ato
r Se
tsG
ener
ato
r Se
tsD
iese
l1
8
84
0
.74
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nA
eria
l Lif
tW
eld
ers
Die
sel
2
8
62
0
.31
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nO
ther C
on
stru
ctio
n E
qu
ipm
ent
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Die
sel
2
8
17
10
.42
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nP
um
ps
Fork
lifts
Ele
ctri
c4
8
84
0
.74
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nR
ub
ber T
ired
Lo
ader
sC
ran
esD
iese
l1
8
20
00
.36
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nSk
id S
teer L
oad
erW
eld
ers
Die
sel
2
8
65
0
.37
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
nTr
acto
rs/L
oad
ers/
Bac
kho
esTr
acto
rs/L
oad
ers/
Bac
kho
esD
iese
l2
7
97
0
.37
Arc
hit
ectu
ral C
oat
ing
Air C
om
pre
sso
rsA
ir C
om
pre
sso
rsD
iese
l1
6
78
0
.48
Pav
ing
Cem
ent
and M
ort
ar M
ixer
sC
emen
t an
d M
ort
ar M
ixer
sD
iese
l1
6
9
0.5
6
Pav
ing
Pav
ers
Pav
ers
Die
sel
1
8
12
50
.42
Pav
ing
Pav
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
Pav
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
Die
sel
1
6
13
00
.36
Pav
ing
Ro
llers
Ro
llers
Die
sel
1
6
80
0
.38
Pav
ing
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Trac
tors
/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
Die
sel
1
8
97
0
.37
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2P
age
1 of
1D
ate:
10/
21/2
015
4:32
PM
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
- Con
stru
ctio
nSo
uth
Coa
st A
QM
D A
ir D
istr
ict,
Ann
ual
1.0
Proj
ect C
hara
cter
istic
s
1.1
Land
Usa
ge
Land
Use
sS
ize
Met
ricLo
t Acr
eage
Flo
or S
urfa
ce A
rea
Pop
ulat
ion
Enc
lose
d P
arki
ng S
truc
ture
654.
0010
00sq
ft0.
0065
4,00
0.00
0
Hea
lth C
lub
12.0
010
00sq
ft0.
3012
,000
.00
0
Hig
h T
urno
ver
(Sit
Dow
n R
esta
uran
t)14
.00
1000
sqft
0.30
14,0
00.0
00
Rec
reat
iona
l Sw
imm
ing
Poo
l10
7.10
1000
sqft
0.50
107,
100.
000
Apa
rtm
ents
Hig
h R
ise
731.
00D
wel
ling
Uni
t2.
5085
0,00
0.00
1550
1.2
Oth
er P
roje
ct C
hara
cter
istic
s
Urb
aniz
atio
nU
rban
Win
d Sp
eed
(m/s
)2.
2Pr
ecip
itatio
n Fr
eq (D
ays)
31
Clim
ate
Zone
11O
pera
tiona
l Yea
r20
18
Util
ity C
ompa
nyLo
s A
ngel
es D
epar
tmen
t of W
ater
& P
ower
CO
2 In
tens
ity
(lb/M
Whr
)10
94C
H4
Inte
nsity
(lb
/MW
hr)
0.02
9N
2O In
tens
ity
(lb/M
Whr
)0.
006
1.3
Use
r Ent
ered
Com
men
ts &
Non
-Def
ault
Dat
a
Pro
ject
Cha
ract
eris
tics
- C
O2
Inte
nsity
Fac
tor:
Los
Ang
eles
Dep
artm
ent o
f Wat
er a
nd P
ower
, 201
3 P
ower
Inte
grat
ed R
esou
rce
Pla
n, (
2013
).
Land
Use
- R
esid
entia
l/Am
eniti
es (
731
DU
, 850
ksf
); R
etai
l/Res
taur
ant (
14 k
sf);
Indo
or R
ec A
rea
(12
ksf)
; Out
door
Cou
rt, P
ool/R
oofto
p T
erra
ce/B
alco
nies
(1
07.1
ksf
, 2.4
6 ac
res)
, Par
king
Str
uctu
re (
654
ksf)
.C
onst
ruct
ion
Pha
se -
Gra
ding
(1/
1/16
-5/3
1/16
); C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us (
6/1/
16-6
/2/1
6); C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
(6/
3/16
-4/1
5/18
); B
uild
ing
(6/3
/16-
12/1
5/18
);
Coa
ting
(5/1
6/18
-12/
15/1
8); P
avin
g (1
1/16
/18-
12/3
1/18
).O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t - 1
Gra
ding
: 1 R
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
er; 2
Rub
ber
Tire
d Lo
ader
s (s
how
n as
Gra
ders
); 2
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes;
4 E
xcav
ator
s.O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t - 1
a G
radi
ng: 1
Oth
er M
ater
ial H
andl
ing
Equ
ipm
ent (
show
n as
Exc
avat
or);
2 D
rill R
ig (
show
n as
Gra
der)
; 0 C
rane
(sh
own
as R
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
er).
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
2 C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us: 1
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
; 1 T
ract
or/L
oade
r/B
ackh
oe.
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
2a
Con
cret
e-C
ontin
uous
: 1 R
ubbe
r T
ired
Load
er (
show
n as
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
); 0
Con
cret
e P
umps
(sh
own
as
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes)
.O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t -
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
: 1 R
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
er.
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
3a
Con
cret
e-N
orm
al: 0
Con
cret
e P
umps
(sh
own
as T
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s).
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n: 1
Rou
gh T
erra
in F
orkl
ift (
show
n as
For
klift
); 1
Gen
erat
or; 2
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes;
2 S
kid
Ste
er
Load
ers
(sho
wn
as W
elde
rs).
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
4a
Bui
ldin
g: 1
Rub
ber
Tire
d Lo
ader
(sh
own
as C
rane
); 0
Pum
ps (
show
n as
For
klift
); 1
Con
cret
e/In
d S
aw (
show
n as
Gen
erat
or);
2
Oth
er C
onst
ruct
ion
Equ
ip (
show
n as
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes)
; 2 A
eria
l Lift
s (s
how
n as
Wel
ders
).
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
5 A
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting:
1 A
ir C
ompr
esso
r.
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
6 P
avin
g: 1
Cem
ent/M
orta
r M
ixer
; 1 P
aver
; 1 P
avin
g E
quip
men
t; 1
Rol
ler;
1 T
ract
or/L
oade
r/B
ackh
oe.
Trip
s an
d V
MT
- In
clud
es 2
wat
er tr
ucks
for
Gra
ding
and
Con
cret
e ph
ases
(E
xcav
atio
n ha
ul tr
uck
emis
sion
s ar
e ca
lcul
ated
out
side
of C
alE
EM
od -
see
sp
read
shee
t "E
mis
sion
s A
naly
sis
for
Exc
avat
ion
Hau
l Tru
cks"
).
Gra
ding
- T
otal
Acr
es G
rade
d: 3
.6 a
cres
; Mat
eria
l Exp
orte
d: 2
35,0
00 c
ubic
yar
ds (
Exp
ort h
aul t
ruck
em
issi
ons
are
calc
ulat
ed o
utsi
de o
f Cal
EE
Mod
- s
ee
spre
adsh
eet "
Em
issi
ons
Ana
lysi
s fo
r E
xcav
atio
n H
aul T
ruck
s").
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g -
Res
iden
tial I
nter
ior
(850
,000
*2.7
*0.7
5 =
1,7
21,2
50);
Non
-Res
iden
tial I
nter
ior
(133
,100
*2*0
.75
= 1
99,6
50);
Par
king
Ext
erio
r (s
trip
ing,
et
c) (
654,
000*
0.06
= 3
9,24
0). N
o ex
terio
r bu
ildin
g pa
intin
g. L
ow V
OC
pai
nts.
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t Miti
gatio
n -
Wat
er/s
tabi
lize
unpa
ved
road
s an
d ex
pose
d ar
eas
3 tim
es d
aily
(61
% r
educ
tion
in fu
gitiv
e P
M10
and
PM
2.5)
; T
ier
4 en
gine
s fo
r al
l pie
ces
of e
quip
men
t.
Tab
le N
ame
Col
umn
Nam
eD
efau
lt V
alue
New
Val
ue
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
Con
stA
rea_
Non
resi
dent
ial_
Ext
erio
r39
3,55
0.00
39,2
40.0
0
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
Con
stA
rea_
Non
resi
dent
ial_
Inte
rior
1,18
0,65
0.00
199,
650.
00
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
Con
stA
rea_
Res
iden
tial_
Ext
erio
r57
3,75
0.00
0.00
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
EF
_Non
resi
dent
ial_
Ext
erio
r25
0.00
150.
00
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
EF
_Non
resi
dent
ial_
Inte
rior
250.
0015
0.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
5.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
2.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
4.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
4.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
8.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
4.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s18
.00
153.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s23
0.00
661.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s23
0.00
661.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s8.
0075
.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s8.
0075
.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s18
.00
32.0
0
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s5.
002.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s5.
002.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s5.
0048
6.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s5.
0048
6.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
7/17
/201
912
/15/
2018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
10/2
6/20
2012
/15/
2018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
6/28
/202
112
/15/
2018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
9/13
/201
65/
31/2
016
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
1/29
/201
912
/31/
2018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
6/6/
2016
6/2/
2016
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
4/13
/201
84/
15/2
018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
2/24
/202
04/
15/2
018
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e12
/16/
2018
5/16
/201
8
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e4/
16/2
018
6/3/
2016
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e12
/16/
2018
6/3/
2016
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e6/
1/20
162/
17/2
016
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e12
/16/
2018
11/1
6/20
18
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e6/
3/20
166/
1/20
16
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e4/
16/2
018
6/3/
2016
tblG
radi
ngA
cres
OfG
radi
ng75
.00
3.60
tblG
radi
ngA
cres
OfG
radi
ng75
.00
3.60
tblG
radi
ngM
ater
ialE
xpor
ted
0.00
235,
000.
00
tblL
andU
seLa
ndU
seS
quar
eFee
t73
1,00
0.00
850,
000.
00
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
15.0
10.
00
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
0.28
0.30
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
0.32
0.30
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
2.46
0.50
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
11.7
92.
50
tblL
andU
seP
opul
atio
n2,
091.
001,
550.
00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
226.
0020
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
162.
0016
7.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
89.0
084
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
84.0
081
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
174.
0020
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
174.
0020
5.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
255.
0022
6.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
255.
0020
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
97.0
017
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
97.0
084
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
97.0
084
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
46.0
065
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Hor
seP
ower
46.0
062
.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.29
0.36
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.38
0.40
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.20
0.74
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.74
0.73
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.41
0.36
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.41
0.50
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.40
0.29
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.40
0.36
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.37
0.42
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.37
0.74
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.37
0.74
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.45
0.37
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Load
Fac
tor
0.45
0.31
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
2.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
4.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
2.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
2.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
4.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
4.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
4.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
4.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
2.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
7.00
8.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
8.00
14.0
0
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
8.00
14.0
0
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
7.00
8.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
8.00
14.0
0
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Usa
geH
ours
8.00
14.0
0
tblP
roje
ctC
hara
cter
istic
sC
O2I
nten
sity
Fac
tor
1227
.89
1094
tblP
roje
ctC
hara
cter
istic
sO
pera
tiona
lYea
r20
1420
18
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Hau
lingT
ripN
umbe
r29
,375
.00
0.00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Ven
dorT
ripN
umbe
r0.
004.
00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Ven
dorT
ripN
umbe
r0.
004.
00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Ven
dorT
ripN
umbe
r0.
004.
00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Ven
dorT
ripN
umbe
r20
7.00
0.00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Wor
kerT
ripN
umbe
r3.
0023
.00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Wor
kerT
ripN
umbe
r3.
005.
00
0.00
23.0
0
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Wor
kerT
ripN
umbe
r85
7.00
0.00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Wor
kerT
ripN
umbe
r
NO
xC
OS
O2
Fug
itive
P
M10
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2
2.0
Emis
sion
s Su
mm
ary
2.1
Ove
rall
Con
stru
ctio
nU
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
RO
GN
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
Tot
al
2016
1.12
299.
2408
10.6
970
0.01
972.
5725
0.42
072.
9932
1.16
890.
3945
1.56
340.
0000
1,66
1.69
84
1,66
1.69
840.
2059
0.00
001,
666.
021
6
2017
1.36
949.
8776
14.5
246
0.02
882.
8945
0.45
263.
3471
1.18
780.
4278
1.61
560.
0000
2,32
8.49
28
2,32
8.49
280.
2110
0.00
002,
332.
924
5
2018
3.97
617.
7570
13.0
578
0.02
872.
9562
0.34
903.
3051
1.20
400.
3316
1.53
560.
0000
2,24
6.94
19
2,24
6.94
190.
1871
0.00
002,
250.
871
6
Tota
l6.
4684
26.8
753
38.2
794
0.07
710.
6040
0.00
006,
249.
817
78.
4231
1.22
239.
6454
3.56
081.
1538
4.71
46
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
006,
237.
133
16,
237.
1331
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
2016
0.50
492.
4948
10.2
973
0.01
971.
5188
0.04
031.
5590
0.59
400.
0379
0.63
190.
0000
1,66
1.69
76
1,66
1.69
760.
2059
0.00
001,
666.
020
9
2017
0.73
183.
7187
13.9
347
0.02
882.
0018
0.05
642.
0582
0.69
710.
0528
0.74
990.
0000
2,32
8.49
20
2,32
8.49
200.
2110
0.00
002,
332.
923
7
2018
3.50
193.
3475
13.1
507
0.02
872.
0635
0.05
192.
1155
0.71
340.
0486
0.76
200.
0000
2,24
6.94
12
2,24
6.94
120.
1871
0.00
002,
250.
870
9
Tota
l4.
7386
9.56
1037
.382
70.
0771
5.58
410.
1486
5.73
272.
0045
0.13
932.
1438
0.00
006,
237.
130
86,
237.
1308
0.60
400.
0000
6,24
9.81
54
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO2
Fugi
tive
PM10
Exha
ust
PM10
PM10
To
tal
Fugi
tive
PM2.
5Ex
haus
t PM
2.5
PM2.
5 To
tal
Bio
- CO
2N
Bio
-CO
2To
tal C
O2
CH
4N
20C
O2e
Perc
ent
Red
uctio
n26
.74
64.4
22.
340.
000.
000.
000.
0033
.71
87.8
440
.57
43.7
187
.93
54.5
30.
000.
000.
00
3.0
Con
stru
ctio
n D
etai
l
Con
stru
ctio
n Ph
ase
Pha
se
Num
ber
Pha
se N
ame
Pha
se T
ype
Sta
rt D
ate
End
Dat
eN
um D
ays
Wee
kN
um D
ays
Pha
se D
escr
iptio
n
11
Gra
ding
Gra
ding
2/17
/201
65/
31/2
016
575
21a
Gra
ding
Gra
ding
2/17
/201
65/
31/2
016
575
32
Con
cret
e-C
ontin
uous
Site
Pre
para
tion
6/1/
2016
6/2/
2016
52
42a
Con
cret
e-C
ontin
uous
Site
Pre
para
tion
6/1/
2016
6/2/
2016
52
53
Con
cret
e-N
orm
alS
ite P
repa
ratio
n6/
3/20
164/
15/2
018
548
6
63a
Con
cret
e-N
orm
alS
ite P
repa
ratio
n6/
3/20
164/
15/2
018
548
6
74
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
6/3/
2016
12/1
5/20
185
661
84a
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
6/3/
2016
12/1
5/20
185
661
95
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
gA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
5/16
/201
812
/15/
2018
515
3
106
Pav
ing
Pav
ing
11/1
6/20
1812
/31/
2018
532
Acr
es o
f Gra
ding
(Site
Pre
para
tion
Phas
e): 0
Acr
es o
f Gra
ding
(Gra
ding
Pha
se):
0
Acr
es o
f Pav
ing:
0
Res
iden
tial I
ndoo
r: 1
,721
,250
; Res
iden
tial O
utdo
or: 0
; Non
-Res
iden
tial I
ndoo
r: 1
99,6
50; N
on-R
esid
entia
l Out
door
: 39,
240
(Arc
hite
ctur
al
OffR
oad
Equi
pmen
t
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent T
ype
Am
ount
Usa
ge H
ours
Hor
se P
ower
Load
Fac
tor
1 G
radi
ngE
xcav
ator
s4
8.00
162
0.38
1 G
radi
ngG
rade
rs2
8.00
200
0.36
1 G
radi
ngR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
18.
0025
50.
40
1 G
radi
ngT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s2
8.00
970.
37
1a G
radi
ngE
xcav
ator
s1
8.00
167
0.40
1a G
radi
ngG
rade
rs2
8.00
205
0.50
1a G
radi
ngR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
08.
0022
60.
29
1a G
radi
ngT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s0
8.00
970.
37
2 C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
usR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
114
.00
255
0.40
2 C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
usT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s1
14.0
097
0.37
2a C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
usR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
114
.00
200
0.36
2a C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
usT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s0
14.0
084
0.74
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
s1
8.00
255
0.40
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
08.
0097
0.37
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
s0
8.00
255
0.40
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
08.
0084
0.74
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nC
rane
s0
7.00
226
0.29
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nF
orkl
ifts
18.
0089
0.20
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nG
ener
ator
Set
s1
8.00
840.
74
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s2
7.00
970.
37
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nW
elde
rs2
8.00
650.
37
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nC
rane
s1
8.00
200
0.36
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nF
orkl
ifts
08.
0084
0.74
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nG
ener
ator
Set
s1
8.00
810.
73
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s2
8.00
171
0.42
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nW
elde
rs2
8.00
620.
31
5 A
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
Air
Com
pres
sors
16.
0078
0.48
6 P
avin
gC
emen
t and
Mor
tar
Mix
ers
16.
009
0.56
6 P
avin
gP
aver
s1
8.00
125
0.42
6 P
avin
gP
avin
g E
quip
men
t1
6.00
130
0.36
6 P
avin
gR
olle
rs1
6.00
800.
38
6 P
avin
gT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s1
8.00
970.
37
Trip
s an
d VM
T
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent
Cou
ntW
orke
r T
rip
Num
ber
Ven
dor
Trip
N
umbe
rH
aulin
g T
rip
Num
ber
Wor
ker
Trip
Le
ngth
Ven
dor
Trip
Le
ngth
Hau
ling
Trip
Le
ngth
Wor
ker
Veh
icle
C
lass
Ven
dor
Veh
icle
Cla
ssH
aulin
g V
ehic
le C
lass
1 G
radi
ng9
23.0
04.
000.
0014
.70
6.90
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
1a G
radi
ng3
8.00
0.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
2 C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us2
5.00
4.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
2a C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us1
23.0
00.
000.
0014
.70
6.90
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
15.
004.
000.
0014
.70
6.90
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
023
.00
0.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n6
857.
0020
7.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n6
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
5 A
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
117
1.00
0.00
0.00
14.7
06.
9020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
6 P
avin
g5
13.0
00.
000.
0014
.70
6.90
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
Tot
al
3.1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Con
stru
ctio
n
Use
Cle
aner
Eng
ines
for
Con
stru
ctio
n E
quip
men
t
Use
Soi
l Sta
biliz
er
Wat
er E
xpos
ed A
rea
Cle
an P
aved
Roa
ds
3.2
1 G
radi
ng -
2016
NB
io-
CO
2T
otal
CO
2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
2410
0.00
000.
2410
0.12
640.
0000
0.12
640.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
1681
1.96
821.
2274
1.83
00e-
003
0.09
320.
0932
0.08
580.
0858
0.00
0017
2.47
9417
2.47
940.
0520
0.00
0017
3.57
19
Tota
l0.
1681
1.96
821.
2274
1.83
00e-
003
0.05
200.
0000
173.
5719
0.24
100.
0932
0.33
430.
1264
0.08
580.
2121
0.00
0017
2.47
9417
2.47
94
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
350.
0175
3.00
00e-
005
9.20
00e-
004
2.10
00e-
004
1.14
00e-
003
2.60
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
004
4.60
00e-
004
0.00
002.
9564
2.95
642.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
2.95
69
Wor
ker
3.47
00e-
003
5.09
00e-
003
0.05
291.
2000
e-00
49.
4600
e-00
38.
0000
e-00
59.
5400
e-00
32.
5100
e-00
37.
0000
e-00
52.
5900
e-00
30.
0000
8.86
548.
8654
4.80
00e-
004
0.00
008.
8755
Tota
l4.
8000
e-00
30.
0186
0.07
041.
5000
e-00
45.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
11.8
323
0.01
042.
9000
e-00
40.
0107
2.77
00e-
003
2.70
00e-
004
3.05
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0011
.821
911
.821
9
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0940
0.00
000.
0940
0.04
930.
0000
0.04
930.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0224
0.09
701.
1362
1.83
00e-
003
2.98
00e-
003
2.98
00e-
003
2.98
00e-
003
2.98
00e-
003
0.00
0017
2.47
9217
2.47
920.
0520
0.00
0017
3.57
17
Tota
l0.
0224
0.09
701.
1362
1.83
00e-
003
0.05
200.
0000
173.
5717
0.09
402.
9800
e-00
30.
0970
0.04
932.
9800
e-00
30.
0523
0.00
0017
2.47
9217
2.47
92
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
350.
0175
3.00
00e-
005
9.20
00e-
004
2.10
00e-
004
1.14
00e-
003
2.60
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
004
4.60
00e-
004
0.00
002.
9564
2.95
642.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
2.95
69
Wor
ker
3.47
00e-
003
5.09
00e-
003
0.05
291.
2000
e-00
49.
4600
e-00
38.
0000
e-00
59.
5400
e-00
32.
5100
e-00
37.
0000
e-00
52.
5900
e-00
30.
0000
8.86
548.
8654
4.80
00e-
004
0.00
008.
8755
Tota
l4.
8000
e-00
30.
0186
0.07
041.
5000
e-00
45.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
11.8
323
0.01
042.
9000
e-00
40.
0107
2.77
00e-
003
2.70
00e-
004
3.05
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0011
.821
911
.821
9
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.3
1a G
radi
ng -
2016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t1.
9100
e-00
30.
0000
1.91
00e-
003
2.10
00e-
004
0.00
002.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0698
0.94
810.
3373
8.80
00e-
004
0.03
380.
0338
0.03
110.
0311
0.00
0083
.238
983
.238
90.
0251
0.00
0083
.766
2
Tota
l0.
0698
0.94
810.
3373
8.80
00e-
004
0.02
510.
0000
83.7
662
1.91
00e-
003
0.03
380.
0357
2.10
00e-
004
0.03
110.
0313
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0083
.238
983
.238
9
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
1.21
00e-
003
1.77
00e-
003
0.01
844.
0000
e-00
53.
2900
e-00
33.
0000
e-00
53.
3200
e-00
38.
7000
e-00
43.
0000
e-00
59.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
3.08
363.
0836
1.70
00e-
004
0.00
003.
0871
Tota
l1.
2100
e-00
31.
7700
e-00
30.
0184
4.00
00e-
005
1.70
00e-
004
0.00
003.
0871
3.29
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
3.32
00e-
003
8.70
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
005
9.00
00e-
004
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
003.
0836
3.08
36
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t7.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
7.40
00e-
004
8.00
00e-
005
0.00
008.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0108
0.04
670.
4618
8.80
00e-
004
1.44
00e-
003
1.44
00e-
003
1.44
00e-
003
1.44
00e-
003
0.00
0083
.238
883
.238
80.
0251
0.00
0083
.766
1
Tota
l0.
0108
0.04
670.
4618
8.80
00e-
004
0.02
510.
0000
83.7
661
7.40
00e-
004
1.44
00e-
003
2.18
00e-
003
8.00
00e-
005
1.44
00e-
003
1.52
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0083
.238
883
.238
8
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
1.21
00e-
003
1.77
00e-
003
0.01
844.
0000
e-00
53.
2900
e-00
33.
0000
e-00
53.
3200
e-00
38.
7000
e-00
43.
0000
e-00
59.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
3.08
363.
0836
1.70
00e-
004
0.00
003.
0871
Tota
l1.
2100
e-00
31.
7700
e-00
30.
0184
4.00
00e-
005
1.70
00e-
004
0.00
003.
0871
3.29
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
3.32
00e-
003
8.70
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
005
9.00
00e-
004
0.00
003.
0836
3.08
36
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
3.4
2 C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us -
2016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0105
0.00
000.
0105
5.79
00e-
003
0.00
005.
7900
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d2.
7600
e-00
30.
0300
0.02
262.
0000
e-00
51.
5700
e-00
31.
5700
e-00
31.
4400
e-00
31.
4400
e-00
30.
0000
1.97
991.
9799
6.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9924
Tota
l2.
7600
e-00
30.
0300
0.02
262.
0000
e-00
56.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
1.99
240.
0105
1.57
00e-
003
0.01
215.
7900
e-00
31.
4400
e-00
37.
2300
e-00
3
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001.
9799
1.97
99
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
4.00
00e-
005
3.60
00e-
004
4.70
00e-
004
0.00
002.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
53.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.07
880.
0788
0.00
000.
0000
0.07
89
Wor
ker
2.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
3.10
00e-
004
0.00
005.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
6.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.05
140.
0514
0.00
000.
0000
0.05
15
Tota
l6.
0000
e-00
53.
9000
e-00
47.
8000
e-00
40.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.13
037.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
59.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.13
020.
1302
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t4.
1100
e-00
30.
0000
4.11
00e-
003
2.26
00e-
003
0.00
002.
2600
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d2.
6000
e-00
41.
1100
e-00
30.
0110
2.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
9799
1.97
996.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
1.99
24
Tota
l2.
6000
e-00
41.
1100
e-00
30.
0110
2.00
00e-
005
6.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9924
4.11
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
4.14
00e-
003
2.26
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
2.29
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001.
9799
1.97
99
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
4.00
00e-
005
3.60
00e-
004
4.70
00e-
004
0.00
002.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
53.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.07
880.
0788
0.00
000.
0000
0.07
89
Wor
ker
2.00
00e-
005
3.00
00e-
005
3.10
00e-
004
0.00
005.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
6.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.05
140.
0514
0.00
000.
0000
0.05
15
Tota
l6.
0000
e-00
53.
9000
e-00
47.
8000
e-00
40.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.13
037.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
59.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
51.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
5
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
1302
0.13
02
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.5
2a C
oncr
ete-
Con
tinuo
us -
2016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0105
0.00
000.
0105
5.79
00e-
003
0.00
005.
7900
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d1.
6300
e-00
30.
0178
6.07
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
8.80
00e-
004
8.80
00e-
004
8.10
00e-
004
8.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
0271
1.02
713.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
1.03
36
Tota
l1.
6300
e-00
30.
0178
6.07
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
3.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
0336
0.01
058.
8000
e-00
40.
0114
5.79
00e-
003
8.10
00e-
004
6.60
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001.
0271
1.02
71
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
9.00
00e-
005
1.40
00e-
004
1.41
00e-
003
0.00
002.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
2.50
00e-
004
7.00
00e-
005
0.00
007.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.23
640.
2364
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
2367
Tota
l9.
0000
e-00
51.
4000
e-00
41.
4100
e-00
30.
0000
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
2367
2.50
00e-
004
0.00
002.
5000
e-00
47.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
7.00
00e-
005
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
2364
0.23
64
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t4.
1100
e-00
30.
0000
4.11
00e-
003
2.26
00e-
003
0.00
002.
2600
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d1.
3000
e-00
45.
8000
e-00
44.
8900
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
52.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.02
711.
0271
3.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
0336
Tota
l1.
3000
e-00
45.
8000
e-00
44.
8900
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
53.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
1.03
364.
1100
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
54.
1300
e-00
32.
2600
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
52.
2800
e-00
30.
0000
1.02
711.
0271
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
9.00
00e-
005
1.40
00e-
004
1.41
00e-
003
0.00
002.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
2.50
00e-
004
7.00
00e-
005
0.00
007.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.23
640.
2364
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
2367
Tota
l9.
0000
e-00
51.
4000
e-00
41.
4100
e-00
30.
0000
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
2367
2.50
00e-
004
0.00
002.
5000
e-00
47.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
7.00
00e-
005
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
2364
0.23
64
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.6
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
16U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t1.
4634
0.00
001.
4634
0.80
440.
0000
0.80
440.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0935
1.04
720.
7916
6.70
00e-
004
0.04
870.
0487
0.04
480.
0448
0.00
0063
.248
163
.248
10.
0191
0.00
0063
.648
8
Tota
l0.
0935
1.04
720.
7916
6.70
00e-
004
0.01
910.
0000
63.6
488
1.46
340.
0487
1.51
210.
8044
0.04
480.
8492
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0063
.248
163
.248
1
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
2.68
00e-
003
0.02
730.
0352
7.00
00e-
005
1.86
00e-
003
4.30
00e-
004
2.29
00e-
003
5.30
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
004
9.30
00e-
004
0.00
005.
9523
5.95
234.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
5.95
32
Wor
ker
1.52
00e-
003
2.23
00e-
003
0.02
325.
0000
e-00
54.
1400
e-00
34.
0000
e-00
54.
1800
e-00
31.
1000
e-00
33.
0000
e-00
51.
1300
e-00
30.
0000
3.88
023.
8802
2.10
00e-
004
0.00
003.
8846
Tota
l4.
2000
e-00
30.
0295
0.05
831.
2000
e-00
42.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
9.83
786.
0000
e-00
34.
7000
e-00
46.
4700
e-00
31.
6300
e-00
34.
3000
e-00
42.
0600
e-00
3
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
009.
8325
9.83
25
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
5707
0.00
000.
5707
0.31
370.
0000
0.31
370.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d8.
1500
e-00
30.
0353
0.29
886.
7000
e-00
41.
0900
e-00
31.
0900
e-00
31.
0900
e-00
31.
0900
e-00
30.
0000
63.2
481
63.2
481
0.01
910.
0000
63.6
487
Tota
l8.
1500
e-00
30.
0353
0.29
886.
7000
e-00
40.
0191
0.00
0063
.648
70.
5707
1.09
00e-
003
0.57
180.
3137
1.09
00e-
003
0.31
48
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0063
.248
163
.248
1
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
2.68
00e-
003
0.02
730.
0352
7.00
00e-
005
1.86
00e-
003
4.30
00e-
004
2.29
00e-
003
5.30
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
004
9.30
00e-
004
0.00
005.
9523
5.95
234.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
5.95
32
Wor
ker
1.52
00e-
003
2.23
00e-
003
0.02
325.
0000
e-00
54.
1400
e-00
34.
0000
e-00
54.
1800
e-00
31.
1000
e-00
33.
0000
e-00
51.
1300
e-00
30.
0000
3.88
023.
8802
2.10
00e-
004
0.00
003.
8846
Tota
l4.
2000
e-00
30.
0295
0.05
831.
2000
e-00
42.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
9.83
786.
0000
e-00
34.
7000
e-00
46.
4700
e-00
31.
6300
e-00
34.
3000
e-00
42.
0600
e-00
3
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
009.
8325
9.83
25
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.6
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
17U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t1.
4634
0.00
001.
4634
0.80
440.
0000
0.80
440.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
1547
1.71
511.
2923
1.16
00e-
003
0.07
970.
0797
0.07
330.
0733
0.00
0010
7.32
1010
7.32
100.
0329
0.00
0010
8.01
15
Tota
l0.
1547
1.71
511.
2923
1.16
00e-
003
0.03
290.
0000
108.
0115
1.46
340.
0797
1.54
300.
8044
0.07
330.
8777
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0010
7.32
1010
7.32
10
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
4.22
00e-
003
0.04
270.
0574
1.10
00e-
004
3.20
00e-
003
6.60
00e-
004
3.86
00e-
003
9.10
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
1.52
00e-
003
0.00
0010
.082
910
.082
97.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
10.0
844
Wor
ker
2.34
00e-
003
3.46
00e-
003
0.03
609.
0000
e-00
57.
1300
e-00
36.
0000
e-00
57.
1900
e-00
31.
8900
e-00
35.
0000
e-00
51.
9500
e-00
30.
0000
6.42
476.
4247
3.30
00e-
004
0.00
006.
4316
Tota
l6.
5600
e-00
30.
0462
0.09
332.
0000
e-00
44.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
16.5
160
0.01
037.
2000
e-00
40.
0111
2.80
00e-
003
6.60
00e-
004
3.47
00e-
003
0.00
0016
.507
616
.507
6
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
5707
0.00
000.
5707
0.31
370.
0000
0.31
370.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0140
0.06
080.
5145
1.16
00e-
003
1.87
00e-
003
1.87
00e-
003
1.87
00e-
003
1.87
00e-
003
0.00
0010
7.32
0910
7.32
090.
0329
0.00
0010
8.01
14
Tota
l0.
0140
0.06
080.
5145
1.16
00e-
003
0.03
290.
0000
108.
0114
0.57
071.
8700
e-00
30.
5726
0.31
371.
8700
e-00
30.
3156
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0010
7.32
0910
7.32
09
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
4.22
00e-
003
0.04
270.
0574
1.10
00e-
004
3.20
00e-
003
6.60
00e-
004
3.86
00e-
003
9.10
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
1.52
00e-
003
0.00
0010
.082
910
.082
97.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
10.0
844
Wor
ker
2.34
00e-
003
3.46
00e-
003
0.03
609.
0000
e-00
57.
1300
e-00
36.
0000
e-00
57.
1900
e-00
31.
8900
e-00
35.
0000
e-00
51.
9500
e-00
30.
0000
6.42
476.
4247
3.30
00e-
004
0.00
006.
4316
Tota
l6.
5600
e-00
30.
0462
0.09
332.
0000
e-00
44.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
16.5
160
0.01
037.
2000
e-00
40.
0111
2.80
00e-
003
6.60
00e-
004
3.47
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0016
.507
616
.507
6
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.6
3 C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
18U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Fug
itive
Dus
t1.
4634
0.00
001.
4634
0.80
440.
0000
0.80
440.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0404
0.43
860.
3361
3.30
00e-
004
0.02
030.
0203
0.01
860.
0186
0.00
0030
.489
030
.489
09.
4900
e-00
30.
0000
30.6
883
Tota
l0.
0404
0.43
860.
3361
3.30
00e-
004
9.49
00e-
003
0.00
0030
.688
31.
4634
0.02
031.
4836
0.80
440.
0186
0.82
30
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0030
.489
030
.489
0
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
1.14
00e-
003
0.01
130.
0159
3.00
00e-
005
9.20
00e-
004
1.80
00e-
004
1.10
00e-
003
2.60
00e-
004
1.70
00e-
004
4.30
00e-
004
0.00
002.
8597
2.85
972.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
2.86
01
Wor
ker
6.10
00e-
004
9.10
00e-
004
9.39
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
2.06
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
2.07
00e-
003
5.50
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
005
5.60
00e-
004
0.00
001.
7841
1.78
419.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.78
60
Tota
l1.
7500
e-00
30.
0122
0.02
526.
0000
e-00
51.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
4.64
612.
9800
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
43.
1700
e-00
38.
1000
e-00
41.
9000
e-00
49.
9000
e-00
4
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
004.
6438
4.64
38
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
5707
0.00
000.
5707
0.31
370.
0000
0.31
370.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d4.
0500
e-00
30.
0175
0.14
843.
3000
e-00
45.
4000
e-00
45.
4000
e-00
45.
4000
e-00
45.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
30.4
890
30.4
890
9.49
00e-
003
0.00
0030
.688
3
Tota
l4.
0500
e-00
30.
0175
0.14
843.
3000
e-00
49.
4900
e-00
30.
0000
30.6
883
0.57
075.
4000
e-00
40.
5713
0.31
375.
4000
e-00
40.
3143
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0030
.489
030
.489
0
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
1.14
00e-
003
0.01
130.
0159
3.00
00e-
005
9.20
00e-
004
1.80
00e-
004
1.10
00e-
003
2.60
00e-
004
1.70
00e-
004
4.30
00e-
004
0.00
002.
8597
2.85
972.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
2.86
01
Wor
ker
6.10
00e-
004
9.10
00e-
004
9.39
00e-
003
3.00
00e-
005
2.06
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
2.07
00e-
003
5.50
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
005
5.60
00e-
004
0.00
001.
7841
1.78
419.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.78
60
Tota
l1.
7500
e-00
30.
0122
0.02
526.
0000
e-00
51.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
4.64
612.
9800
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
43.
1700
e-00
38.
1000
e-00
41.
9000
e-00
49.
9000
e-00
4
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
004.
6438
4.64
38
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.7
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
16U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
6.98
00e-
003
0.01
030.
1066
2.30
00e-
004
0.01
911.
6000
e-00
40.
0192
5.06
00e-
003
1.50
00e-
004
5.21
00e-
003
0.00
0017
.849
017
.849
09.
6000
e-00
40.
0000
17.8
692
Tota
l6.
9800
e-00
30.
0103
0.10
662.
3000
e-00
49.
6000
e-00
40.
0000
17.8
692
0.01
911.
6000
e-00
40.
0192
5.06
00e-
003
1.50
00e-
004
5.21
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0017
.849
017
.849
0
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
6.98
00e-
003
0.01
030.
1066
2.30
00e-
004
0.01
911.
6000
e-00
40.
0192
5.06
00e-
003
1.50
00e-
004
5.21
00e-
003
0.00
0017
.849
017
.849
09.
6000
e-00
40.
0000
17.8
692
Tota
l6.
9800
e-00
30.
0103
0.10
662.
3000
e-00
49.
6000
e-00
40.
0000
17.8
692
0.01
911.
6000
e-00
40.
0192
5.06
00e-
003
1.50
00e-
004
5.21
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0017
.849
017
.849
0
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.7
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
17U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.01
080.
0159
0.16
554.
0000
e-00
40.
0328
2.70
00e-
004
0.03
318.
7100
e-00
32.
5000
e-00
48.
9600
e-00
30.
0000
29.5
535
29.5
535
1.53
00e-
003
0.00
0029
.585
5
Tota
l0.
0108
0.01
590.
1655
4.00
00e-
004
1.53
00e-
003
0.00
0029
.585
50.
0328
2.70
00e-
004
0.03
318.
7100
e-00
32.
5000
e-00
48.
9600
e-00
3
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0029
.553
529
.553
5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.01
080.
0159
0.16
554.
0000
e-00
40.
0328
2.70
00e-
004
0.03
318.
7100
e-00
32.
5000
e-00
48.
9600
e-00
30.
0000
29.5
535
29.5
535
1.53
00e-
003
0.00
0029
.585
5
Tota
l0.
0108
0.01
590.
1655
4.00
00e-
004
1.53
00e-
003
0.00
0029
.585
50.
0328
2.70
00e-
004
0.03
318.
7100
e-00
32.
5000
e-00
48.
9600
e-00
30.
0000
29.5
535
29.5
535
3.7
3a C
oncr
ete-
Nor
mal
- 20
18U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
2.79
00e-
003
4.17
00e-
003
0.04
321.
2000
e-00
49.
4600
e-00
38.
0000
e-00
59.
5400
e-00
32.
5100
e-00
37.
0000
e-00
52.
5800
e-00
30.
0000
8.20
698.
2069
4.10
00e-
004
0.00
008.
2154
Tota
l2.
7900
e-00
34.
1700
e-00
30.
0432
1.20
00e-
004
4.10
00e-
004
0.00
008.
2154
9.46
00e-
003
8.00
00e-
005
9.54
00e-
003
2.51
00e-
003
7.00
00e-
005
2.58
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
008.
2069
8.20
69
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
2.79
00e-
003
4.17
00e-
003
0.04
321.
2000
e-00
49.
4600
e-00
38.
0000
e-00
59.
5400
e-00
32.
5100
e-00
37.
0000
e-00
52.
5800
e-00
30.
0000
8.20
698.
2069
4.10
00e-
004
0.00
008.
2154
Tota
l2.
7900
e-00
34.
1700
e-00
30.
0432
1.20
00e-
004
4.10
00e-
004
0.00
008.
2154
9.46
00e-
003
8.00
00e-
005
9.54
00e-
003
2.51
00e-
003
7.00
00e-
005
2.58
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
008.
2069
8.20
69
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.8
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
1552
1.24
310.
9386
1.41
00e-
003
0.09
500.
0950
0.09
140.
0914
0.00
0012
5.36
1912
5.36
190.
0226
0.00
0012
5.83
54
Tota
l0.
1552
1.24
310.
9386
1.41
00e-
003
0.02
260.
0000
125.
8354
0.09
500.
0950
0.09
140.
0914
0.00
0012
5.36
1912
5.36
19
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.13
861.
4110
1.81
893.
3900
e-00
30.
0962
0.02
230.
1185
0.02
750.
0205
0.04
800.
0000
308.
0312
308.
0312
2.23
00e-
003
0.00
0030
8.07
81
Wor
ker
0.26
010.
3820
3.97
028.
7200
e-00
30.
7099
6.04
00e-
003
0.71
590.
1885
5.56
00e-
003
0.19
410.
0000
665.
0708
665.
0708
0.03
580.
0000
665.
8230
Tota
l0.
3987
1.79
315.
7891
0.01
210.
0381
0.00
0097
3.90
110.
8060
0.02
840.
8344
0.21
600.
0261
0.24
21
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0097
3.10
2097
3.10
20
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0191
0.22
490.
9404
1.41
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
0.00
0012
5.36
1812
5.36
180.
0226
0.00
0012
5.83
52
Tota
l0.
0191
0.22
490.
9404
1.41
00e-
003
0.02
260.
0000
125.
8352
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
2.03
00e-
003
0.00
0012
5.36
1812
5.36
18
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.13
861.
4110
1.81
893.
3900
e-00
30.
0962
0.02
230.
1185
0.02
750.
0205
0.04
800.
0000
308.
0312
308.
0312
2.23
00e-
003
0.00
0030
8.07
81
Wor
ker
0.26
010.
3820
3.97
028.
7200
e-00
30.
7099
6.04
00e-
003
0.71
590.
1885
5.56
00e-
003
0.19
410.
0000
665.
0708
665.
0708
0.03
580.
0000
665.
8230
Tota
l0.
3987
1.79
315.
7891
0.01
210.
0381
0.00
0097
3.90
110.
8060
0.02
840.
8344
0.21
600.
0261
0.24
21
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0097
3.10
2097
3.10
20
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.8
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
017
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
2431
1.98
761.
6028
2.42
00e-
003
0.14
730.
1473
0.14
160.
1416
0.00
0021
4.44
6921
4.44
690.
0373
0.00
0021
5.23
06
Tota
l0.
2431
1.98
761.
6028
2.42
00e-
003
0.03
730.
0000
215.
2306
0.14
730.
1473
0.14
160.
1416
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0021
4.44
6921
4.44
69
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.21
822.
2095
2.96
785.
8300
e-00
30.
1656
0.03
430.
1999
0.04
730.
0315
0.07
880.
0000
521.
7896
521.
7896
3.72
00e-
003
0.00
0052
1.86
77
Wor
ker
0.40
100.
5938
6.16
500.
0150
1.22
230.
0100
1.23
230.
3246
9.24
00e-
003
0.33
390.
0000
1,10
1.18
79
1,10
1.18
790.
0569
0.00
001,
102.
383
1
Tota
l0.
6192
2.80
329.
1328
0.02
080.
0606
0.00
001,
624.
250
81.
3879
0.04
431.
4322
0.37
190.
0408
0.41
27
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001,
622.
977
51,
622.
9775
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0329
0.38
731.
6192
2.42
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
0.00
0021
4.44
6621
4.44
660.
0373
0.00
0021
5.23
04
Tota
l0.
0329
0.38
731.
6192
2.42
00e-
003
0.03
730.
0000
215.
2304
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
3.50
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0021
4.44
6621
4.44
66
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.21
822.
2095
2.96
785.
8300
e-00
30.
1656
0.03
430.
1999
0.04
730.
0315
0.07
880.
0000
521.
7896
521.
7896
3.72
00e-
003
0.00
0052
1.86
77
Wor
ker
0.40
100.
5938
6.16
500.
0150
1.22
230.
0100
1.23
230.
3246
9.24
00e-
003
0.33
390.
0000
1,10
1.18
79
1,10
1.18
790.
0569
0.00
001,
102.
383
1
Tota
l0.
6192
2.80
329.
1328
0.02
080.
0606
0.00
001,
624.
250
81.
3879
0.04
431.
4322
0.37
190.
0408
0.41
270.
0000
1,62
2.97
75
1,62
2.97
75
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
3.8
4 B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
018
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
2035
1.70
831.
5178
2.33
00e-
003
0.12
000.
1200
0.11
550.
1155
0.00
0020
4.82
9920
4.82
990.
0347
0.00
0020
5.55
77
Tota
l0.
2035
1.70
831.
5178
2.33
00e-
003
0.03
470.
0000
205.
5577
0.12
000.
1200
0.11
550.
1155
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0020
4.82
9920
4.82
99
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.19
631.
9488
2.73
395.
6000
e-00
30.
1593
0.03
110.
1903
0.04
550.
0286
0.07
400.
0000
493.
2979
493.
2979
3.56
00e-
003
0.00
0049
3.37
26
Wor
ker
0.34
630.
5179
5.36
750.
0144
1.17
539.
3700
e-00
31.
1847
0.31
218.
6700
e-00
30.
3208
0.00
001,
019.
314
11,
019.
3141
0.05
080.
0000
1,02
0.38
07
Tota
l0.
5425
2.46
668.
1014
0.02
000.
0544
0.00
001,
513.
753
21.
3346
0.04
041.
3750
0.35
760.
0372
0.39
480.
0000
1,51
2.61
20
1,51
2.61
20
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0316
0.37
241.
5569
2.33
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
0.00
0020
4.82
9620
4.82
960.
0347
0.00
0020
5.55
75
Tota
l0.
0316
0.37
241.
5569
2.33
00e-
003
0.03
470.
0000
205.
5575
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
3.37
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0020
4.82
9620
4.82
96
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.19
631.
9488
2.73
395.
6000
e-00
30.
1593
0.03
110.
1903
0.04
550.
0286
0.07
400.
0000
493.
2979
493.
2979
3.56
00e-
003
0.00
0049
3.37
26
Wor
ker
0.34
630.
5179
5.36
750.
0144
1.17
539.
3700
e-00
31.
1847
0.31
218.
6700
e-00
30.
3208
0.00
001,
019.
314
11,
019.
3141
0.05
080.
0000
1,02
0.38
07
Tota
l0.
5425
2.46
668.
1014
0.02
000.
0544
0.00
001,
513.
753
21.
3346
0.04
041.
3750
0.35
760.
0372
0.39
48
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001,
512.
612
01,
512.
6120
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.9
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
2159
2.13
271.
3286
2.17
00e-
003
0.11
810.
1181
0.11
210.
1121
0.00
0019
8.30
7519
8.30
750.
0463
0.00
0019
9.27
88
Tota
l0.
2159
2.13
271.
3286
2.17
00e-
003
0.04
630.
0000
199.
2788
0.11
810.
1181
0.11
210.
1121
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0019
8.30
7519
8.30
75
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0281
0.23
541.
3993
2.17
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
0.00
0019
8.30
7319
8.30
730.
0463
0.00
0019
9.27
86
Tota
l0.
0281
0.23
541.
3993
2.17
00e-
003
0.04
630.
0000
199.
2786
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
3.34
00e-
003
0.00
0019
8.30
7319
8.30
73
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.9
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
017
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
3350
3.30
962.
2379
3.74
00e-
003
0.18
040.
1804
0.17
120.
1712
0.00
0033
7.68
6433
7.68
640.
0783
0.00
0033
9.33
00
Tota
l0.
3350
3.30
962.
2379
3.74
00e-
003
0.07
830.
0000
339.
3300
0.18
040.
1804
0.17
120.
1712
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0033
7.68
6433
7.68
64
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0484
0.40
532.
4095
3.74
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
0.00
0033
7.68
6033
7.68
600.
0783
0.00
0033
9.32
95
Tota
l0.
0484
0.40
532.
4095
3.74
00e-
003
0.07
830.
0000
339.
3295
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
5.75
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0033
7.68
6033
7.68
60
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.9
4a B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n - 2
018
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
2786
2.74
602.
0870
3.59
00e-
003
0.14
590.
1459
0.13
870.
1387
0.00
0032
1.21
4032
1.21
400.
0742
0.00
0032
2.77
15
Tota
l0.
2786
2.74
602.
0870
3.59
00e-
003
0.07
420.
0000
322.
7715
0.14
590.
1459
0.13
870.
1387
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0032
1.21
4032
1.21
40
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0465
0.38
972.
3168
3.59
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
0.00
0032
1.21
3632
1.21
360.
0742
0.00
0032
2.77
11
Tota
l0.
0465
0.38
972.
3168
3.59
00e-
003
0.07
420.
0000
322.
7711
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
5.52
00e-
003
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0032
1.21
3632
1.21
36
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.10
5 A
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
- 201
8U
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Arc
hit.
Coa
ting
2.82
490.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0229
0.15
340.
1419
2.30
00e-
004
0.01
150.
0115
0.01
150.
0115
0.00
0019
.532
419
.532
41.
8600
e-00
30.
0000
19.5
714
Tota
l2.
8478
0.15
340.
1419
2.30
00e-
004
1.86
00e-
003
0.00
0019
.571
40.
0115
0.01
150.
0115
0.01
15
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0019
.532
419
.532
4
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.04
230.
0632
0.65
551.
7600
e-00
30.
1435
1.14
00e-
003
0.14
470.
0381
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
920.
0000
124.
4729
124.
4729
6.20
00e-
003
0.00
0012
4.60
31
Tota
l0.
0423
0.06
320.
6555
1.76
00e-
003
6.20
00e-
003
0.00
0012
4.60
310.
1435
1.14
00e-
003
0.14
470.
0381
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
92
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0012
4.47
2912
4.47
29
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Arc
hit.
Coa
ting
2.82
490.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d2.
2700
e-00
39.
8500
e-00
30.
1402
2.30
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
0019
.532
419
.532
41.
8600
e-00
30.
0000
19.5
714
Tota
l2.
8272
9.85
00e-
003
0.14
022.
3000
e-00
41.
8600
e-00
30.
0000
19.5
714
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
3.00
00e-
004
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0019
.532
419
.532
4
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
0.04
230.
0632
0.65
551.
7600
e-00
30.
1435
1.14
00e-
003
0.14
470.
0381
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
920.
0000
124.
4729
124.
4729
6.20
00e-
003
0.00
0012
4.60
31
Tota
l0.
0423
0.06
320.
6555
1.76
00e-
003
6.20
00e-
003
0.00
0012
4.60
310.
1435
1.14
00e-
003
0.14
470.
0381
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
92
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0012
4.47
2912
4.47
29
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
3.11
6 P
avin
g - 2
018
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d0.
0159
0.16
340.
1393
2.10
00e-
004
9.46
00e-
003
9.46
00e-
003
8.72
00e-
003
8.72
00e-
003
0.00
0018
.962
018
.962
05.
7900
e-00
30.
0000
19.0
835
Pav
ing
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l0.
0159
0.16
340.
1393
2.10
00e-
004
5.79
00e-
003
0.00
0019
.083
59.
4600
e-00
39.
4600
e-00
38.
7200
e-00
38.
7200
e-00
30.
0000
18.9
620
18.9
620
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
6.70
00e-
004
1.01
00e-
003
0.01
043.
0000
e-00
52.
2800
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
52.
3000
e-00
36.
1000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
56.
2000
e-00
40.
0000
1.97
921.
9792
1.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9812
Tota
l6.
7000
e-00
41.
0100
e-00
30.
0104
3.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9812
2.28
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
2.30
00e-
003
6.10
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
005
6.20
00e-
004
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
001.
9792
1.97
92
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Off-
Roa
d2.
4800
e-00
30.
0107
0.15
272.
1000
e-00
43.
3000
e-00
43.
3000
e-00
43.
3000
e-00
43.
3000
e-00
40.
0000
18.9
619
18.9
619
5.79
00e-
003
0.00
0019
.083
5
Pav
ing
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Tota
l2.
4800
e-00
30.
0107
0.15
272.
1000
e-00
45.
7900
e-00
30.
0000
19.0
835
3.30
00e-
004
3.30
00e-
004
3.30
00e-
004
3.30
00e-
004
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
0018
.961
918
.961
9
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
6.70
00e-
004
1.01
00e-
003
0.01
043.
0000
e-00
52.
2800
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
52.
3000
e-00
36.
1000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
56.
2000
e-00
40.
0000
1.97
921.
9792
1.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9812
Tota
l6.
7000
e-00
41.
0100
e-00
30.
0104
3.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9812
2.28
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
2.30
00e-
003
6.10
00e-
004
2.00
00e-
005
6.20
00e-
004
0.00
001.
9792
1.97
92
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1EmissionsInventoryA.1.1.2 Rehabilitation
RehabilitationEquipmentList
CalEEModAnnualOutput
Pal
lad
ium C
on
stru
ctio
n E
qu
ipm
en
t
Co
nst
ruct
ion P
has
eEq
uip
me
nt
Cal
EEM
od E
qu
ipm
en
tFu
el
Nu
mb
er
Hrs
/Day
HP
Load
Reh
abili
tati
on
Aer
ial L
ift
Aer
ial L
ift
Die
sel
1
8
62
0
.31
Reh
abili
tati
on
Du
mp
ers/
Ten
der
sD
um
per
s/Te
nd
ers
Die
sel
1
8
16
0
.38
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2P
age
1 of
1D
ate:
10/
7/20
15 1
1:33
AM
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
- Con
stru
ctio
n (R
ehab
ilita
tion)
Sout
h C
oast
AQ
MD
Air
Dis
tric
t, A
nnua
l
1.0
Proj
ect C
hara
cter
istic
s
1.1
Land
Usa
ge
Land
Use
sS
ize
Met
ricLo
t Acr
eage
Flo
or S
urfa
ce A
rea
Pop
ulat
ion
Use
r D
efin
ed R
ecre
atio
nal
63,3
54.0
0U
ser
Def
ined
Uni
t1.
450.
000
1.2
Oth
er P
roje
ct C
hara
cter
istic
s
Urb
aniz
atio
nU
rban
Win
d Sp
eed
(m/s
)2.
2Pr
ecip
itatio
n Fr
eq (D
ays)
31
Clim
ate
Zone
11O
pera
tiona
l Yea
r20
18
Util
ity C
ompa
nyLo
s A
ngel
es D
epar
tmen
t of W
ater
& P
ower
CO
2 In
tens
ity
(lb/M
Whr
)10
94C
H4
Inte
nsity
(lb
/MW
hr)
0.02
9N
2O In
tens
ity
(lb/M
Whr
)0.
006
1.3
Use
r Ent
ered
Com
men
ts &
Non
-Def
ault
Dat
a
Pro
ject
Cha
ract
eris
tics
- C
O2
Inte
nsity
Fac
tor:
Los
Ang
eles
Dep
artm
ent o
f Wat
er a
nd P
ower
, 201
3 P
ower
Inte
grat
ed R
esou
rce
Pla
n, (
2013
).
Land
Use
- R
ehab
ilita
tion
wor
k em
issi
ons
for
the
Pal
ladi
um.
Con
stru
ctio
n P
hase
- C
onse
rvat
ivel
y as
sum
es r
ehab
ilita
tion
wor
k us
ing
equi
pmen
t em
issi
on fa
ctor
s co
rres
pond
ing
to th
e ea
rlies
t ye
ar o
f Pro
ject
co
nstr
uctio
n (e
.g.,
2015
). A
ctua
l reh
abili
tatio
n w
ork
coul
d oc
cur
durin
g la
ter
year
s.
Off-
road
Equ
ipm
ent -
The
reh
abili
tatio
n w
ork
of th
e hi
stor
ic P
alla
dium
wou
ld c
onsi
st o
f prim
arily
inte
rior
wor
k. A
naly
sis
assu
mes
the
use
of li
mite
d ty
pes
of
equi
pmen
t suc
h as
a li
ft an
d sm
all d
umpe
r/te
nder
.T
rips
and
VM
T -
Incl
udes
2 d
aily
mis
cella
nous
ven
dor
trip
s.
Dem
oliti
on -
Ass
umes
the
raha
bilit
atio
n w
ork
wou
ld g
ener
ate
debr
is e
quiv
alen
t to
appr
oxim
atel
y 10
% o
f the
bui
ldin
g sq
uare
foot
age
(ap
prox
imat
ely
6,33
5 sq
uare
feet
).G
radi
ng -
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g -
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t Miti
gatio
n -
All
equi
pmen
t Tie
r 4
Tab
le N
ame
Col
umn
Nam
eD
efau
lt V
alue
New
Val
ue
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Num
berO
fEqu
ipm
entM
itiga
ted
0.00
1.00
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
Equ
ipM
itiga
tion
Tie
rN
o C
hang
eT
ier
4 F
inal
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s20
.00
65.0
0
tblL
andU
seLo
tAcr
eage
0.00
1.45
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
1.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
3.00
0.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
OffR
oadE
quip
men
tUni
tAm
ount
0.00
1.00
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Pha
seN
ame
Dem
oliti
on
tblO
ffRoa
dEqu
ipm
ent
Pha
seN
ame
Dem
oliti
on
tblP
roje
ctC
hara
cter
istic
sC
O2I
nten
sity
Fac
tor
1227
.89
1094
tblP
roje
ctC
hara
cter
istic
sO
pera
tiona
lYea
r20
1420
18
0.00
2.00
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Wor
kerT
ripN
umbe
r3.
005.
00
NO
xC
OS
O2
Fug
itive
P
M10
tblT
ripsA
ndV
MT
Ven
dorT
ripN
umbe
r
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2
2.0
Emis
sion
s Su
mm
ary
2.1
Ove
rall
Con
stru
ctio
nU
nmiti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
RO
GN
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
Tot
al
2016
3.89
00e-
003
0.02
630.
0289
7.00
00e-
005
5.55
00e-
003
7.80
00e-
004
6.33
00e-
003
1.13
00e-
003
7.70
00e-
004
1.90
00e-
003
0.00
005.
7247
5.72
473.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
5.73
11
Tota
l3.
8900
e-00
30.
0263
0.02
897.
0000
e-00
53.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
5.73
115.
5500
e-00
37.
8000
e-00
46.
3300
e-00
31.
1300
e-00
37.
7000
e-00
41.
9000
e-00
3
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
005.
7247
5.72
47
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
2016
1.49
00e-
003
0.01
100.
0207
7.00
00e-
005
5.55
00e-
003
1.70
00e-
004
5.72
00e-
003
1.13
00e-
003
1.60
00e-
004
1.29
00e-
003
0.00
005.
7247
5.72
473.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
5.73
11
Tota
l1.
4900
e-00
30.
0110
0.02
077.
0000
e-00
55.
5500
e-00
31.
7000
e-00
45.
7200
e-00
31.
1300
e-00
31.
6000
e-00
41.
2900
e-00
30.
0000
5.72
475.
7247
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
005.
7311
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO2
Fugi
tive
PM10
Exha
ust
PM10
PM10
To
tal
Fugi
tive
PM2.
5Ex
haus
t PM
2.5
PM2.
5 To
tal
Bio
- CO
2N
Bio
-CO
2To
tal C
O2
CH
4N
20C
O2e
Perc
ent
Red
uctio
n61
.70
58.0
728
.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
78.2
19.
640.
0079
.22
32.1
10.
000.
000.
00
3.0
Con
stru
ctio
n D
etai
l
Con
stru
ctio
n Ph
ase
Pha
se
Num
ber
Pha
se N
ame
Pha
se T
ype
Sta
rt D
ate
End
Dat
eN
um D
ays
Wee
kN
um D
ays
Pha
se D
escr
iptio
n
1D
emol
ition
Dem
oliti
on1/
1/20
163/
31/2
016
565
Acr
es o
f Gra
ding
(Site
Pre
para
tion
Phas
e): 0
Acr
es o
f Gra
ding
(Gra
ding
Pha
se):
0
Acr
es o
f Pav
ing:
0
Res
iden
tial I
ndoo
r: 0
; Res
iden
tial O
utdo
or: 0
; Non
-Res
iden
tial I
ndoo
r: 0
; Non
-Res
iden
tial O
utdo
or: 0
(Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g –
sqft)
OffR
oad
Equi
pmen
t
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent T
ype
Am
ount
Usa
ge H
ours
Hor
se P
ower
Load
Fac
tor
Dem
oliti
onA
eria
l Lift
s0
8.00
620.
31
Dem
oliti
onC
oncr
ete/
Indu
stria
l Saw
s0
8.00
810.
73
Dem
oliti
onD
umpe
rs/T
ende
rs1
8.00
160.
38
Dem
oliti
onR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
08.
0025
50.
40
Dem
oliti
onT
ract
ors/
Load
ers/
Bac
khoe
s0
8.00
970.
37 Ven
dor
Veh
icle
Cla
ssH
aulin
g V
ehic
le C
lass
Trip
s an
d VM
T
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent
Cou
ntW
orke
r T
rip
Num
ber
Ven
dor
Trip
N
umbe
rH
aulin
g T
rip
Num
ber
29.0
014
.70
Wor
ker
Trip
Le
ngth
Ven
dor
Trip
Le
ngth
Hau
ling
Trip
Le
ngth
Wor
ker
Veh
icle
C
lass
6.90
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
3.1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Con
stru
ctio
n
Dem
oliti
on1
5.00
2.00
Use
Cle
aner
Eng
ines
for
Con
stru
ctio
n E
quip
men
t
Cle
an P
aved
Roa
ds
3.2
Dem
oliti
on -
2016
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
n-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Fug
itive
Dus
t3.
1200
e-00
30.
0000
3.12
00e-
003
4.70
00e-
004
0.00
004.
7000
e-00
40.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d2.
4000
e-00
30.
0153
8.16
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
6.10
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
7967
1.79
672.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
1.80
09
Tota
l2.
4000
e-00
30.
0153
8.16
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
3.12
00e-
003
6.10
00e-
004
3.73
00e-
003
4.70
00e-
004
6.10
00e-
004
1.08
00e-
003
0.00
001.
7967
1.79
672.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
1.80
09
Unm
itiga
ted
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-Si
te
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
2.60
00e-
004
4.19
00e-
003
3.17
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
2.50
00e-
004
6.00
00e-
005
3.10
00e-
004
7.00
00e-
005
6.00
00e-
005
1.30
00e-
004
0.00
000.
9766
0.97
661.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.97
67
Ven
dor
5.80
00e-
004
5.87
00e-
003
7.56
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
4.00
00e-
004
9.00
00e-
005
4.90
00e-
004
1.10
00e-
004
9.00
00e-
005
2.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
2811
1.28
111.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.28
13
Wor
ker
6.50
00e-
004
9.60
00e-
004
9.97
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
1.78
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
1.80
00e-
003
4.70
00e-
004
1.00
00e-
005
4.90
00e-
004
0.00
001.
6703
1.67
039.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.67
22
Tota
l1.
4900
e-00
30.
0110
0.02
074.
0000
e-00
51.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
3.93
022.
4300
e-00
31.
7000
e-00
42.
6000
e-00
36.
5000
e-00
41.
6000
e-00
48.
2000
e-00
4
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10
0.00
003.
9280
3.92
80
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
On-
Site
RO
GN
Ox
CO
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Fug
itive
Dus
t3.
1200
e-00
30.
0000
3.12
00e-
003
4.70
00e-
004
0.00
004.
7000
e-00
40.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
2.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
001.
7967
1.79
672.
0000
e-00
40.
0000
1.80
09
Tota
l0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
2.00
00e-
005
2.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
8009
3.12
00e-
003
0.00
003.
1200
e-00
34.
7000
e-00
40.
0000
4.70
00e-
004
0.00
001.
7967
1.79
67
Miti
gate
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Off-
Site
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2R
OG
NO
xC
OT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5
Hau
ling
2.60
00e-
004
4.19
00e-
003
3.17
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
2.50
00e-
004
6.00
00e-
005
3.10
00e-
004
7.00
00e-
005
6.00
00e-
005
1.30
00e-
004
0.00
000.
9766
0.97
661.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.97
67
Ven
dor
5.80
00e-
004
5.87
00e-
003
7.56
00e-
003
1.00
00e-
005
4.00
00e-
004
9.00
00e-
005
4.90
00e-
004
1.10
00e-
004
9.00
00e-
005
2.00
00e-
004
0.00
001.
2811
1.28
111.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.28
13
Wor
ker
6.50
00e-
004
9.60
00e-
004
9.97
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
1.78
00e-
003
2.00
00e-
005
1.80
00e-
003
4.70
00e-
004
1.00
00e-
005
4.90
00e-
004
0.00
001.
6703
1.67
039.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
1.67
22
Tota
l1.
4900
e-00
30.
0110
0.02
074.
0000
e-00
51.
1000
e-00
40.
0000
3.93
022.
4300
e-00
31.
7000
e-00
42.
6000
e-00
36.
5000
e-00
41.
6000
e-00
48.
2000
e-00
40.
0000
3.92
803.
9280
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1EmissionsInventoryA.1.1.3 HaulRoad
EMFAC2014Output
HaulTruck(AnnualEmissions)
Pal
lad
ium T
ow
ers ‐ C
on
stru
ctio
n H
eal
th R
isk
Ass
ess
me
nt
EMFA
C2
01
4 O
utp
ut
and A
nal
ysis
EMFA
C2
01
4 O
utp
ut
cale
nd
ar_y
ear
seas
on
_mo
nth
sub
_are
ave
hic
le_c
lass
fue
lm
od
el y
ear
pro
cess
po
lluta
nt
em
issi
on r
ate (
g/h
r)
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
Agg
rega
teID
LEX
PM
10
0.3
10
5
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
20
10
IDLE
XP
M1
00
.00
15
cale
nd
ar_y
ear
seas
on
_mo
nth
sub
_are
ave
hic
le_c
lass
fue
lm
od
el y
ear
pro
cess
po
lluta
nt
em
issi
on (
ton
/day
)
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
Agg
rega
teR
UN
EXP
M1
00
.02
70
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
20
10
RU
NEX
PM
10
0.0
00
17
3
cale
nd
ar_y
ear
seas
on
_mo
nth
sub
_are
ave
hic
le_c
lass
fue
lm
od
el y
ear
VM
T (m
i/d
ay)
po
pu
lati
on (
veh
)
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
Agg
rega
te2
06
87
0.1
32
26
39
.40
6
20
16
An
nu
alLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)T7
Sin
gle
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Dsl
20
10
64
84
.23
16
7.6
77
Ru
nn
ing
Exh
aust E
mis
sio
n F
acto
r C
alcu
lati
on
veh
icle
_cla
ssm
od
el y
ear
em
issi
on (
ton
/day
)p
op
ula
tio
n (
veh
)V
MT
(mi/
day
)EF (
g/m
i)
T7 S
ingl
e C
on
stru
ctio
nA
ggre
gate
0.0
27
02
63
9.4
06
20
68
70
.13
20
.11
85
T7 S
ingl
e C
on
stru
ctio
n2
01
00
.00
01
73
67
.67
76
48
4.2
31
0.0
24
2
Pal
lad
ium T
ow
ers ‐ C
on
stru
ctio
n H
eal
th R
isk
Ass
ess
me
nt
Hau
l Tru
ck (
An
nu
al E
mis
sio
ns)
On‐R
oad
Hau
l Tru
ck Id
ling
Emis
sio
ns
IDSo
urc
eV
ech
icle C
ate
gory
Qu
eu
ing
Sto
ps
pe
r
Day
Idlin
g M
inu
tes
pe
r Q
ue
uin
g
Sto
p
Load
ings p
er
Day
Idlin
g M
inu
tes
pe
r Lo
adin
g
Un
load
ings p
er
Day
Idlin
g M
inu
tes
pe
r U
nlo
adin
g
PM
10
(g/h
r)
PM
10
(lb
s/d
ay)
Du
rati
on
(day
s)
PM
10
(lb
s/ye
ar)
Co
ncr
ete
Tru
cks
Hea
vy T
ruck
sT7
sin
gle
con
stru
ctio
n6
00
53
00
10
30
01
00
.31
05
0.1
02
72
0.1
02
7Ex
cava
tio
n T
ruck
sH
aul T
ruck
sT7
sin
gle
con
stru
ctio
n2
34
51
17
10
11
71
00
.00
15
0.0
00
21
08
0.0
10
4
On‐R
oad
Hau
l Tru
ck ‐ T
rave
l Em
issi
on
s (w
ith
in 1
/4 m
ile o
f si
te)
IDSo
urc
eV
ech
icle C
ate
gory
Re
gio
nC
ale
nd
ar Y
ear
Mo
de
l Ye
arR
un
nin
g Sp
ee
d
On
e‐W
ay T
rip
s
pe
r D
ay
Mile
s p
er
On
e‐
Way T
rip
PM
10
(g/m
i)
PM
10
(lb
s/d
ay)
Du
rati
on
(day
s)
PM
10
(lb
s/ye
ar)
Co
ncr
ete
Tru
cks
Hea
vy T
ruck
sT7
sin
gle
con
stru
ctio
nLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)2
01
6A
ggre
gate
dA
ggre
gate
d6
00
0.2
50
.11
85
0.0
39
22
0.0
78
4
Exca
vati
on T
ruck
sH
aul T
ruck
sT7
sin
gle
con
stru
ctio
nLo
s A
nge
les
(SC
)2
01
62
01
0A
ggre
gate
d2
34
0.2
50
.02
42
0.0
03
11
08
0.3
37
0
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.1 EmissionsInventoryA.1.1.4 DieselParticulateEmissionsSummary
Palladium TowersConstruction HRA ‐ Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Summary
Summary of Construction DPM Sources
Construction of Towers 453.54 g/lb
Rehabilitation of Palladium 14 hrs/day
Continuous Concrete Pour
Excavation Truck Trips ‐ Idling
Excavation Truck Trips ‐ On‐Road
HARP Sources
Source DPM (lbs/year) DPM (lbs/day) DPM (g/day) DPM (g/hr) DPM (g/s)
Construction of Towers 21.41 0.0586 26.60 1.90 5.2777E‐04
Rehabilitation of Palladium 0.06 0.0002 0.07 0.01 1.4793E‐06
Off‐site Truck Emissions 0.18 0.0005 0.22 0.02 4.3432E‐06
Given Values
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.2AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagram
(AERMODOutputavailableelectronically)
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
377500 377600 377700 377800 377900 378000 378100 378200 378300
UTM East [m]
3773
500
3773
600
3773
700
3773
800
3773
900
3774
000
3774
100
3774
200
3774
300
UT
M N
orth
[m
]
SCALE:
0 0.2 km
1:6,008
PROJECT TITLE:
Palladium Residences HRAConstruction Source-Receptor Diagram
COMMENTS:
Palladium Construction HRA
Max Impacted Receptor
COMPANY NAME:
PCR Environmental Services
MODELER:
DATE:
10/15/2015
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
3
RECEPTORS:
450
AppendixA.1ConstructionHRA
A.1.3HARPOutputFiles
Pal
lad
ium T
ow
ers ‐ C
on
stru
ctio
n H
eal
th R
isk
Ass
ess
me
nt
HA
RP O
utp
ut ‐
3rd T
rim
est
er
Star
t A
ge
Top 1
0 M
ax Im
pac
ted R
ece
pto
rs
Re
cep
tor
No
.X
Y
Can
cer
Ris
k
(Ch
ance p
er
Mill
ion
)P
olI
DP
olA
BB
REV
Sce
nar
io
95
37
77
80
37
73
80
05
.19
E‐0
69
90
1D
iese
lExh
PM
3Yr
Can
cerH
igh
End
43
13
77
92
3.9
63
77
39
67
.18
6.4
6E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
43
23
77
93
3.9
63
77
39
67
.18
5.4
8E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
43
53
77
92
3.9
63
77
39
77
.18
6.3
8E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
43
63
77
93
3.9
63
77
39
77
.18
5.4
4E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
43
93
77
92
3.9
63
77
39
87
.18
6.1
7E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
44
03
77
93
3.9
63
77
39
87
.18
5.3
0E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
44
33
77
92
3.9
63
77
39
97
.18
5.8
4E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
44
43
77
93
3.9
63
77
39
97
.18
5.0
7E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
44
73
77
92
3.9
63
77
40
07
.18
5.4
2E‐
06
99
01
Die
selE
xhP
M3
YrC
ance
rHig
hEn
d
Re
cep
tor
Co
ord
inat
es
(UTM
)
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.1 EmissionsInventory
A.2.2 AERMODDispersionModeling
A.2.3 HealthRiskFactorsandAcuteSpeciation
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.1 EmissionsInventory
SourceParameters
DeliveryTruck
TransportationRefrigerationUnitEmissions
DieselEmergencyGeneratorEmissions
CharbroilingEmissions
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Source Param
eters:
Med
ium‐Duty De
livery Trucks
Num
ber o
f Med
ium‐Duty Trucks (T
6)24
trucks/day
Estimated based on 3 trucks/hour, 2 loading bays, 8
hours/day
Trucks per Hou
r3
trucks/hou
rEstimated based on capacity of the Project site.
Idling Time
5
min/truck
Assumed
value.
Heavy‐Du
ty Delivery Trucks
Num
ber o
f Heavy‐Duty Trucks (T
7)24
trucks/day
Estimated based on 3 trucks/hour, 2 loading bays, 8
hours/day
Trucks per Hou
r3
trucks/hou
rEstimated based on capacity of the Project site.
Idling Time
5
min/truck
Transportatio
n Re
firgerator U
nits (T
RUs)
Num
ber o
f TRU
s5
TRUs/day
Assumed
value (20% of heavy‐duty trucks equipped
with TRU).
TRUs p
er Hou
r2
TRU/hou
rAssumed
value.
Idling Time
60
min/TRU
Assumed
value (1 hour per TRU).
Emergency Gen
erators
Num
ber o
f Gen
erators
2
gene
rators
Based on Project inform
ation received.
Ratin
g2,00
0
kWBased on Project inform
ation received.
2,68
2
hpBased on Project inform
ation received.
Mainten
ance/testin
g ho
urs
2
hours/gene
rator/day
Assumed
value.
100
hours/gene
rator/year
Upper limit based on CARB Air Toxics Control M
easure (requires compliance with 0.01 grams/bhp‐hr lim
it for DPM).
Charbroiling
Poun
ds of C
harbroiled Ch
icken
116.5
po
unds/day
Based on SCAQMD Staff Report (1997) that found an average of 233 pounds of meat charbroiled per large restaurant
Poun
ds of C
harbroiled Be
ef11
6.5
po
unds/day
(large chain‐driven charbroiler operations), and assumes 50% chicken and 50% beef.
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Delivery Truck Em
ission
s:
Diesel Truck Emission
Factors fo
r Run
ning
Exhau
st and
Idlin
gIdling Em
ission Factor
Calend
arEM
FAC2
011
(grams/veh‐hr)
Truck Type
Year
Veh. Class
TOG
PM10
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2018
T6 instate sm
all
2.16
08
0.20
51
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2020
T6 instate sm
all
2.19
32
0.13
31
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2025
T6 instate sm
all
2.41
09
0.09
21
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2030
T6 instate sm
all
2.43
00
0.09
10
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2035
T6 instate sm
all
2.44
02
0.09
05
70‐Year W
eighted Av
erage*
T6 instate sm
all
2.41
18
0.09
70
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2018
T7 tractor
7.25
42
0.12
27
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2020
T7 tractor
7.66
79
0.11
68
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2025
T7 tractor
8.32
46
0.10
96
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2030
T7 tractor
8.36
13
0.10
86
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2035
T7 tractor
8.38
65
0.10
81
70‐Year W
eighted Av
erage*
T7 tractor
8.29
66
0.10
93
Notes:
* The 70
‐year w
eighted average is calculated
by assuming the calend
ar year 2
018 em
ission factors (EFs) re
presen
t years 201
8‐20
19, 202
0 EFs rep
resent years 202
0‐20
24, 202
5 EFs rep
resent years 202
5‐20
29, 203
0 EFs rep
resent years 203
0‐20
34, and
203
5 EFs rep
resent years 203
5‐20
87.
Source: C
alifo
rnia Air Re
sources B
oard, EMFA
C201
1. M
odel param
eters: Sou
th Coast Air Quality Managem
ent D
istrict, aggregated
mod
el years and
speeds, ann
ual
average em
ission factors.
Diesel Truck Emission
s from Id
ling
Idling Time
Idling Em
issions
Calend
arNum
ber o
fpe
r Truck
(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Truck Type
Year
Hours1
Trucks
(minutes)
TOG
PM10
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
Peak Hou
r20
181
35.00
1.19
E‐03
1.13
E‐04
Day (M
ax)
2018
824
5.00
1.19
E‐03
1.13
E‐04
Day (70‐Year W
t Avg)
–8
245.00
1.33
E‐03
5.34
E‐05
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
Peak Hou
r20
181
35.00
4.00
E‐03
6.76
E‐05
Day (M
ax)
2018
824
5.00
4.00
E‐03
6.76
E‐05
Day (70‐Year W
t Avg)
–8
245.00
4.57
E‐03
6.02
E‐05
Note:
1.Assumes daily emissions occur during the daytim
e over an 8 ho
ur period (i.e., no nighttim
e de
liveries).
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit E
mission
s:
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) E
mission
Factors
Calend
arTo
tal
Total PM
Emission Factor (lbs/hr) 1
Equipm
ent T
ype
Year
Fleet H
ours
(tpy)
PM10
THC
2TO
G 3
TRU
2018
275,12
0,51
6
0.27
42
1.99
E‐06
0.00
34
0.00
37
2020
288,19
0,77
0
0.09
17
6.36
E‐07
0.00
34
0.00
37
2025
326,73
0,41
6
0.10
30
6.31
E‐07
0.00
34
0.00
37
70‐Year W
eighted Av
erage*
––
6.70
E‐07
0.00
34
0.00
37
Notes:
Sources:
1.California Air R
esou
rces Board, 201
1 Transportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) R
egulation, 201
1 Em
issions Inventory Da
tabase (w
ith ado
pted
201
1 am
endm
ents).
2.National Ren
ewable Ene
rgy Labo
ratory, Emissions of T
ranspo
rt Refrig
eration Units with
CAR
B Diesel, G
as‐to‐Liqu
id Diesel, and Em
issions Con
trol Devices, M
ay 201
0.
Total hydrocarbon
(THC
) emission factor of 1
.56 gram
s/ho
ur con
verted
to pou
nds p
er hou
r (CA
RB diesel, high
engine speed, diesel particulate filter).
3.U.S. Enviro
nmen
tal Protection Ag
ency, Con
version Factors for Hydrocarbon
Emission Co
mpo
nents, Ju
ly 201
0.
TOG to
THC
con
version factor of 1
.070
for d
iesel engines.
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) E
mission
sIdling Time
Idling Em
issions
Calend
arNum
ber
per T
RU(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Equipm
ent T
ype
Year
Hours1
of TRU
s(m
inutes)
TOG
PM10
TRU (o
n‐site idling)
Peak Hou
r20
181
260
7.36
E‐03
3.99
E‐06
Day (M
ax)
2018
85
602.30
E‐03
1.25
E‐06
Day (70‐Year W
t Avg)
–8
560
2.30
E‐03
4.19
E‐07
Note:
1.Assumes daily emissions occur during the daytim
e over an 8 ho
ur period (i.e., no nighttim
e de
liveries).
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
* The 70
‐year w
eighted average is calculated
by assuming the calend
ar year 2
018 em
ission factors (EFs) re
presen
t years 201
8‐20
19, 202
0 EFs rep
resent years 202
0‐20
24, and
202
5 EFs rep
resent years 202
5‐20
87.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Diesel Emergency Gen
erator Emission
sMainten
ance/Testin
g Em
issions
(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Equipm
ent T
ype
Hours1
VOC
TOG2
PM10
Emergency Gen
erators
Peak Hou
r1
2.84
E+00
2.88
E+00
1.18
E‐01
Day (M
ax)
87.10
E‐01
7.21
E‐01
2.96
E‐02
Annu
al (averaged over 8 hou
rs/day)
100
1.08
E‐02
1.10
E‐02
4.50
E‐04
Note:
1.Assumes m
ainten
ance and
testing wou
ld occur during the daytim
e ho
urs (i.e., no
nighttim
e mainten
ance and
testing).
2.U.S. Enviro
nmen
tal Protection Ag
ency, Con
version Factors for Hydrocarbon
Emission Co
mpo
nents, Ju
ly 201
0.
TOG to
THC
con
version factor of 1
.070
for d
iesel engines; V
OC to THC
con
version factor of 1
.053
for d
iesel engines;
therefore, TOG to
VOC conversio
n factor is 1.070
/1.053
= 1.016
.
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Charbroilin
g Em
ission
sPo
unds M
eat
Ope
ratin
gPe
ak Hou
rDa
ilyho
urs/day
Poun
ds Chicken
29.13
116.50
12
Poun
ds Beef
29.13
116.50
12
Emission Factor
Peak Hou
r Emissions
Daily Hou
r Emissions
Compo
und
(pou
nds/ton meat)
(pou
nds/ho
ur)
(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Chicken
Beef
Chicken
Beef
Total
Chicken
Beef
Total
Acen
aphthe
ne3.40
E‐05
5.10
E‐05
4.95
E‐07
7.43
E‐07
1.24
E‐06
1.65
E‐07
2.48
E‐07
4.13
E‐07
PM83
%Acen
aphthylene
7.00
E‐04
1.44
E‐03
1.02
E‐05
2.10
E‐05
3.12
E‐05
3.40
E‐06
7.00
E‐06
1.04
E‐05
PM83
%An
thracene
2.99
E‐04
3.20
E‐04
4.36
E‐06
4.65
E‐06
9.01
E‐06
1.45
E‐06
1.55
E‐06
3.00
E‐06
PM83
%Be
nz(a)anthracen
e1.16
E‐04
7.48
E‐05
1.68
E‐06
1.09
E‐06
2.77
E‐06
5.61
E‐07
3.63
E‐07
9.24
E‐07
PM83
%Be
nzo(a)pyrene
3.40
E‐05
5.10
E‐05
4.95
E‐07
7.43
E‐07
1.24
E‐06
1.65
E‐07
2.48
E‐07
4.13
E‐07
PM83
%Be
nzo(g,h,i)p
erylen
e3.06
E‐05
5.78
E‐05
4.46
E‐07
8.42
E‐07
1.29
E‐06
1.49
E‐07
2.81
E‐07
4.29
E‐07
PM83
%Biph
enyl
3.09
E‐04
5.85
E‐04
4.51
E‐06
8.52
E‐06
1.30
E‐05
1.50
E‐06
2.84
E‐06
4.34
E‐06
PM83
%Fluo
rene
2.45
E‐04
4.28
E‐04
3.56
E‐06
6.24
E‐06
9.80
E‐06
1.19
E‐06
2.08
E‐06
3.27
E‐06
PM83
%Fluo
ranthe
ne4.35
E‐04
4.76
E‐04
6.34
E‐06
6.93
E‐06
1.33
E‐05
2.11
E‐06
2.31
E‐06
4.42
E‐06
PM83
%Inde
no(1,2,3‐c,d)pyren
e2.04
E‐05
3.06
E‐05
2.97
E‐07
4.46
E‐07
7.43
E‐07
9.90
E‐08
1.49
E‐07
2.48
E‐07
PM83
%Naphthalene
2.45
E‐03
5.32
E‐03
3.57
E‐05
7.75
E‐05
1.13
E‐04
1.19
E‐05
2.58
E‐05
3.77
E‐05
VOC
86%
Phen
anthrene
1.18
E‐03
1.66
E‐03
1.71
E‐05
2.42
E‐05
4.13
E‐05
5.71
E‐06
8.05
E‐06
1.38
E‐05
PM83
%Pyrene
6.12
E‐04
6.46
E‐04
8.91
E‐06
9.41
E‐06
1.83
E‐05
2.97
E‐06
3.14
E‐06
6.11
E‐06
PM83
%
Source: U
.S. Enviro
nmen
tal Protection Ag
ency, M
etho
ds fo
r Develop
ing a National Emission Inventory for C
ommercial Coo
king
Processes: Techn
ical M
emorandu
m, (20
03).
Control
Efficiency
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.2 AERMODDispersionModeling
A.2.2.1 AERMODInputs
A.2.2.2 AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagram
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.2 AERMODDispersionModeling
A.2.2.1 AERMODInputs
SourceProperties
BuildingHeights
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
AERMOD Source Properties
Release Exhaust Exhaust AreaAERMOD Source Height Temp Flow DescriptionSource ID Type (m) (°F) (acfm) (meters2)
CHAR1 Area 3 – – Charbroiling emissions, southwest corner 625 CHAR2 Area 3 – – Charbroiling emissions, northeast side 975 STCK1 a Point 106.7 987 19,209 Generator emissions, West Tower –STCK2 a Point 106.7 987 19,209 Generator emissions, East Tower –HHDT1 Area 3 – – Heavy‐duty truck emissions, southwest corner 150 HHDT2 Area 3 – – Heavy‐duty truck emissions, central area 300 MHDT Area 3 – – Medium‐duty truck emissions, central area 300 TRU1 Area 3 – – TRU emissions, southwest corner 150 TRU2 Area 3 – – TRU emissions, central area 300
Notes:a.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014
Conversion from Unit Emissions Factor to Source‐Specific Emissions Factor (Post Dispersion Modeling)Unit Source‐Specific Emissions Factor
Source ID/ Emissions Cancer Chronic Acute AcuteCompound Factor Risk 1‐Hour 8‐Hour
(g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2)
CHAR1 1.00 Acenaphthene 4.16E‐11 4.16E‐11 1.25E‐10 4.16E‐11Acenaphthylene 1.05E‐09 1.05E‐09 3.14E‐09 1.05E‐09Anthracene 3.03E‐10 3.03E‐10 9.08E‐10 3.03E‐10Benz(a)anthracene 9.32E‐11 9.32E‐11 2.79E‐10 9.32E‐11Benzo(a)pyrene 4.16E‐11 4.16E‐11 1.25E‐10 4.16E‐11Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.33E‐11 4.33E‐11 1.30E‐10 4.33E‐11Biphenyl 4.38E‐10 4.38E‐10 1.31E‐09 4.38E‐10Fluorene 3.29E‐10 3.29E‐10 9.88E‐10 3.29E‐10Fluoranthene 4.46E‐10 4.46E‐10 1.34E‐09 4.46E‐10Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 2.50E‐11 2.50E‐11 7.49E‐11 2.50E‐11Naphthalene 3.80E‐09 3.80E‐09 1.14E‐08 3.80E‐09Phenanthrene 1.39E‐09 1.39E‐09 4.16E‐09 1.39E‐09Pyrene 6.16E‐10 6.16E‐10 1.85E‐09 6.16E‐10
Generator exhaust temperature and flow based on technical specifications for a representative 2,000 kW generator (http://www.generac.com/all‐products/generators/business‐standby‐generators/diesel‐generators/2000kw).
Unit Source‐Specific Emissions FactorSource ID/ Emissions Cancer Chronic Acute AcuteCompound Factor Risk 1‐Hour 8‐Hour
(g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2) (g/s‐m2)
CHAR2 1.00 Acenaphthene 2.67E‐11 2.67E‐11 8.00E‐11 2.67E‐11Acenaphthylene 6.72E‐10 6.72E‐10 2.02E‐09 6.72E‐10Anthracene 1.94E‐10 1.94E‐10 5.82E‐10 1.94E‐10Benz(a)anthracene 5.97E‐11 5.97E‐11 1.79E‐10 5.97E‐11Benzo(a)pyrene 2.67E‐11 2.67E‐11 8.00E‐11 2.67E‐11Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.77E‐11 2.77E‐11 8.32E‐11 2.77E‐11Biphenyl 2.80E‐10 2.80E‐10 8.41E‐10 2.80E‐10Fluorene 2.11E‐10 2.11E‐10 6.33E‐10 2.11E‐10Fluoranthene 2.86E‐10 2.86E‐10 8.57E‐10 2.86E‐10Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 1.60E‐11 1.60E‐11 4.80E‐11 1.60E‐11Naphthalene 2.44E‐09 2.44E‐09 7.31E‐09 2.44E‐09Phenanthrene 8.89E‐10 8.89E‐10 2.67E‐09 8.89E‐10Pyrene 3.95E‐10 3.95E‐10 1.18E‐09 3.95E‐10
STCK1 1.00 DPM (in units of g/s) 2.83E‐05 2.83E‐05 7.45E‐03 1.86E‐03TOG (in units of g/s) 6.91E‐04 6.91E‐04 1.82E‐01 4.54E‐02
STCK2 1.00 DPM (in units of g/s) 2.83E‐05 2.83E‐05 7.45E‐03 1.86E‐03TOG (in units of g/s) 6.91E‐04 6.91E‐04 1.82E‐01 4.54E‐02
HHDT1 1.00 DPM 2.53E‐08 2.84E‐08 2.84E‐08 2.84E‐08TOG 1.92E‐06 1.68E‐06 1.68E‐06 1.68E‐06
HHDT2 1.00 DPM 1.26E‐08 1.42E‐08 1.42E‐08 1.42E‐08TOG 9.60E‐07 8.40E‐07 8.40E‐07 8.40E‐07
MHDT 1.00 DPM 2.24E‐08 4.75E‐08 4.75E‐08 4.75E‐08TOG 5.58E‐07 5.00E‐07 5.00E‐07 5.00E‐07
TRU1 1.00 DPM 1.76E‐10 5.23E‐10 1.67E‐09 5.23E‐10TOG 9.66E‐07 9.66E‐07 3.09E‐06 9.66E‐07
TRU2 1.00 DPM 8.79E‐11 2.62E‐10 8.37E‐10 2.62E‐10TOG 4.83E‐07 4.83E‐07 1.55E‐06 4.83E‐07
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
AERM
OD Building Heights
AERM
OD
Height
Height Data Source
Bldg
ID(ft)
Descrip
tion
P_BLD_
135
0
Prop
osed
Project Descriptio
nProject R
esiden
tial Tow
er 1
P_BLD_
235
0
Prop
osed
Project Descriptio
nProject R
esiden
tial Tow
er 2
BLD_
3 Tier 1
50
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Sunset M
edia Cen
ter" (visu
al est.)
Sunset M
edia Tow
er
Tier 2
294
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Sunset M
edia Cen
ter"
Sunset M
edia Tow
er
BLD_
4 Tier 1
80
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Ho
llywoo
d Vine
Con
dominiums" (visu
al est.)
1600
Vine (Building A)
Tier 2
174
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Ho
llywoo
d Vine
Con
dominiums"
1600
Vine (Building A)
BLD_
517
4
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Ho
llywoo
d Vine
Con
dominiums"
1600
Vine (Building B)
BLD_
617
0
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "W Hollywoo
d"W Hotel (B
uilding A)
BLD_
717
0
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "W Hollywoo
d"W Hotel (B
uilding B)
BLD_
813
0
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Ho
llywoo
d Vine
Con
dominiums" (visu
al est.)
1600
Vine (Building C)
BLD_
929
7
Online search on Em
poris.com
for "Sunset Vine To
wer"
Sunset Vine To
wer
BLD_
1091
Coun
cil on Tall Bu
ildings and
Urban
Habita
t (CT
BUH), Tall Building He
ight Calculator (5 story, m
ixed
‐use building)
Sunset Vine Re
siden
tial
BLD_
11 Tier 1
18
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html (visual est).
Radio Bu
ilding
Tier 2
22
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Radio Bu
ilding
Tier 3
78
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Radio Bu
ilding
BLD_
12 Tier 1
18
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html (visual est).
Televisio
n Bu
ilding
Tier 2
22
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Televisio
n Bu
ilding
BLD_
13 Tier 1
18
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html (visual est).
Stud
io A Building
Tier 2
43
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Stud
io A Building
BLD_
14 Tier 1
24
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Retail, Ho
tel, Re
siden
tial Building
Tier 2
75.33
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Retail, Ho
tel, Re
siden
tial Building
Tier 3
447.33
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Retail, Ho
tel, Re
siden
tial Building
BLD_
1586
.33
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Residen
tial (Bu
ilding A)
BLD_
1686
.33
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Residen
tial (Bu
ilding B)
BLD_
1720
4.00
Columbia Square DEIR, Figure II‐5, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/Co
lumbiaSqu
are/DE
IR/in
dex.html.
Columbia Square Office Building
BLD_
1875
BLVD
620
0 Project, DE
IR, Figure IV.B‐11, http://www.plann
ing.lacity.org/EIR/Blvd6
200/DE
IR/BLVD6
200D
EIR.htm.
BLVD
620
0 (Building A)
BLD_
1975
BLVD
620
0 Project, DE
IR, Figure IV.B‐11, http://www.plann
ing.lacity.org/EIR/Blvd6
200/DE
IR/BLVD6
200D
EIR.htm.
BLVD
620
0 (Building B)
BLD_
2011
5
CTBU
H, Tall Building He
ight Calculator (7 story, m
ixed
‐use building)
Selm
a and Vine
BLD_
2191
CTBU
H, Tall Building He
ight Calculator (assumed
5 story, m
ixed
‐use building)
6250
Sun
set
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.2 AERMODDispersionModeling
A.2.2.2 AERMODSource‐ReceptorDiagram
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
PLBN1
TRU2
TRU1
MHDTHHDT2
HHDT1
CHAR2
CHAR1
STCK2
STCK1
BLD_18, Tier 1
BLD_14, Tier 2BLD_14, Tier 1
BLD_13, Tier 2BLD_13, Tier 1
BLD_12, Tier 2
BLD_10, Tier 1
BLD_8, Tier 1
BLD_7, Tier 1
BLD_6, Tier 1
BLD_5, Tier 1BLD_4, Tier 2BLD_4, Tier 1
P_BLD_2, Tier 1
P_BLD_1, Tier 1
BLD_21, Tier 1
BLD_20, Tier 1
BLD_19, Tier 1
BLD_17, Tier 1
BLD_16, Tier 1
BLD_15, Tier 1
BLD_14, Tier 3
BLD_12, Tier 1BLD_11, Tier 3
BLD_11, Tier 2
BLD_11, Tier 1
BLD_9, Tier 1
BLD_3, Tier 2BLD_3, Tier 1
377500 377600 377700 377800 377900 378000 378100 378200
UTM East [m]
3773
600
3773
700
3773
800
3773
900
3774
000
3774
100
3774
200
3774
300
UT
M N
orth
[m
]
SCALE:
0 0.1 km
1:5,000
PROJECT TITLE:
Palladium Residences HRAOperations Source-Receptor Diagram
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
PCR Environmental Services
MODELER:
DATE:
10/15/2015
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
9
RECEPTORS:
456
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A.2.3 HealthRiskFactorsandAcuteSpeciation
DieselTruckExhaustEmissions
StationaryDieselEngineExhaustEmissions
CharbroilingEmissions
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Diesel Truck Exhau
st Emission
s ‐ Health
Risk Factors a
nd Acute Spe
ciation
Pollutant
CAS Num
ber
Inhalatio
n CP
F1Ch
ronic Inhalatio
n1Acute Inhalatio
n (1‐Hou
r)1
Acute Inhalatio
n (8‐Hou
r)1
Weight
(mg/kg‐day)‐1
REL (µg/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
Fractio
n2
DPM
9901
1.1
5
RESP
——
——
—
Organics
TOG Fraction
Acetalde
hyde
7507
047
0
EYE, RESP
300
RESP
0.07
350
Benzen
e71
432
1,30
0
DEV, HEM
, IMMUN, R
EPRO
——
0.02
000
1,3‐Bu
tadien
e10
6990
660
DEV, REPRO
9
DEV, REPRO
0.00
190
Form
alde
hyde
5000
055
EYE
9
RESP
0.14
710
Methano
l67
561
28,000
NS
——
0.00
030
MEK
7893
313
,000
EYE, RESP
——
0.01
480
Styren
e10
0425
21,000
DEV, EYE, R
EPRO
, RESP
——
0.00
060
Toluen
e10
8883
37,000
DEV, EYE, N
S, REPRO
, RESP
——
0.01
470
Xylene
s13
3020
722
,000
EYE, NS, RESP
——
0.01
050
Particulates
PM10 Fraction
Arsenic
7440
382
0.2
CVS, DEV
, NS, REPRO
0.01
5
CVS, DEV
, NS, REPRO
, RESP, SK
0.00
0005
Chlorin
e77
8250
521
0
EYE, RESP
——
0.00
0344
Copp
er74
4050
810
0
RESP
——
0.00
0025
Mangane
se74
3996
5—
—0.17
NS
0.00
0040
Mercury
7439
976
0.6
DEV, NS, REPRO
0.06
DEV, KIDN, N
S, REPRO
0.00
0030
Nickel
7440
020
0.2
IMMUN
0.06
IMMUN, R
ESP
0.00
0019
Sulfates
9960
120
RESP
——
0.01
7429
Vanadium
7440
622
30
EYE, RESP
——
0.00
0029
1. 2. * Ke
y to Toxicological End
points
ALIM
Alim
entary Tract
IMMUN
Immun
e System
BNBo
neKIDN
Kidn
ey
CVS
Cardiovascular System
NS
Nervous System
DEV
Developm
ental System
REPR
ORe
prod
uctiv
e System
ENDC
Endo
crine System
RESP
Respira
tory System
EYE
Eye
SKSkin
HEM
Hematologic System
Sources:
California Air R
esou
rces Board, "Co
nsolidated
Table of O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Risk Assessm
ent H
ealth
Value
s," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Ch
ronic Re
ference Expo
sure Levels a
nd Target O
rgans," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Acute Re
ference Expo
sure Levels
and Target Organs," and "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved 8‐Ho
ur Referen
ce Exposure Levels and Target Organs," http://w
ww.arb.ca.gov/toxics/health
val/h
ealth
val.htm
. Tables last u
pdated
: January 30, 201
4. Dow
nloade
d 05
/08/20
14.
California Air R
esou
rces Board, "Organic Gas Spe
ciation Profile Referen
ce Inform
ation," (09/20
/12, Profile 81
8), and
"CE
IDAR
S Particulate Matter (PM
) Spe
ciation Profiles," (09/20
/12, Profile 42
5), http://arb.ca.gov/ei/spe
ciate/dn
ldop
tvv100
01.php
. Do
wnloade
d 05
/08/20
14.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Stationa
ry Diesel Engine Exha
ust E
mission
s ‐ Health
Risk Factors a
nd Acute Spe
ciation
Pollutant
CAS Num
ber
Inhalatio
n CP
F1Ch
ronic Inhalatio
n1Acute Inhalatio
n (1‐Hou
r)1
Acute Inhalatio
n (8‐Hou
r)1
Weight
(mg/kg‐day)‐1
REL (µg/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
Fractio
n2
DPM
9901
1.1
5
RESP
——
——
—
Organics
TOG Fraction
Acetalde
hyde
7507
047
0
EYE, RESP
300
RESP
0.07
350
Benzen
e71
432
1,30
0
DEV, HEM
, IMMUN, R
EPRO
——
0.07
900
1,3‐Bu
tadien
e10
6990
660
DEV, REPRO
9
DEV, REPRO
0.07
000
Form
alde
hyde
5000
055
EYE
9
RESP
0.14
710
Methano
l67
561
28,000
NS
——
0.00
030
MEK
7893
313
,000
EYE, RESP
——
0.01
480
Styren
e10
0425
21,000
DEV, EYE, R
EPRO
, RESP
——
0.00
060
Toluen
e10
8883
37,000
DEV, EYE, N
S, REPRO
, RESP
——
0.01
470
Xylene
s13
3020
722
,000
EYE, NS, RESP
——
0.01
050
Particulates
PM10 Fraction
Arsenic
7440
382
0.2
CVS, DEV
, NS, REPRO
0.01
5
CVS, DEV
, NS, REPRO
, RESP, SK
0.00
5418
Nickel
7440
020
0.2
IMMUN
0.06
IMMUN, R
ESP
0.00
0500
Sulfates
9960
120
RESP
——
0.25
0000
Vanadium
7440
622
30
EYE, RESP
——
0.00
5500
1. 2. * Ke
y to Toxicological End
points
ALIM
Alim
entary Tract
IMMUN
Immun
e System
BNBo
neKIDN
Kidn
ey
CVS
Cardiovascular System
NS
Nervous System
DEV
Developm
ental System
REPR
ORe
prod
uctiv
e System
ENDC
Endo
crine System
RESP
Respira
tory System
EYE
Eye
SKSkin
HEM
Hematologic System
Sources:
California Air R
esou
rces Board, "Co
nsolidated
Table of O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Risk Assessm
ent H
ealth
Value
s," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Ch
ronic Re
ference Expo
sure Levels a
nd Target O
rgans," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Acute Re
ference Expo
sure Levels
and Target Organs," and "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved 8‐Ho
ur Referen
ce Exposure Levels and Target Organs," http://w
ww.arb.ca.gov/toxics/health
val/h
ealth
val.htm
. Tables last u
pdated
: January 30, 201
4. Dow
nloade
d 05
/08/20
14.
California Air R
esou
rces Board, "Organic Gas Spe
ciation Profile Referen
ce Inform
ation," (09/20
/12, Profiles 9 and
818
), and "CEIDA
RS Particulate Matter (PM
) Spe
ciation Profiles," (09/20
/12, Profiles 114
and
116
), http://arb.ca.gov/ei/spe
ciate/dn
ldop
tvv100
01.php
. Dow
nloade
d 05
/08/20
14.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Charbroilin
g Em
ission
s ‐ Health
Risk Factors an
d Ac
ute Speciatio
nPo
llutant
CAS Num
ber
Inhalatio
n CP
F1Ch
ronic Inhalatio
n1Acute Inhalatio
n (1‐Hou
r)1
Acute Inhalatio
n (8‐Hou
r)1
(mg/kg‐day)‐1
REL (µg/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
REL (µ
g/m
3 )Target Organ*
Acen
aphthe
ne3
8332
93.9
——
——
——
Acen
aphthylene
320
8968
3.9
——
——
——
Anthracene
312
0127
3.9
——
——
——
Benz(a)anthracen
e56
553
0.39
——
——
——
Benzo(a)pyrene
5032
83.9
——
——
——
Benzo(g,h,i)p
erylen
e319
1242
3.9
——
——
——
Biph
enyl
392
524
3.9
——
——
——
Fluo
rene
386
737
3.9
——
——
——
Fluo
ranthe
ne3
2064
403.9
——
——
——
Inde
no(1,2,3‐c,d)pyren
e19
3395
0.39
——
——
——
Naphthalene
9120
30.12
9
RESP
——
——
Phen
anthrene
385
018
3.9
——
——
——
Pyrene
312
9000
3.9
——
——
——
1. * Ke
y to Toxicological End
points
ALIM
Alim
entary Tract
IMMUN
Immun
e System
BNBo
neKIDN
Kidn
ey
CVS
Cardiovascular System
NS
Nervous System
DEV
Developm
ental System
REPR
ORe
prod
uctiv
e System
ENDC
Endo
crine System
RESP
Respira
tory System
EYE
Eye
SKSkin
HEM
Hematologic System
Sources:
California Air R
esou
rces Board, "Co
nsolidated
Table of O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Risk Assessm
ent H
ealth
Value
s," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Ch
ronic Re
ference Expo
sure Levels a
nd Target O
rgans," "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved Acute Re
ference Expo
sure
Levels and Target Organs," and "O
EHHA
/ARB
App
roved 8‐Ho
ur Referen
ce Exposure Levels and Target Organs," http://w
ww.arb.ca.gov/toxics/health
val/h
ealth
val.htm
. Tables last u
pdated
: January 30, 201
4. Dow
nloade
d 05
/08/20
14.
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
A.2.4.1 MaximumIndividualCancerRisk(MICR)
A.2.4.2 MaximumIndividualCancerRiskbySource
A.2.4.3 MICR–OldOEHHAMethodology,WithControlledCharbroilerEmissions
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
A.2.4.1 MaximumIndividualCancerRisk(MICR)
MICRforages0to2
MICRforages2to16
MICRforages16to30
MICRforages31to70
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) for ages 0 to 2Receptor/Source ID Pollutant CPF a Unit CONC SPFrac CONCSPF DBR b A EF ED AT FAH ASF Dose MICR Threshold Over?
MEI Residential
CHAR1 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.05E‐09 1.15E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.03E‐10 3.33E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.10E+04 9.32E‐11 1.02E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.33E‐11 4.75E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.10E+04 4.38E‐10 4.81E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.29E‐10 3.62E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.46E‐10 4.90E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.10E+04 2.50E‐11 2.74E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.10E+04 3.80E‐09 4.18E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.39E‐09 1.52E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.02 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 6.16E‐10 6.76E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.01 10 NOSubtotal 0.05 10 NO
CHAR2 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.69E+05 6.72E‐10 1.13E‐04 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.11 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.69E+05 1.94E‐10 3.28E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.03 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.69E+05 5.97E‐11 1.01E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.77E‐11 4.68E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.69E+05 2.80E‐10 4.74E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.05 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.11E‐10 3.57E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.04 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.86E‐10 4.83E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.05 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.69E+05 1.60E‐11 2.70E‐06 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.69E+05 2.44E‐09 4.12E‐04 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.01 0.01 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.69E+05 8.89E‐10 1.50E‐04 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.15 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 3.95E‐10 6.66E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.07 10 NOSubtotal 0.52 10 NO
STCK1 DPM 1.1 2.90E+00 2.83E‐05 8.21E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.02 10 NOSTCK2 DPM 1.1 2.25E+00 2.83E‐05 6.37E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.02 10 NOHHDT1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 2.53E‐08 2.72E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.01 10 NOHHDT2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 1.26E‐08 9.44E‐05 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.03 10 NOMHDT DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 2.24E‐08 1.68E‐04 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.01 0.05 10 NOTRU1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 1.76E‐10 1.89E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NOTRU2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 8.79E‐11 6.57E‐07 1090 1 350 2 25550 0.85 10 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Total 0.69 10 NO
Sources:a. California Air Resources Board, "Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values," http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
Tables last updated: January 30, 2014. Downloaded 05/08/2014.b. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003).
Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk:CPF Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg‐day)‐1.CONC Unit Concentration (µg/m3) from AERMOD.SPFrac Fraction of speciated componentCONCSPF Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) multiplied by the speciated component fractionDBR Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).A Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1).EF Exposure frequency (days/year).ED Exposure duration (years).AT Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days).Dose Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED / AT.
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) for ages 2 to 16Receptor/Source ID Pollutant CPF a Unit CONC SPFrac CONCSPF DBR b A EF ED AT FAH ASF Dose MICR Threshold Over?
MEI Residential
CHAR1 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.05E‐09 1.15E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.03E‐10 3.33E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.10E+04 9.32E‐11 1.02E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.33E‐11 4.75E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.10E+04 4.38E‐10 4.81E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.29E‐10 3.62E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.46E‐10 4.90E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.10E+04 2.50E‐11 2.74E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.10E+04 3.80E‐09 4.18E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.39E‐09 1.52E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.02 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 6.16E‐10 6.76E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOSubtotal 0.06 10 NO
CHAR2 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.69E+05 6.72E‐10 1.13E‐04 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.02 0.14 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.69E+05 1.94E‐10 3.28E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.04 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.69E+05 5.97E‐11 1.01E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.77E‐11 4.68E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.69E+05 2.80E‐10 4.74E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.06 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.11E‐10 3.57E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.04 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.86E‐10 4.83E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.06 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.69E+05 1.60E‐11 2.70E‐06 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.69E+05 2.44E‐09 4.12E‐04 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.06 0.02 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.69E+05 8.89E‐10 1.50E‐04 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.02 0.18 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 3.95E‐10 6.66E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.08 10 NOSubtotal 0.63 10 NO
STCK1 DPM 1.1 2.90E+00 2.83E‐05 8.21E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.03 10 NOSTCK2 DPM 1.1 2.25E+00 2.83E‐05 6.37E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.02 10 NOHHDT1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 2.53E‐08 2.72E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.01 10 NOHHDT2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 1.26E‐08 9.44E‐05 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.01 0.03 10 NOMHDT DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 2.24E‐08 1.68E‐04 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.02 0.06 10 NOTRU1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 1.76E‐10 1.89E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NOTRU2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 8.79E‐11 6.57E‐07 745 1 350 14 25550 0.72 3 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Total 0.84 10 NO
Sources:a. California Air Resources Board, "Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values," http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
Tables last updated: January 30, 2014. Downloaded 05/08/2014.b. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003).
Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk:CPF Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg‐day)‐1.CONC Unit Concentration (µg/m3) from AERMOD.SPFrac Fraction of speciated componentCONCSPF Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) multiplied by the speciated component fractionDBR Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).A Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1).EF Exposure frequency (days/year).ED Exposure duration (years).AT Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days).Dose Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED / AT.
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) for ages 16 through 30Receptor/Source ID Pollutant CPF a Unit CONC SPFrac CONCSPF DBR b A EF ED AT FAH ASF Dose MICR Threshold Over?
MEI Residential
CHAR1 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.05E‐09 1.15E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.03E‐10 3.33E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.10E+04 9.32E‐11 1.02E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.33E‐11 4.75E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.10E+04 4.38E‐10 4.81E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.29E‐10 3.62E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.46E‐10 4.90E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.10E+04 2.50E‐11 2.74E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.10E+04 3.80E‐09 4.18E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.39E‐09 1.52E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 6.16E‐10 6.76E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOSubtotal 0.01 10 NO
CHAR2 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.69E+05 6.72E‐10 1.13E‐04 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.02 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.69E+05 1.94E‐10 3.28E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.69E+05 5.97E‐11 1.01E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.77E‐11 4.68E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.69E+05 2.80E‐10 4.74E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.11E‐10 3.57E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.86E‐10 4.83E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.69E+05 1.60E‐11 2.70E‐06 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.69E+05 2.44E‐09 4.12E‐04 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.03 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.69E+05 8.89E‐10 1.50E‐04 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.03 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 3.95E‐10 6.66E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NOSubtotal 0.10 10 NO
STCK1 DPM 1.1 2.90E+00 2.83E‐05 8.21E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.00 10 NOSTCK2 DPM 1.1 2.25E+00 2.83E‐05 6.37E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOHHDT1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 2.53E‐08 2.72E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOHHDT2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 1.26E‐08 9.44E‐05 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.00 10 NOMHDT DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 2.24E‐08 1.68E‐04 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.01 10 NOTRU1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 1.76E‐10 1.89E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOTRU2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 8.79E‐11 6.57E‐07 335 1 350 14 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Total 0.13 10 NO
Sources:a. California Air Resources Board, "Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values," http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
Tables last updated: January 30, 2014. Downloaded 05/08/2014.b. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003).
Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk:CPF Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg‐day)‐1.CONC Unit Concentration (µg/m3) from AERMOD.SPFrac Fraction of speciated componentCONCSPF Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) multiplied by the speciated component fractionDBR Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).A Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1).EF Exposure frequency (days/year).ED Exposure duration (years).AT Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days).Dose Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED / AT.
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) for ages 31 through 70Receptor/Source ID Pollutant CPF a Unit CONC SPFrac CONCSPF DBR b A EF ED AT FAH ASF Dose MICR Threshold Over?
MEI Residential
CHAR1 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.05E‐09 1.15E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.03E‐10 3.33E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.10E+04 9.32E‐11 1.02E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.33E‐11 4.75E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.10E+04 4.38E‐10 4.81E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.29E‐10 3.62E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.46E‐10 4.90E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.10E+04 2.50E‐11 2.74E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.10E+04 3.80E‐09 4.18E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.39E‐09 1.52E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 6.16E‐10 6.76E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOSubtotal 0.02 10 NO
CHAR2 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.69E+05 6.72E‐10 1.13E‐04 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.02 0.05 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.69E+05 1.94E‐10 3.28E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.01 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.69E+05 5.97E‐11 1.01E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.77E‐11 4.68E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.69E+05 2.80E‐10 4.74E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.02 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.11E‐10 3.57E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.02 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.86E‐10 4.83E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.02 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.69E+05 1.60E‐11 2.70E‐06 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.69E+05 2.44E‐09 4.12E‐04 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.07 0.01 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.69E+05 8.89E‐10 1.50E‐04 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.02 0.07 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 3.95E‐10 6.66E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.03 10 NOSubtotal 0.24 10 NO
STCK1 DPM 1.1 2.90E+00 2.83E‐05 8.21E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.01 10 NOSTCK2 DPM 1.1 2.25E+00 2.83E‐05 6.37E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.01 0.01 10 NOHHDT1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 2.53E‐08 2.72E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOHHDT2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 1.26E‐08 9.44E‐05 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.02 0.01 10 NOMHDT DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 2.24E‐08 1.68E‐04 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.03 0.02 10 NOTRU1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 1.76E‐10 1.89E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NOTRU2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 8.79E‐11 6.57E‐07 290 1 350 40 25550 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Total 0.32 10 NO
Sources:a. California Air Resources Board, "Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values," http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
Tables last updated: January 30, 2014. Downloaded 05/08/2014.b. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003).
Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk:CPF Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg‐day)‐1.CONC Unit Concentration (µg/m3) from AERMOD.SPFrac Fraction of speciated componentCONCSPF Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) multiplied by the speciated component fractionDBR Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).A Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1).EF Exposure frequency (days/year).ED Exposure duration (years).AT Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days).Dose Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED / AT.
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
A.2.4.2 MaximumIndividualCancerRiskbySource
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Hum
an Health
Risk Assessmen
t
Maxim
um In
dividu
al Can
cer R
isk (M
ICR)
Age
CHAR
1CH
AR2
All Sou
rces (C
HAR
1, CHAR
2, STC
K1, STC
K2, H
HDT1, H
HDT2, M
HDT, TRU
1, TRU
2)3rd Trim
ester
0.00
0.03
0.03
0 < 2
0.05
0.52
0.69
2<16
0.06
0.63
0.84
16‐30
0.01
0.10
0.13
31‐70
0.02
0.24
0.32
Lifetim
e0.15
1.50
2.01
Threshold
1010
10Exceed
?FA
LSE
FALSE
FALSE
MICR by
Sou
rce
AppendixA.2OperationsHRA
A2.4 CancerRiskCalculations
A.2.4.3 MICR–OldOEHHAMethodology,WithControlledCharbroilerEmissions
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Human Health Risk Assessment
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) ‐ Old OEHHA Methodology, With Controlled Charbroiler EmissionsReceptor/Source ID Pollutant CPF a Unit CONC SPFrac CONCSPF DBR b A EF ED AT Dose MICR Threshold Over?
MEI Residential
CHAR1 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.05E‐09 1.15E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.01 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.03E‐10 3.33E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.10E+04 9.32E‐11 1.02E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.16E‐11 4.57E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.33E‐11 4.75E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.10E+04 4.38E‐10 4.81E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.10E+04 3.29E‐10 3.62E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.10E+04 4.46E‐10 4.90E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.10E+04 2.50E‐11 2.74E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.10E+04 3.80E‐09 4.18E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.00 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.10E+04 1.39E‐09 1.52E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.02 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.10E+04 6.16E‐10 6.76E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.01 10 NOSubtotal 0.05 10 NO
CHAR2 Acenaphthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOAcenaphthylene 3.9 1.69E+05 6.72E‐10 1.13E‐04 271 1 350 70 25550 0.03 0.11 10 NO
Anthracene 3.9 1.69E+05 1.94E‐10 3.28E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.03 10 NOBenz(a)anthracene 0.39 1.69E+05 5.97E‐11 1.01E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.67E‐11 4.50E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.77E‐11 4.68E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Biphenyl 3.9 1.69E+05 2.80E‐10 4.74E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.05 10 NOFluorene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.11E‐10 3.57E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.04 10 NO
Fluoranthene 3.9 1.69E+05 2.86E‐10 4.83E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.05 10 NOIndeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.39 1.69E+05 1.60E‐11 2.70E‐06 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Naphthalene 0.12 1.69E+05 2.44E‐09 4.12E‐04 271 1 350 70 25550 0.11 0.01 10 NOPhenanthrene 3.9 1.69E+05 8.89E‐10 1.50E‐04 271 1 350 70 25550 0.04 0.15 10 NO
Pyrene 3.9 1.69E+05 3.95E‐10 6.66E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.02 0.07 10 NOSubtotal 0.53 10 NO
STCK1 DPM 1.1 2.90E+00 2.83E‐05 8.21E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.02 0.02 10 NOSTCK2 DPM 1.1 2.25E+00 2.83E‐05 6.37E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.02 0.02 10 NOHHDT1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 2.53E‐08 2.72E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.01 0.01 10 NOHHDT2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 1.26E‐08 9.44E‐05 271 1 350 70 25550 0.02 0.03 10 NOMHDT DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 2.24E‐08 1.68E‐04 271 1 350 70 25550 0.04 0.05 10 NOTRU1 DPM 1.1 1.08E+03 1.76E‐10 1.89E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NOTRU2 DPM 1.1 7.47E+03 8.79E‐11 6.57E‐07 271 1 350 70 25550 0.00 0.00 10 NO
Total 0.71 10 NO
Sources:a. California Air Resources Board, "Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values," http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
Tables last updated: January 30, 2014. Downloaded 05/08/2014.b. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003).
Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk:CPF Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg‐day)‐1.CONC Unit Concentration (µg/m3) from AERMOD.SPFrac Fraction of speciated componentCONCSPF Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) multiplied by the speciated component fractionDBR Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).A Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1).EF Exposure frequency (days/year).ED Exposure duration (years).AT Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days).Dose Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED / AT.
B‐3. Dispersion Modeling for Localized Significance Thresholds
80 South Lake, Suite 570, Pasadena, California 91101 INTERNET www.pcrnet.com TEL 626.204.6170 FAX 626.204.6171
MemorandumTO: CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofCity Planning DATE: October22,2015CC: FROM: HeidiRous,CPP
AlanSako,LEEDAPBD+CRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS Summary
The localized significance thresholds (LST) analysis for the Palladium ResidencesProjectwas provided in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)(seeTable4.B‐4onpage4.B‐41,Table4.B‐5onpage4.B‐43,andTable4.B‐6onpage4.B‐44.). The localizedanalysis includedemissions to account for thePalladiumenhancements,whicharepartoftheProject.Thatis,Projectimprovementswithintheentire3.6acreProjectSitewas taken into account. Themethodology for analyzing localized air quality impacts isbasedon emissions criteria establishedby the SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD) in itsFinalLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology.1 TheemissionscriteriaarebasedonthelocationoftheProjectSite,distancetosensitivereceptors,andsizeofProjectSite. The analysis in theDraftEIR is appropriatelybasedon theProject’s 3.6 acre size anddetermined that theProject’s localized constructionandoperational impacts at existingandfuturesensitivereceptorswouldbelessthansignificant.
TheSCAQMDalsoprovidesforarefinedLSTanalysisusingdispersionmodeling. Forillustrativepurposes,modelingusing theAERMODdispersionmodelhasbeenperformed toidentify thepotential localized constructionandoperational impactson the1.87acresarea,exclusiveof thearea inwhich thePalladiumbuilding is located. Theadditional refinedLSTanalysisusingdispersionmodelingalsoconcludesthattheProject’slocalizedconstructionandoperational impacts would not exceed the significance thresholds and would be less thansignificant.AstheadditionalrefineddispersionmodelinganalysisreconfirmstheconclusionspreviouslydisclosedintheDraftEIR,recirculationoftheDraftEIRisnotwarranted.DetailsoftheadditionalLSTanalysisusingdispersionmodelingareprovidedbelow.
1 SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict,FinalLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology,AppendixC
(2006).
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 2 October 22, 2015
LSTDispersionModelingApproach
Localizedconcentrationsofnitrogendioxide(NO2),carbonmonoxide(CO),respirableparticulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) due to construction andoperation of the Project were analyzed using methods described in the SCAQMD FinalLocalized Significance Threshold Methodology. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)andSCAQMD‐approveddispersionmodel,AERMOD,2wasusedtomodelthelocalizedimpacts of nitrogen oxide (NOX), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. AERMOD estimates airpollutantconcentrationsof singleormultiplepoint,area,orvolumesourcesusinghistoricalmeteorological conditions. Point sources are used to represent emissions from stationarysources, such as stacks or vents and take into account buoyancy effects from plumetemperature and flow rate and effects from building downwash. Area sources are two‐dimensionalsourcesthatareusedtorepresentemissionsthatoccuroverawidearea.Volumesourcesare similar toareasources,butare three‐dimensional sourcesofemissions thatareusedtomodelemissionsfromavarietyofequipment.
With respect to construction, emissions of were modeled as line‐volume sources torepresentheavy‐dutyconstructionequipmentoperatingthroughoutthesite.Forthepurposeofthedispersionmodeling,themaximumdailyemissionsthatcouldoccurduetoconstructionactivities from any construction phase were selected for the LST analysis. Constructionemissions would occur during the daytime hours and not during the nighttime hours (themaximumdaily localizedemissionswerenotassociatedwith theone to twodaycontinuousconcretepour).Allconstructionsourcesofemissionswerelocatedintheapproximately1.87acre area of the Project site, which excludes the area in which the Palladium building islocated. The only exception was construction emissions associated with the proposedrehabilitationofthePalladium,whichwaslocatedonthePalladiumbuilding.
Withrespecttooperations,buildingnaturalgascombustionandcharbroilingemissionsweremodeled as area sources for the retail and restaurant uses since the emissionswouldoccuroverawidearea.Buildingnaturalgascombustionemissionsweremodeledasvolumesources for the residential towers since the emissionswould occur over awide area and alarge vertical extent. Landscaping combustion emissions were modeled as an area sourcecoveringovertheapproximately1.87acrearea(ProjectSiteareaexcludingtheareainwhichthe Palladium building is located). Parking structure emissions were modeled as an areasource and incorporate several conservative assumptions. It was assumed the all parkingstructure‐related combustion emissions from automobiles entering and exiting would beconcentratedatsinglelevel(i.e.,areasource)ratherthandispersedverticallyoveravolume.
2 LakesEnvironmental,AERMODVIEWSoftware.
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 3 October 22, 2015
Also, itwasassumedthatallparkingstructure‐relatedcombustionemissionswouldoccuratthe above‐ground portion of the parking structure nearest to the downwind sensitivereceptors to the east of the Project Site. These assumptionswould result in overestimateddownwind concentrations at sensitive receptors, and thus, provides for a conservative andhealth‐protective analysis. Emissions from the two emergency generators as a result ofmaintenanceandtestingweremodeledasstationarypointsources.Buoyancyeffectsfromtheexhaust plume temperature and flow rate and effects from building downwash wereincorporated into the stackemissions from theemergencygenerators. Incidental emissionsfromon‐site idlingofmedium‐andheavy‐duty trucksand transportationrefrigerationunits(TRUs) were also included as the analysis as area sources since emissions would occurperiodicallyduringthedayat loading/unloadingareas. Alloperationalsourcesofemissionswere located inside theapproximately1.87acreareaof theProject site,whichexcludes thearea in which the Palladium building is located. The only exceptions were the proposedPalladium retail uses, which were located on the southwest and southeast corners of thePalladium building. For the purpose of the dispersion modeling, building natural gascombustionemissionswereassumed tooccur throughout thedaytimeandnighttimehours.Restaurant charbroiling emissions would occur during the daytime and evening hours.Landscaping,emergencygeneratormaintenanceandtesting,andtruck/TRUemissionswouldoccurduringthedaytimehours. Pollutantswithshort‐term1‐houraveragingstandards(i.e.,NO2 and CO) were evaluated based on peak hour emissions. Pollutants with longer‐termaveragingstandards(i.e.,CO,PM10,andPM2.5)wereevaluatedbasedondailyemissions.
Sensitive receptorswere represented as Cartesian grid receptors andwereplaced at20‐meterintervalsoutsidetheboundaryoftheProjectSiteatsensitivereceptor locationstocovernearbyexistingandpotential futuresensitivereceptors. MeteorologicaldatafromthemonitoringstationlocatedinSourceReceptorArea1(CentralLosAngelesCounty)wasusedintheanalysis. ThemeteorologicaldatawereobtainedfromtheSCAQMDwebsiteandhavebeenpreprocessedusingAERMET.3AERMETisameteorologicalpreprocessorfororganizingavailablemeteorologicaldataintoaformatsuitableforuseinAERMODairqualitydispersionmodel.4 These files were also developed by the SCAQMD using site specific surfacecharacteristics (i.e., surface albedo, surface roughness, and Bowen ratio) obtained usingAERSURFACE. AERSURFACE is a tool that provides realistic and reproducible surfacecharacteristic values, includingalbedo,Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length, for input
3 South CoastAirQualityManagementDistrict,Meteorological Sites, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air‐
quality‐data‐studies/meteorological‐data/aermod‐table‐1.AccessedOctober2015.4 U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,User’sGuide for theAERMODMeteorologicalPreprocessor (AERMET),
(2004)iv.
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 4 October 22, 2015
into AERMET.5 The SCAQMD provides five years of meteorological data files for use inAERMOD (from 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011), which is representative of typicalmeteorologicalconditionsintheProjectarea.
TheSCAQMDrequiresthatAERMODberunusingU.S.EPAregulatorydefaultoptions,unlessnon‐defaultoptionsare justified. AERMODwasrunusingU.S.EPAregulatorydefaultoptions including: (1)urbandispersion(LosAngelesCountypopulationof9,862,049,asperSCAQMDguidance);(2)pollutantaveragingperiodsof1‐hourforCOandNO2,8‐hourforCO,and24‐hourforPM10andPM2.5;and(3)buildingdownwashforpointsources.TheconversionofNOXemissionstoNO2concentrationsisbasedonthemethodprovidedintheSCAQMDFinalLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology. TheNOX toNO2conversion isappliedonly tothemodeledconcentrations(andnotthebackgroundconcentrations).
On‐SiteConstructionEmissions
AspertheSCAQMDLSTMethodology,emissionsfromon‐siteconstructionequipmentandactivitywereconsideredintheanalysis.Theemissionstakeintoaccountcompliancewiththe revised Project Design Feature PDF‐GHG‐1, which requires the use of heavy‐dutyconstruction equipment thatmeets the CARB/USEPA Tier 4 standards in lieu of the Tier 3standardsandtheuseofcertainpiecesofequipmentthatwouldbeelectricratherthandiesel‐fueled (PDF‐GHG‐1was initially included on page 4.B‐38 of theDraft EIR in theAirQualitysectionandonpage4.E‐33intheGreenhouseGasEmissionssectionhasbeenrevisedintheFinalEIRMMRPasshowninSectionD,CorrectionsandAdditionsoftheEIRErrata1).Table1, Estimated Mitigated On‐Site Construction Emissions, presents the estimated on‐siteconstructionemissionsforNOX,CO,PM10,andPM2.5.
On‐SiteOperationalEmissions
Emissions from on‐site operational equipment and activity were considered in theanalysis. The Project, as described in the Draft EIR, included two development options toprovideflexibility forchangingmarketconditions. TheApplicant isno longerproposingthedevelopmentofOption2;therefore,localizedoperationalimpactsweremodeledforOption1asdescribed intheDraftEIR.Table2,EstimatedOn‐SiteOperationalEmissions,presents theestimatedon‐siteoperationalemissionsforNOX,CO,PM10,andPM2.5.
5 U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,AERSURFACEUser’sGuide,(2008)1.
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 5 October 22, 2015
Table 1
Estimated Mitigated On‐Site Construction Emissions (pounds per day) a
Source NOX CO PM10 b PM2.5
b
On‐SiteConstruction 6.61 38.31 2.43 1.37On‐SiteRehabilitation 1.39 1.34 0.15 0.07
a The calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment A of this memorandum. b PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive
dust suppression. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
Table 2
Estimated On‐Site Operational Emissions (pounds per day) a
Source
Pounds Per Peak Hour Pounds Per Day
NOX CO CO PM10 PM2.5
DraftEIROption1 Area(Landscaping) 0.088 7.593 60.75 0.332 0.332Energy(NaturalGas) 0.142 0.069 1.663 0.274 0.274Stationary(Charbroiling) — — — 0.854 0.854Stationary(EmergencyGenerator) 5.913 30.75 61.49 0.237 0.237MotorVehicles(ParkingStructure) 0.041 0.494 2.753 0.021 0.020MotorVehicles(On‐SiteIdlingTrucks) 0.066 0.032 0.255 0.001 0.001TRUs(On‐SiteIdling) 0.007 1.460 3.650 <0.001 <0.001
a The calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment B of this memorandum. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 6 October 22, 2015
SignificanceThresholds
Inaccordancewith theSCAQMDFinalLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology, localizedconstructionandoperationalimpactswouldbeconsideredsignificantifthefollowingwouldoccur:
Maximum daily localized emissions are greater than the Localized Significance Thresholds(LST), resulting inpredictedambientconcentrations in thevicinityof theProjectsitegreaterthanthemoststringentambientairqualitystandardsforCOandNO2.
MaximumlocalizedPM10orPM2.5emissionsduringconstructionaregreaterthantheapplicableLSTs, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the site to exceed 50μg/m3overfivehours(SCAQMDRule403controlrequirement).TomeasurecompliancewiththeLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology, the threshold forPM10andPM2.5measuredovera24‐houraveragingperiodis10.4microgramspercubicmeter(µg/m3).
Maximum localizedPM10orPM2.5 emissionsduringoperationaregreater than theapplicableLSTs, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the site to exceed 2.5μg/m3measuredovera24‐houraveragingperiod(SCAQMDRule1303requirement).
ThesignificancethresholdsforNO2andCOarebasedontheambientairqualitystandardsandambient background concentrations ofNO2 and CO, respectively, for the recent three year period inwhichdataisavailablefromtheSCAQMD(2012‐2014).Thebackgroundconcentrationsarebasedonthemaximum of the recent three year period forwhich data is available from the SCAQMD for theCentral Los Angeles County Monitoring Station (2012‐2014), which is the monitoring station mostrepresentativeoftheProjectSite.AsummaryofthebackgroundconcentrationsareprovidedinTable3,BackgroundNO2andCOConcentrations.
LSTDispersionModelingResults
Construction
DispersionmodelingusingAERMODwasconductedtoestimatethemaximumpollutantconcentrationsfromlocalizedProjectemissionsatthenearestsensitivereceptors.TheresultsofthelocalizedconstructionairqualityanalysisareshowninTable4,LocalizedConstructionImpacts.Asshown,maximumlocalizedon‐siteconstructionemissionsforsensitivereceptorswouldnotexceedthelocalizedthresholdsforNOX,CO,PM10andPM2.5.Therefore,withrespecttolocalizedon‐siteconstructionemissions,impactswouldbelessthansignificant.
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 7 October 22, 2015
Table 3
Background NO2 and CO Concentrations
Pollutant Averaging Period
Background Concentrations a (µ/m3)
2012 2013 2014 LST Ambient Background
NO2 1‐hr 145.3 169.8 154.4 169.8
NO21‐hr(3yearaverageofthe
98thpercentile) 129.5 117.7 126.7 124.6
CO 1‐hr 2,518 2,861 2,861 2,861CO 8‐hr 2,174 2,289 2,289 2,289
a See SCAQMD website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air‐quality‐data‐studies/historical‐data‐by‐year. The CO concentrations are based on data from the same time period from the USEPA. See USEPA website: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
Table 4
Localized Construction Impacts
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Project Concentration a
(µ/m3)
LST Ambient Background
(µ/m3) Total
(µ/m3) Threshold
(µ/m3) Exceed
Threshold?
NO2 1‐hr 15.68 169.8 185.4 339 No
NO21‐hr(98thPercentile)
14.42 124.6 139.1 188 No
CO 1‐hr 148.4 2,861 3,009 23,000 NoCO 8‐hr 41.33 2,289 2,330 10,000 NoPM10 24‐hr 1.29 — 1.29 10.4 NoPM2.5 24‐hr 0.73 — 0.73 10.4 No
a Project concentrations are based on the results from the AERMOD dispersion model. NO2 concentrations are based on NOX to NO2 conversion ratios in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
MemorandumRE: PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT – DISPERSION MODELING FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLDS (LST) ANALYSIS
PCR Services Corporation Page 8 October 22, 2015
Operations
DispersionmodelingusingAERMODwasconductedtoestimatethemaximumpollutantconcentrationsfromlocalizedProjectemissionsatthenearestsensitivereceptors.Theresultsof the localizedoperational airquality analysis are shown inTable5,LocalizedOperationalImpacts. Asshown,maximumlocalizedon‐siteoperationalemissionsforsensitivereceptorswouldnotexceedthelocalizedthresholdsforNOX,CO,PM10andPM2.5.Therefore,withrespecttolocalizedon‐siteoperationemissions,impactswouldbelessthansignificant.
Conclusion
A refined LST analysis using the AERMOD dispersion model was conducted inaccordancewiththeSCAQMDFinalLocalizedSignificanceThresholdMethodology.TherefinedLSTanalysisusingdispersionmodelingconcludesthattheProject’slocalizedconstructionandoperational impacts would be less than significant. As the additional refined dispersionmodelinganalysis reconfirms the conclusionsdisclosed in theDraftEIR, recirculationof theDraftEIRisnotwarranted.
Table 5
Localized Operational Impacts
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Project Concentration a
(µ/m3)
Ambient Background
(µ/m3) Total
(µ/m3) Threshold
(µ/m3) Exceed
Threshold?
NO2 1‐hr 1.74 169.8 171.5 339 No
NO21‐hr(98thPercentile)
1.63 124.6 126.3 188 No
CO 1‐hr 1,024 2,861 3,885 23,000 NoCO 8‐hr 209.6 2,289 2,499 10,000 NoPM10 24‐hr 2.18 — 2.18 2.5 NoPM2.5 24‐hr 2.18 — 2.18 2.5 No
a Project concentrations are based on the results from the AERMOD dispersion model. NO2 concentrations are based on NOX to NO2 conversion ratios in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.
ATTACHMENTA
CONSTRUCTIONWORKSHEETS
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Constructio
n Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
AERM
OD Sou
rce Ch
aracteristics
Emission Source
Source
Release
Length
Length
Initial
Initial
Exit
Insid
eExit Flow
Type
Height
of Side X
of Side Y
Lateral
Vertical
Temp
Diam
eter
Rate
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(°F)
(ft)
(ft3 /s)
On‐Site Con
struction Em
issions
Volume
5.00
5.00
519.90
11.63
1.16
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rehabilitation
Volume
5.00
5.00
366.80
11.63
1.16
n/a
n/a
n/a
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
5
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Constructio
n Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
AERM
OD Sou
rce Em
ission
Rates
Emissions
Source
Source
Averaging
Emission Ra
tes (pe
r each source)
Source
IDType
Perio
d(hou
rs/day)
(lbs/day)
(g/s)
(lbs/day)
(g/s)
(lbs/day)
(g/s)
(lbs/day)
(g/s)
Unm
itigated
On‐Site Con
struction
CONST
Volume
14
6.61
5.95
E‐02
38.31
3.45
E‐01
2.43
2.18
E‐02
1.37
1.23
E‐02
Rehabilitation
REHA
BVo
lume
14
1.39
1.25
E‐02
1.34
1.21
E‐02
0.15
1.35
E‐03
0.07
6.30
E‐04
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
5
NOX
COPM
10PM
2.5
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Constructio
n Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
LST Im
pacts: Unm
itigated Co
nstructio
nProject C
oncentratio
ns (µ
g/m
3 )Source
NO2
COPM
10PM
2.5
Project O
n‐Site Con
struction Em
ission
s a
1‐ho
ur average
15.68
148.4
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)14
.42
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—41
.33
——
24‐hou
r average
——
1.29
0.73
Backgrou
nd NOx and CO
(µg/m
3 )Ba
ckgrou
nd b
2012
2013
2014
1‐ho
ur average
169.8
2,86
1
——
NOx 1‐hr
145.33
169.77
154.35
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)12
4.6
——
—NOx 1‐hr 98th p
129.53
117.69
126.71
8‐ho
ur average
—2,28
9
——
NOx 3‐yr avg. of
24‐hou
r average
——
——
CO 1‐hr
2,51
8
2,86
1
2,86
1
Total (Project +
Backgroun
d)CO
8‐hr
2,17
4
2,28
9
2,28
9
1‐ho
ur average
185.4
3,00
9
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)13
9.1
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—2,33
0
——
24‐hou
r average
——
1.29
0.73
Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
lds
1‐ho
ur average
339.0
23,000
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)18
8.0
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—10
,000
——
24‐hou
r average
——
10.4
10.4
Exceed
s Th
resholds?
1‐ho
ur average
NO
NO
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)NO
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—NO
——
24‐hou
r average
——
NO
NO
Notes:
a.Ba
sed on
the results from
the AE
RMOD dispersio
n mod
el. NO2 concen
trations are based
on NOx to NO2 conversio
n ratio
s in the SCAQ
MD Final Localize
d Significance Threshold Metho
dology.
b. Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 2015
Backgrou
nd con
centratio
ns are based
on the maxim
um of the
most recen
t three
years fo
r which data is available from
the SCAQ
MD for the
Lake Elsin
ore Mon
itorin
g Station (2011‐2013). See
SCAQ
MD web
site: http://www.aqm
d.gov/ho
me/library/air‐qu
ality
‐data‐stud
ies/historical‐data‐by
‐year. The
1‐hou
r CO con
centratio
n is based on
data from
the same tim
e pe
riod from
the
USEPA
. See USEPA
web
site: http://www.epa.gov/aird
ata/ad_rep
_mon
.htm
l.
124.64
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Construction Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
NOx to NO2 Conversion
Downwind Distance (m) NO2/NOx Ratio Slope (20‐50 m) 0.0002 /m20 0.05350 0.059 Closest Receptor 33.25 m70 0.064 NO2/NOx Ratio 0.05565
100 0.074 0.05565200 0.114500 0.258
1000 0.4672000 0.753000 0.94000 0.9785000 1
Source: SCAQMD. Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology. June 2003.
ATTACHMENTB
OPERATIONALWORKSHEETS
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Ope
ratio
nal Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
Truck/TR
U/Emergency Gen
erator/Cha
rbroiling
Sou
rce Pa
rameters:
Med
ium‐Duty De
livery Trucks
Num
ber o
f Med
ium‐Duty Trucks (T
6)24
trucks/day
Estimated based on 3 trucks/hour, 2 loading bays, 8
hours/day
Trucks per Hou
r3
trucks/hou
rEstimated based on capacity of the Project site.
Idling Time
5
min/truck
Assumed
value.
Heavy‐Du
ty Delivery Trucks
Num
ber o
f Heavy‐Duty Trucks (T
7)24
trucks/day
Estimated based on 3 trucks/hour, 2 loading bays, 8
hours/day
Trucks per Hou
r3
trucks/hou
rEstimated based on capacity of the Project site.
Idling Time
5
min/truck
Transportatio
n Re
firgerator U
nits (T
RUs)
Num
ber o
f TRU
s5
TRUs/day
Assumed
value (20% of heavy‐duty trucks equipped
with TRU).
TRUs p
er Hou
r2
TRU/hou
rAssumed
value.
Idling Time
60
min/TRU
Assumed
value (1 hour per TRU).
Emergency Gen
erators
Num
ber o
f Gen
erators
2
gene
rators
Based on Project inform
ation received.
Ratin
g2,00
0
kWBased on Project inform
ation received.
2,68
2
hpBased on Project inform
ation received.
Mainten
ance/testin
g ho
urs
2
hours/gene
rator/day
Assumed
value.
100
hours/gene
rator/year
Upper limit based on CARB Air Toxics Control M
easure (requires compliance with 0.01 grams/bhp‐hr lim
it for DPM).
Charbroiling
Poun
ds of C
harbroiled Ch
icken
116.5
po
unds/day
Based on SCAQMD Staff Report (1997) that found an average of 233 pounds of meat charbroiled per large restaurant
Poun
ds of C
harbroiled Be
ef11
6.5
po
unds/day
(large chain‐driven charbroiler operations), and assumes 50% chicken and 50% beef.
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
4.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Ope
ratio
nal Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
Delivery Truck Em
ission
s:
Diesel Truck Emission
Factors fo
r Run
ning
Exhau
st and
Idlin
gIdling Em
ission Factor
Calend
arEM
FAC2
011
(grams/veh‐hr)
Truck Type
Year
Veh. Class
NOX
COPM
10PM
2.5
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
2018
T6 instate sm
all
66.931
6
22.050
4
0.20
51
0.18
87
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
2018
T7 tractor
52.000
9
35.785
4
0.12
27
0.11
29
Diesel Truck Emission
s from Id
ling
Idling Time
Idling Em
issions
Calend
arNum
ber o
fpe
r Truck
(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Truck Type
Year
Hours1
Trucks
(minutes)
NOX
COPM
10PM
2.5
Med
ium‐Duty Truck
Peak Hou
r20
181
35.00
3.68
9E‐02
1.21
5E‐02
1.13
1E‐04
1.04
0E‐04
Day (M
ax)
2018
824
5.00
3.68
9E‐02
1.21
5E‐02
1.13
1E‐04
1.04
0E‐04
Heavy‐Du
ty Truck
Peak Hou
r20
181
35.00
2.86
6E‐02
1.97
2E‐02
6.76
1E‐05
6.22
0E‐05
Day (M
ax)
2018
824
5.00
2.86
6E‐02
1.97
2E‐02
6.76
1E‐05
6.22
0E‐05
Subtotal Pou
nds p
er Peak Ho
ur:
0.06
560.03
190.00
020.00
02Subtotal Pou
nds p
er Day:
0.52
440.25
500.00
140.00
13Note:
1.Assumes daily emissions occur during the daytim
e over an 8 ho
ur period (i.e., no nighttim
e de
liveries).
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
5
Source: C
alifo
rnia Air Re
sources B
oard, EMFA
C201
1. M
odel param
eters: Sou
th Coast Air Quality Managem
ent D
istrict, aggregated
mod
el years and
speeds, ann
ual average emission factors.
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Ope
ratio
nal Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit E
mission
s:
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) E
mission
Factors
Calend
arTo
tal
Total N
OX
Total PM
Emission Factor (lbs/hr) 1,
2
Equipm
ent T
ype
Year
Fleet H
ours
(tpy)
(tpy)
NOX
COPM
10PM
2.5
TRU
2018
275,12
0,51
6
11.641
0
0.27
42
3.43
9E‐03
7.30
0E‐01
1.99
3E‐06
1.99
3E‐06
Sources:
1.NOX & PM: C
alifo
rnia Air Re
sources B
oard, 201
1 Transportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) R
egulation, 201
1 Em
issions Inventory Da
tabase (w
ith ado
pted
201
1 am
endm
ents).
2.CO
: National Ren
ewable Ene
rgy Labo
ratory, Emissions of T
ranspo
rt Refrig
eration Units with
CAR
B Diesel, G
as‐to‐Liqu
id Diesel, and Em
issions Con
trol Devices, M
ay 201
0.
Tran
sportatio
n Re
frigeration Unit (TR
U) E
mission
sIdling Time
Idling Em
issions
Calend
arNum
ber
per T
RU(pou
nds/ho
ur)
Equipm
ent T
ype
Year
Hours1
of TRU
s(m
inutes)
NOX
COPM
10PM
2.5
TRU (o
n‐site idling)
Peak Hou
r20
181
260
6.87
8E‐03
1.46
0E+00
3.98
6E‐06
3.98
6E‐06
Day (M
ax)
2018
85
602.15
0E‐03
4.56
3E‐01
1.24
6E‐06
1.24
6E‐06
Subtotal Pou
nds p
er Day:
0.01
723.65
09.97
E‐06
9.97
E‐06
Note:
1.Assumes daily emissions occur during the daytim
e over an 8 ho
ur period (i.e., no nighttim
e de
liveries).
Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
5
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Operational Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Diesel Emergency Generator EmissionsMaintenance/Testing Emissions
(pounds/hour)Equipment Type Hours 1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Emergency GeneratorsPeak Hour 1 5.913E+00 3.075E+01 1.183E‐01 1.183E‐01Day (Max) 8 1.478E+00 7.687E+00 2.956E‐02 2.956E‐02
Subtotal Pounds per Day: 11.83 61.49 0.2365 0.2365Note:
1. Assumes maintenance and testing would occur during the daytime hours (i.e., no evening or nighttime maintenance and testing).
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Operational Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Charbroiling EmissionsCharbroiling Emissions
(pounds/hour)Equipment Type Hours 1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
CharbroilingPeak Hour 1 ‐ ‐ 7.118E‐02 7.118E‐02Day (Max) 12 ‐ ‐ 7.118E‐02 7.118E‐02
Subtotal Pounds per Day: ‐ ‐ 0.8542 0.8542Note:
1. Assumes charbroiling would occur during daytime and evening hours.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Operational Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Building Natural Gas Emissions (from CalEEMod)Building Natural Gas Emissions
(pounds/hour)Equipment Type Hours 1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Building Natural GasDEIR Option 1
WT ‐ West TowerPeak Hour 1 5.891E‐02 2.654E‐02 4.746E‐03 4.746E‐03Day (Max) 24 5.891E‐02 2.654E‐02 4.746E‐03 4.746E‐03
ET ‐ East TowerPeak Hour 1 7.041E‐02 3.172E‐02 5.672E‐03 5.672E‐03Day (Max) 24 7.041E‐02 3.172E‐02 5.672E‐03 5.672E‐03
RET1 ‐ Retail/RestaurantPeak Hour 1 1.279E‐02 1.074E‐02 9.708E‐04 9.708E‐04Day (Max) 24 1.279E‐02 1.074E‐02 9.708E‐04 9.708E‐04
RET2 ‐ RetailPeak Hour 1 1.592E‐04 1.338E‐04 1.208E‐05 1.208E‐05Day (Max) 24 1.592E‐04 1.338E‐04 1.208E‐05 1.208E‐05
PR ‐ Palladium RetailPeak Hour 1 1.767E‐04 1.483E‐04 1.333E‐05 1.333E‐05Day (Max) 24 1.767E‐04 1.483E‐04 1.333E‐05 1.333E‐05
Option 1 Subtotal Pounds per Peak Hour: 0.142 0.069 0.0114 0.0114Option 1 Subtotal Pounds per Day: 3.419 1.663 0.2739 0.2739
Project: PalladiumSource: EMFAC2014Parking Structure Emissions (Vehicles Entering/Exiting)
A B C D EEmission Factors (grams/mile) a CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 MPH2018 LDA (All Fuel Types) 1.6052 0.1316 0.0124 0.0114 5 Note:a. Emission factors are based on exhaust emissions from EMFAC2014 for year 2018, South Coast Air Basin, LDA, 5 MPH.
Project (DEIR Option 1)(A*E*F*G*H)/60/3600
(B*E*F*G*H)/60/3600
(C*E*F*G*H)/60/3600
(D*E*F*G*H)/60/3600 F G H
Peak Hour Emissions Rate (grams/second) CO NOX PM10 PM2.5
Peak Hourly Trip Rate per Unit Unit Minutes
Residential 0.0516 0.0042 0.0004 0.0004 0.38 731 5 Sit Down Restaurant 0.0063 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 6.80 5 5 Shopping Center 0.0020 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 1.22 9 5 Palladium Retail 0.0022 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 1.20 10 5 Total 6.22E‐02 5.10E‐03 4.79E‐04 4.42E‐04Total (pounds per hour) 0.4940 0.0405 0.0038 0.0035
(A*E*J*K*L)/24/60/3600
(B*E*J*K*L)/24/60/3600
(C*E*J*K*L)/24/60/3600
(D*E*J*K*L)/24/60/3600 J K L
Daily Emissions Rate (grams/second) CO NOX PM10 PM2.5
Daily Trip Rate per Unit Unit Minutes
Residential 0.0119 0.0010 0.0001 0.0001 4.20 731 2.5 Sit Down Restaurant 0.0015 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 77.80 5 2.5 Shopping Center 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.44 9 2.5 Palladium Retail 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.50 10 2.5 Total 1.45E‐02 1.18E‐03 1.11E‐04 1.03E‐04Total (pounds per day) 2.7531 0.2257 0.0212 0.0195
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Operational Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Parking Structure (from "Parking Structure Emissions" worksheet)Parking Structure Emissions
(pounds/hour)Equipment Type Hours NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Parking StructureDEIR Option 1
Peak Hour 1 4.050E‐02 4.940E‐01 3.803E‐03 3.506E‐03Day (Max) 24 9.405E‐03 1.147E‐01 8.832E‐04 8.141E‐04
Option 1 Subtotal Pounds per Day: 0.2257 2.753 0.0212 0.0195Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
Landscaping (from CalEEMod)Landscaping Emissions
(pounds/hour)Equipment Type Hours 1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
LandscapingDEIR Option 1
Peak Hour 1 8.813E‐02 7.593E+00 4.144E‐02 4.144E‐02Day (Max) 8 8.813E‐02 7.593E+00 4.144E‐02 4.144E‐02
Option 1 Subtotal Pounds per Day: 0.7050 60.75 0.3315 0.3315Note:
1. Assumes landscaping would occur during the daytime hours (i.e., no evening or nighttime landscaping).
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
Operational Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
AERMOD Source PropertiesInitial
Release Exhaust Exhaust Vertical AreaAERMOD Source Height Temp Flow Dimension DescriptionSource ID Type (m) (°F) (acfm) (m) (meters2)
CHAR1 Area 3 – – – Charbroiling emissions, southwest corner 625 CHAR2 Area 3 – – – Charbroiling emissions, northeast side 975 STCK1 Point 106.7 987 19,209 – Generator emissions, West Tower –STCK2 Point 106.7 987 19,209 – Generator emissions, East Tower –HHDT1 Area 3.0 – – – Heavy‐Duty Delivery Trucks 150 HHDT2 Area 3.0 – – – Heavy‐Duty Delivery Trucks 300 MHDT Area 3.0 – – – Medium‐Duty Delivery Trucks 300 TRU1 Area 3.0 – – – Transportation Refrigeration Units 150 TRU2 Area 3.0 – – – Transportation Refrigeration Units 300 WT1‐3 Volume 49.6 – – 49.6 Area source ‐ natural gas, West Tower –ET1‐3 Volume 49.6 – – 49.6 Area source ‐ natural gas, East Tower –RET1 Area 3 – – – Area source ‐ natural gas, West Retail 625 RET2 Area 3 – – – Area source ‐ natural gas, East Retail 975 PR1, PR2 Area 3 – – – Area source ‐ natural gas, Palladium Retail 929.0 LAND Area 3 – – – Landscaping 9,028.4 PARK Area 3 – – – Parking Struture 3,901.9
Source‐Specific Emissions FactorsSource‐Specific Emissions Factor
Source ID/ NOX CO CO PM10 PM2.5Compound (1‐hour) (1‐hour) (8‐hour) (24‐hour) (24‐hour)
(g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)
DEIR Option 1CHAR1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.48E‐03 4.48E‐03CHAR2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.48E‐03 4.48E‐03STCK1 3.73E‐01 1.94E+00 4.84E‐01 1.86E‐03 1.86E‐03STCK2 3.73E‐01 1.94E+00 4.84E‐01 1.86E‐03 1.86E‐03HHDT1 1.81E‐03 1.24E‐03 1.24E‐03 4.26E‐06 3.92E‐06HHDT2 1.81E‐03 1.24E‐03 1.24E‐03 4.26E‐06 3.92E‐06MHDT 4.65E‐03 1.53E‐03 1.53E‐03 1.42E‐05 1.31E‐05TRU1 4.33E‐04 9.20E‐02 2.87E‐02 7.85E‐08 7.85E‐08TRU2 4.33E‐04 9.20E‐02 2.87E‐02 7.85E‐08 7.85E‐08WT1, WT2, WT3 2.47E‐03 1.11E‐03 1.11E‐03 1.99E‐04 1.99E‐04ET1, ET2, ET3 2.96E‐03 1.33E‐03 1.33E‐03 2.38E‐04 2.38E‐04RET1 1.61E‐03 1.35E‐03 1.35E‐03 1.22E‐04 1.22E‐04RET2 2.01E‐05 1.69E‐05 1.69E‐05 1.52E‐06 1.52E‐06PR1 1.11E‐05 9.34E‐06 9.34E‐06 8.40E‐07 8.40E‐07PR2 1.11E‐05 9.34E‐06 9.34E‐06 8.40E‐07 8.40E‐07LAND 1.11E‐02 9.57E‐01 9.57E‐01 5.22E‐03 5.22E‐03PARK 5.10E‐03 6.22E‐02 1.45E‐02 1.11E‐04 1.03E‐04
City of Los Angeles
PALLAD
IUM RESIDEN
CES
Ope
ratio
nal Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
ld Ana
lysis
Maxim
um LST Im
pacts: Unm
itigated Ope
ratio
nsCo
ncen
trations (µ
g/m
3 )Source
NO2
COPM
10PM
2.5
Project O
peratio
ns a
1‐ho
ur average
1.72
1,02
4
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)1.62
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—20
9.6
——
24‐hou
r average
——
2.18
3
2.18
2
Backgrou
nd NOx and CO
(µg/m
3 )Ba
ckgrou
nd b
2012
2013
2014
1‐ho
ur average
169.8
2,86
1
——
NOx 1‐hr
145.33
169.77
154.35
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)12
4.6
——
—NOx 1‐hr 98th pe
r.12
9.53
117.69
126.71
8‐ho
ur average
—2,28
9
——
NOx 3‐yr avg. of 1
‐hr 9
8th pe
r.24
‐hou
r average
——
——
CO 1‐hr
2,51
8
2,86
1
2,86
1
Total (Project +
Backgroun
d)CO
8‐hr
2,17
4
2,28
9
2,28
9
1‐ho
ur average
171.5
3,88
5
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)12
6.3
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—2,49
9
——
24‐hou
r average
——
2.18
3
2.18
2
Localized
Significan
ce Thresho
lds
1‐ho
ur average
339.0
23,000
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)18
8.0
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—10
,000
——
24‐hou
r average
——
2.5
2.5
Exceed
s Th
resholds?
1‐ho
ur average
NO
NO
——
1‐ho
ur average (3
‐year a
vg of 9
8th pe
r.)NO
——
—8‐ho
ur average
—NO
——
24‐hou
r average
——
NO
NO
Notes:
a.Ba
sed on
the results from
the AE
RMOD dispersio
n mod
el. NO
2 con
centratio
ns are based
on NOx to NO2 conversio
n ratio
s in the SCAQ
MD Final Localized
Significance Threshold M
ethodology.
b. Source: PCR
Services C
orpo
ratio
n, 201
5
Backgrou
nd con
centratio
ns are based
on the maxim
um of the
recent th
ree year period for w
hich data is available from
the SCAQ
MD for the
Cen
tral Los Angeles Cou
nty Mon
itorin
g Station (201
2‐20
14). See
SCAQ
MD web
site: http://www.aqm
d.gov/ho
me/library/air‐qu
ality
‐data‐stud
ies/historical‐data‐by
‐year. The
CO con
centratio
ns are based
on data from
the same tim
e pe
riod from
the USEPA
. See USEPA
web
site:
http://w
ww.epa.gov/aird
ata/ad_rep
_mon
.htm
l.
124.64
City of Los AngelesPALLADIUM RESIDENCES
NOx to NO2 Conversion
Downwind Distance (m) NO2/NOx Ratio20 0.05350 0.059 Distance to Max Impact Receptor 75 meters70 0.064 NO2/NOx Ratio 0.066 100 0.074200 0.114500 0.2581000 0.4672000 0.753000 0.94000 0.9785000 1
Source: SCAQMD. Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology. June 2003.
Appendix C: Noise Addendum, Update to Draft EIR Appendix H
C‐1. Calculation Sheet for Construction Noise at the LeBon Hotel
Project: Palladium Residences
Construction Phase: Phase 3Building Construction
Equipment
DescriptionNo. of Equip.
Reference Noise Level at
50ft, LmaxAcoustical
Usage FactorDistance to Receptor, ft
Estimated Noise Shielding, dBA
Chain Saw 1 85 20% 200 0Cranes 1 81 40% 200 0Other Equipment 1 85 50% 200 0Forklift 1 75 10% 200 0Concrete Pump Trucks 1 81 20% 200 0Rubber Tired Loader 1 79 50% 200 0Skid Steer Loaders 1 80 40% 200 0Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 80 25% 200 0Aerial Lift 1 75 20% 200 0Generator Sets 1 81 50% 200 0
Receptor: R4
Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime (7 am to 7 pm)
0 Hours during evening (7 pm to 10 pm)
0 Hours during nighttime (10 pm to 7 am)
Results:Leq: 75
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: LA CEQA Guides, 2006 & FHWA RCNM, 2005
H:\PROJECTS\Acoustics\Active Projects\Palladium Residences EIR\Calculations\Construction\Construction - Palladium 062014.xls
C‐2. Corrected Version of Appendix H‐1.3.
Off-
Site
Tra
ffic
Noi
se C
alcu
latio
ns
Exis
ting
Roa
dway
/Seg
men
tA
MPM
AD
TR
OW
25 F
eet
50 F
eet
RO
W25
Fee
t50
Fee
tA
rgyl
e A
venu
e71
870
.067
.165
.367
.064
.162
.3S
elm
a A
venu
e71
870
.067
.165
.367
.064
.162
.3E
l Cen
tro
Ave
nue
718
70.0
67.1
65.3
67.0
64.1
62.3
Sun
set B
oule
vard
718
68.7
66.5
65.1
65.7
63.5
62.1
--0
--
--
--
Futu
re N
o Pr
ojec
t
Roa
dway
/Seg
men
tA
MPM
AD
TR
OW
25 F
eet
50 F
eet
RO
W25
Fee
t50
Fee
tA
rgyl
e A
venu
e0
--
--
--
Sel
ma
Ave
nue
0-
--
--
-E
l Cen
tro
Ave
nue
0-
--
--
-S
unse
t Bou
leva
rd0
--
--
--
--0
--
--
--
Futu
re W
ith P
roje
ct
Roa
dway
/Seg
men
tA
MPM
AD
TR
OW
25 F
eet
50 F
eet
RO
W25
Fee
t50
Fee
tA
rgyl
e A
venu
e0
--
--
--
Sel
ma
Ave
nue
0-
--
--
-E
l Cen
tro
Ave
nue
0-
--
--
-S
unse
t Bou
leva
rd0
--
--
--
--0
--
--
--
Sum
mar
y
Roa
dway
/Seg
men
tA
rgyl
e A
venu
e-
--
-S
elm
a A
venu
e-
--
-E
l Cen
tro
Ave
nue
--
--
Sun
set B
oule
vard
--
--
---
--
-
At R
OW
Proj
ect
Incr
emen
tC
umul
ativ
e In
crem
ent
Proj
ect
Incr
emen
tC
umul
ativ
e In
crem
ent
25 ft
. fro
m R
OW
CN
EL
CN
EL
CN
EL
CN
EL
Leq
Traf
fic V
olum
es
Traf
fic V
olum
es
Traf
fic V
olum
es
Leq
Leq
TE
NS
1.1
(T
ruck
s) -
Pal
ladi
um 0
6041
46/
4/20
14
C‐3. Additional Input Data for Traffic Noise Analysis in Draft EIR Appendix H‐1.5
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Traf
fic S
plit
Dat
a
Exis
ting Aut
oM
DT
HD
TA
uto
MD
TH
DT
Aut
oM
DT
HD
T97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
97.0
%2.
0%1.
0%97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0
0%
100.
0%Fu
ture
No
Proj
ect
Aut
oM
DT
HD
TA
uto
MD
TH
DT
Aut
oM
DT
HD
T97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
97.0
%2.
0%1.
0%97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0
0%
Futu
re w
ith P
roje
ct
Aut
oM
DT
HD
TA
uto
MD
TH
DT
Aut
oM
DT
HD
T97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
97.0
%2.
0%1.
0%97
.0%
2.0%
1.0%
10.0
0%
10%
10%
80%
10%
AD
T to
Pea
k H
our R
atio
AD
T to
Pea
k H
our R
atio
AD
T to
Pea
k H
our R
atio
Day
Even
ing
Nig
ht
Nig
ht
80%
10%
Day
10%
Day
Even
ing
Nig
ht
10%
80%
Even
ing
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
Pres
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Fr
ankl
in A
ve a
nd U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
ff-R
amp
53
55
50
6
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Se
lma
Aven
ue a
nd S
unse
t Blv
d3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d Fo
unta
in A
ve3
35
33
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Fr
ankl
in A
ve a
nd U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
ff-R
amp
53
55
50
6
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Se
lma
Aven
ue a
nd S
unse
t Blv
d3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d Fo
unta
in A
ve3
35
33
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Fr
ankl
in A
ve a
nd U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
ff-R
amp
53
55
50
6
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Se
lma
Aven
ue a
nd S
unse
t Blv
d3
35
33
96
Gow
er S
tree
t bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d Fo
unta
in A
ve3
35
33
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
P res
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Fran
klin
Ave
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Selm
a Av
e an
d Su
nset
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Foun
tain
Ave
and
San
ta M
onic
a B
lvd
53
55
59
6
00
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Fran
klin
Ave
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Selm
a Av
e an
d Su
nset
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Foun
tain
Ave
and
San
ta M
onic
a B
lvd
53
55
59
6
00
00
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Fran
klin
Ave
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Selm
a Av
e an
d Su
nset
Blv
d5
35
55
96
Vine
Str
eet b
etw
een
Foun
tain
Ave
and
San
ta M
onic
a B
lvd
53
55
59
6
00
00
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
Pres
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d4
35
44
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
Bro
nson
Ave
nue
betw
een
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d an
d Su
nset
Blv
d3
35
33
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d4
35
44
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
Bro
nson
Ave
nue
betw
een
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d an
d Su
nset
Blv
d3
35
33
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d4
35
44
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n H
olly
woo
d B
lvd
and
Selm
a Av
e3
35
33
96
Argy
le A
venu
e be
twee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
Bro
nson
Ave
nue
betw
een
Hol
lyw
ood
Blv
d an
d Su
nset
Blv
d3
35
33
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
P res
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d D
e Lo
ngpr
e Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
n/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
s/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e 3
30
33
96
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
Vine
St a
nd E
l Cen
tro
Ave
23
02
29
6
.W
/O P
roje
ct
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d D
e Lo
ngpr
e Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
n/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
s/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e 3
30
33
96
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
Vine
St a
nd E
l Cen
tro
Ave
23
02
29
6
W P
roje
ct
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Se
lma
Ave
and
Suns
et B
lvd
23
02
29
6
El C
entr
o Av
enue
bet
wee
n Su
nset
Blv
d an
d D
e Lo
ngpr
e Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
n/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e2
30
22
96
El C
entr
o Av
enue
s/o
Fou
ntai
n Av
e 3
30
33
96
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
Vine
St a
nd E
l Cen
tro
Ave
23
02
29
6
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Di re
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
P res
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
El C
entr
o Av
e an
d G
ower
St
23
02
29
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
64
56
69
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e6
45
66
96
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t6
45
66
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
El C
entr
o Av
e an
d G
ower
St
23
02
29
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
64
56
69
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e6
45
66
96
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t6
45
66
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Foun
tain
Ave
nue
betw
een
El C
entr
o Av
e an
d G
ower
St
23
02
29
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
64
56
69
6
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e6
45
66
96
Suns
et B
oule
vard
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t6
45
66
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
P res
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n C
ahue
nga
Blv
d an
d Vi
ne S
t2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
33
53
39
6
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t2
35
22
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n C
ahue
nga
Blv
d an
d Vi
ne S
t2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
33
53
39
6
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t2
35
22
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n C
ahue
nga
Blv
d an
d Vi
ne S
t2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Vi
ne S
t and
Arg
yle
Ave
33
53
39
6
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n Ar
gyle
Ave
and
El C
entr
o Av
e2
35
22
96
Selm
a Av
enue
bet
wee
n El
Cen
tro
Ave
and
Gow
er S
t2
35
22
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Palla
dium
Res
iden
ces
Lane
Wid
th a
nd T
raffi
c D
ata
Driv
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)11
Park
ing
Lane
Wid
th (f
t.)9
Side
wal
k W
idth
(ft.)
6
Traf
fic D
ata
Form
at
Exis
ting
Link
Tota
l Num
ber o
f La
nes
In B
oth
Dire
ctio
ns
Cru
ise
Spee
d
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
raffi
c (A
DT)
Park
ing
Lane
Pr
esen
t?Si
dew
alk
Pres
ent?
Lane
Wid
thPa
rkin
g La
ne
Wid
thSi
dew
alk
Wid
th
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
betw
een
Cah
ueng
a B
lvd
and
US-
101
Sout
hbou
nd O
ff-R
amp
44
04
49
6
Fran
klin
e Av
enue
bet
wee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
e/o
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
00
96
00
96
.W
/O P
roje
ct
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
betw
een
Cah
ueng
a B
lvd
and
US-
101
Sout
hbou
nd O
ff-R
amp
44
04
49
6
Fran
klin
e Av
enue
bet
wee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
e/o
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
00
00
96
00
00
96
W P
roje
ct
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
betw
een
Cah
ueng
a B
lvd
and
US-
101
Sout
hbou
nd O
ff-R
amp
44
04
49
6
Fran
klin
e Av
enue
bet
wee
n U
S-10
1 N
orth
boun
d O
n-R
amp
and
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
Fran
klin
Ave
nue
e/o
Gow
er S
t5
40
55
96
00
00
96
00
00
96
Tra
ffic
Stu
dy D
ate:
Oct
ober
201
4
Lane
Cou
nt (D
1, D
2) W
orks
heet
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
kPa
rkin
g La
neSi
dew
alk
Park
ing
Lane
Side
wal
k
Peak
Hou
r
ADT
Appendix D: Designated Local Authority Correspondence
D‐1. Palladium Residences: Request to Initiate an Owner Participation Agreement to Allow For a Development Greater Than 4.5:1 in the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area
LA\4103662.7
355 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Abu Dhabi Milan
Barcelona Moscow
Beijing Munich
Boston New Jersey
Brussels New York
Century City Orange County
Chicago Paris
Dubai Riyadh
Düsseldorf Rome
Frankfurt San Diego
Hamburg San Francisco
Hong Kong Shanghai
Houston Silicon Valley
London Singapore
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
September 10, 2015 CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority Attn: Mr. Craig Bullock, Special Projects Officer 448 South Hill St., 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 92069
Re: Palladium Residences: Request to Initiate an Owner Participation Agreement to Allow For a Development Greater Than 4.5:1 in the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area
Dear Mr. Bullock:
On behalf of our client, CH Palladium, LLC (Applicant), this letter is requesting that the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority (CRA/LA) and successor to the former Community Redevelopment Agency, proceed with the approval process for the Palladium Residences Project (“Project”), located at 6201 West Sunset Boulevard. We look forward to presenting the Project for CRA/LA’s review.
The Project fulfills important Hollywood Redevelopment Plan objectives, including preservation and enhancement of the Hollywood Palladium (Palladium). The Hearing Examiner for the City of Los Angeles has already held a duly noticed initial public hearing on the Project on April 15, 2015, and indicated its intention to recommend approval to the City Planning Commission (CPC). On August 6, 2015, the Department of City Planning acting as Advisory Agency for the City of Los Angeles approved the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) for the Project and recommended approval of the entitlements (the August 2015 Action). The CPC will consider those recommendations and appeals, and we will update the CRA/LA in the event of any further Project refinements or conditions that ensue in connection with the CPC’s determination.
THE PALLADIUM RESIDENCES PROJECT
A. Project Description
The Project is a mixed-use development proposed for the underutilized surface parking lots next to the Hollywood Palladium. The Project would protect and enhance the historic Palladium while adding residential and retail uses together with new pedestrian improvements. The Project is a unified development, which as approved in the August 2015 Action, included
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 2
LA\4103662.7
both Option 1 with up to 731 residential units in two high-rise buildings, whose taller elements would reach up to 395 feet in height and up to 30 stories, plus approximately 24,000 square feet of ground floor retail and restaurant space behind the existing Palladium. A second option with the same physical configuration, Option 2, would include up to 250 hotel rooms and 598 residential units, with the same amount of retail. Underground vehicle parking will be provided along with transit-friendly amenities in a location close to both fixed rail and bus transit lines. Parking for approximately 820 bicycles will be provided under both Project options, meeting code requirements for the residential option and exceeding code requirements by 99 under the residential/hotel option. The Project would provide recreational and open space facilities on the Project site, including publicly accessible, landscaped outdoor space in street level courtyards and pedestrian walkways. (See attached site plans and renderings from the Project’s EIR.)
B. Existing Site Conditions, Surrounding Uses, and Neighborhood Character
The Project Site is located in the block bounded by Sunset Boulevard, Argyle Avenue, Selma Avenue, and El Centro Avenue, and it includes the Palladium building in the southeast quadrant of the Site and parking lots in the southwest and northeast quadrants. (See attached aerial of surrounding areas.) The northwest quadrant of the block lies outside of the Project Site and is occupied by a large electronics store and small commercial buildings and surface parking.
The Project vicinity is highly urbanized, with frontage on Sunset Boulevard including a mixed-use blend of commercial uses, restaurants, bars, studio/production uses, office, entertainment, and high-density residential uses in the immediate vicinity. Several other redevelopment projects are proposed or under construction in the vicinity.
C. Unified Redevelopment of Nearly One Square Block in Hollywood
Under the Hollywood Community Plan (Community Plan), the Project Site currently has two different land use designations and zoning classifications. The southern half of the block that fronts Sunset Boulevard is designated Regional Center Commercial and is zoned C4-2D-SN, while the northern half of the block, which fronts Selma Avenue, is designated Commercial Manufacturing and is zoned [Q]C4-1VL. Most of the neighboring properties have already been designated as Regional Center Commercial, and the proposed project would reclassify the northern portion of the block as Regional Center Commercial with [Q]C4-2D-SN zoning, making the land use designation and zoning consistent on the two halves of the block. The Project’s requested zoning would unify the Project Site’s zoning as C4-2D-SN, which would permit an FAR of up to 6:1 with required findings that the Project will preserve the Palladium. The Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources (OHR) has already confirmed to the Historic Resources Group, the consultant which evaluated the Project in relation to the Palladium for the City’s EIR, that the proposed Project with its 6:1 FAR as appropriate in relation to the Palladium.
REQUEST FOR AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
Under the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan (Plan), the CRA/LA may permit development in excess of 4.5:1 FAR and up to 6:1 FAR when certain prescribed findings are made and an
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 3
LA\4103662.7
Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) is executed. The proposed Project readily meets the necessary findings and furthers the Plan’s goals.
Specifically, the Plan provides that a 6:1 FAR may be approved if the proposed Project is consistent with the Plan’s objectives for Regional Center Commercial development and otherwise conforms to the Plan and furthers its purposes of, among other things, rehabilitating historically significant buildings.
Section 506.2.3 of the Plan states that development not to exceed an FAR of 6:1 “may be permitted as hereinafter set forth provided that the proposed development furthers the goals and intent of this Plan and the Community Plan and meets” certain enumerated objectives. As detailed here, the Project readily satisfies the established criteria.
Objective “a”: “[T]o concentrate high intensity and/or density development in areas with reasonable proximity or direct access to high capacity transportation facilities or which effectively utilize transportation demand management program.”
The Project Site is located less than one quarter mile from the Metro Hollywood/Vine Red Line Station and adjacent to numerous Metro regional bus lines and three LADOT Dash lines that serve the Hollywood area. Specifically, as shown on the attached Transit Service Map, the Project Site is served by the Metro Red Line; Metro Lines 180/181, 212/312, 2/302, 217, 222, 210; and Metro Rapid Lines 780 and 4/Rapid 704. Regional transit lines run within two miles of the Project Site, including Metro Rapid Lines 720, 754, and 757, as well as the Hollywood, Hollywood/Wilshire, and Beachwood Canyon LADOT DASH Lines. Together these transit options connect the Project Site with all of Los Angeles County and the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, as described in detail in the Project’s Transportation Analysis Report (Draft EIR Appendix K-1).
The headway service for local and express routes are between five and 12 minutes during both peak periods. DASH operates with 30-minute headways during the peak hours. The bus services have an estimated seating capacity of approximately 4,940 persons during the peak hours based on a bus seating capacity of 30 persons for a DASH bus, 40 persons for a standard bus, and 65 persons for a Rapid articulated bus. The Metro Red Line, with 10-minute headways in both the AM and PM peak hours has an estimated capacity of over 6,000 persons during the peak periods. With a total estimated seating capacity of approximately 10,950 persons in the peak hours, the proposed Project would utilize up to 0.5% of available transit capacity during the peak hours under the residential option and residential/hotel option.
Consistent with the land uses encouraged for designated “Regional Centers,” pursuant to the Framework Element and the Community Plan, the Project would provide a mix of uses and a development density consistent with the Regional Center designation that would complement other mixed use activities in the Project vicinity. In addition to maintaining the Palladium building as an
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 4
LA\4103662.7
entertainment venue, the Project would attract retail uses that provide employment opportunities supporting an estimated 4,000 new construction jobs and 550 new permanent jobs, enhance commercial services in the Hollywood area, and add significant new housing in close proximity to commercial, retail, entertainment, and restaurant uses. The Project could also contribute a large number of hotel units to the area, thus supporting tourism and the economic viability of the entertainment, commercial and tourist activities in the area.
The Project will also implement an aggressive TDM (Transportation Demand Management) program. The TDM program will ensure implementation of the Project’s sidewalks, plazas, street and pedestrian amenities, and lighting and bicycle provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The TDM program could feature elements such as unbundled parking that decouples housing costs from parking fees, rideshare programs, or a transit pass discount program.
Objective “b”: “[T]o provide for new development which complements the existing buildings in areas having architecturally and/or historically significant structures or to encourage appropriate development in areas that do not have architecturally and/or historically significant buildings.”
The Project would preserve and enhance the Palladium and provide for its continued use an entertainment and event venue. The Project has been designed to maintain the prominence of the Palladium as an architectural and historic feature on Sunset Boulevard and to frame the building. Key design features helping to preserve the Palladium include setbacks of the Project’s taller structures, which would reach up to 30 stories and up to 395 feet in height, to maintain the historic Palladium façade as a visual focal point for the Project site; views of the main entry on Argyle Avenue have been maintained, framed by new landscaping and decorative features; the architecture of the new buildings would include curvilinear building profiles that complement the Streamline Moderne style of the Palladium Building and marquees; and interpretative displays regarding the Palladium and its history would be provided at key locations outside and/or inside the Palladium.
In addition to the design features, the Project includes a proposed zoning condition that requires the nomination of the Palladium as a Historic-Cultural Monument prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project. The Project also features implementation of a Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan as well as a Historic Interpretive Exhibit for the Palladium. The Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan will be reviewed and approved by the OHR and will be in full compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation, as certified by a qualified historic preservation consultant. Many potential elements for inclusion into the Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan will be considered, such as improvements to the Palladium’s existing back-stage space, back-of-house service, and loading operations, which do not meet
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 5
LA\4103662.7
current performance and production needs; enhanced accessibility to, and utilization of, the Palladium’s existing southern storefront spaces; preparation of a historically compatible signage plan for the Palladium’s existing southern storefront spaces, potentially including such elements as sign dimensions and options for materials, construction, illumination, colors, and finishes; and a number of proposed potential improvements to lobby doors, ceilings, floors, finishing, toilets, chandeliers, exterior walls, and more.
Designation of the Palladium as a City Historic-Cultural Monument will prevent the Applicant from relocating, demolishing, or substantially altering the Palladium without prior approval from the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission. Additionally, to further ensure the preservation of the Palladium, the Applicant has agreed to put in place a preservation easement over the Palladium, which will be held by the Los Angeles Conservancy. A copy of the agreement with Hollywood Heritage regarding the preservation easement can be provided to CRA/LA when it is finalized.
Lastly, as a result of floor area averaging, the density otherwise allotted to the lot on which the Palladium sits will be utilized by the adjacent property with new construction.
The Palladium’s operation will continue during construction. Currently operated by Live Nation, continuing the Palladium as an operating venue is a key project goal. During construction, parking will be secured in nearby lots. Following construction, the existing 317 parking spaces required to be provided on-site will continue to be provided on-site.
Objective “c”: “[T]o provide focal points of entertainment, tourist or pedestrian oriented uses in order to create a quality urban environment.”
The Palladium would provide a destination for tourists to visit and contribute to the historic Hollywood character that attracts visitors to the area. Further, the Project would enhance the quality of the pedestrian environment in the Project vicinity by adding pedestrian-friendly street-level retail and entertainment uses, landscaped and streetscaped courtyards and paths through the Project Site, and new landscaping along the Project site boundaries.
Objective “d”: “[T]o encourage the development of appropriately designed housing to provide a balance in the community.”
The Project would provide up to 731 new dwelling units under Option 1 and up to 598 units under Option 2. The Project would offer potential residents an alternative to single family neighborhoods and low to mid rise apartment projects elsewhere in Hollywood. The Project would provide housing for people that would like to reside near the entertainment, retail, restaurant, and other diverse new uses that the Project would bring to Hollywood.
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 6
LA\4103662.7
Objective “e”: “[T]o provide for substantial, well designed, public open space in the Project Area.”
The Project’s ground level would include approximately 33,800 square feet of publicly accessible courtyards and pathways that provide pedestrian connectivity within the surrounding area, provide landscape and streetscape amenities for pedestrians and create a gateway to the Project Site, with an enhanced approach to the Palladium building. The Project would replace an existing, fenced parking lot with three courtyards facing Sunset Boulevard, Argyle Avenue and El Centro Avenue that would open the Site to pedestrians with pedestrian movement through the Project Site. The courtyards and pedestrian paths would include plantings, trees and shaded areas, seating, and a wall planned to accommodate artwork depicting the history of the Palladium.
Section 506.2.3 of the Plan separately includes three findings to permit development up to a 6.:1 FAR. As summarized below, these findings are readily made.
Finding 1: “The proposed development conforms with the provisions and goals of the Redevelopment Plan and any applicable Design(s) for Development or requirements of the Hollywood Boulevard District or Hollywood Core Transition District.”
The Project is consistent with the provisions and goals of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, as discussed in the Draft EIR and detailed in its Table 4.H-4, Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and as discussed in the Final EIR; excerpts of both are attached to this letter. The Project is not in any Design districts and is outside the Hollywood Boulevard District and Hollywood Core Transition District.
Finding 2: “Permitting the proposed development serves a public purpose objective such as: the provision of additional open space, cultural facilities, public parking, or the rehabilitation of an architecturally or historically significant building.”
The Project fulfills multiple public purposes. First, the Project will preserve and enhance the Palladium as a cultural resource, and would allow enhancements including repairs and restoration compatible with its historic features under the Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan, which is required under PDF-Hist 1. The Project would develop iconic, landmark buildings that pay homage to the Palladium, with curvilinear building designs and enhanced setbacks that visually frame the Palladium and building heights that are consistent with and add variation to the existing high-rise Hollywood skyline. Further, Project buildings would be designed to maintain the Palladium as the visual focus on Sunset Boulevard through setbacks, and provide a visual buffer and open space between the new Project’s new buildings and the Palladium.
The Project also includes a proposed zoning condition that requires the nomination of the Palladium as a Historic-Cultural Monument prior to the
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 7
LA\4103662.7
issuance of a building permit for the Project. The Project also features implementation of a Palladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan as well as a Historic Interpretive Exhibit for the Palladium.
Second, the Project would provide new open space. The Project would replace an existing, fenced parking lot with three courtyards facing Sunset Boulevard, Argyle Avenue and El Centro Avenue that would open the Site to pedestrians with pedestrian movement through the Project Site. The Project would include approximately 33,800 square feet of publicly accessible, ground-level courts and pathways that would provide pedestrian connectivity within the surrounding area, provide landscape and streetscape amenities for pedestrians, and create a gateway to the Project Site, with an enhanced approach to the Palladium building.
Third, parking will be developed consistent with the Code including replacement parking on site for the Palladium. The proposed Project would provide a total of up to 1,993 parking spaces in a subterranean structure as well as above-grade structured parking along the northern edge of the Project Site, which would include the 317 parking spaces currently provided for the Palladium on-site. The number of required spaces under the LAMC depends on whether residential units are developed as condominiums or apartments, but in either case, the Project will exceed the required spaces by each calculation for both Project Options. Treating residential units as condominiums, 1,856 gross total spaces are required for the residential option, and 1,753 gross total spaces are required under the residential/hotel option. Treating residential units as apartments, 1,122 gross total spaces would be required under the residential option, and 1,153 gross total spaces would be required under the residential/hotel option.
Finding 3: “Any adverse environmental effects especially impacts upon the transportation and circulation system of the area caused by proposed development shall be mitigated or are overridden by other social, economic or physical considerations, and statements of findings are made.”
The Project’s EIR analyzed 37 signalized intersections, other unsignalized intersections, and neighborhood street segments, taking into account the cumulative impact of 62 related projects to determine if there would be significant impacts. After mitigation, only three intersections were identified as having a significant and unavoidable impact. If the Project includes a hotel component, there would be significant and unavoidable impacts at four intersections when measured against the existing baseline conditions and five intersections when measured against the future baseline conditions. The EIR also identified a significant impact on one neighborhood street segment when measured against existing baseline conditions, and due to the large number of related projects, a cumulative significant construction traffic impact when considered against future baseline conditions. The EIR identified mitigation measures that would substantially reduce neighborhood street segment impacts as well as construction traffic impacts. The Project’s findings and Statement of Overriding
CRA/LA September 10, 2015 Page 8
LA\4103662.7
Considerations are available for review as part of the City of Los Angeles’ administrative record. These conclusions, however, are conservative because the Project’s cumulative impacts included an ambient growth factor of 1 percent in addition to growth from future related projects, even though some of these projects may not be constructed or occupied by Project buildout in 2018, and some may never be built.
The Project’s transit-adjacent location and aggressive TDM Program would reduce potential transportation impacts. Located within walking distance of Metro’s Hollywood/Vine Red Line Station, numerous Metro, Metro Rapid and DASH bus lines, and in the heart of a thriving regional commercial center, the Project’s location offers numerous modes of transport, including on demand transportation services such as Uber, Lyft and, of course, private car. The Project also proposes to reduce residents’ reliance on individual cars further by implementing an aggressive TDM program. The TDM program will ensure implementation of the Project’s sidewalks, plazas, street and pedestrian amenities, and lighting and bicycle provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The TDM program could feature elements such as unbundled parking that decouples housing costs from parking fees, rideshare programs, or a transit pass discount program.
The Project will have no impacts on major arterials, such as Santa Monica Boulevard and the 101 Freeway. The Project was conservatively determined to impact only three intersections during peak hours. Nevertheless, the Project, in addition to the TDM program, will implement physical roadway improvements, upgrade traffic signals, and implement a traffic calming plan. During construction, a Construction Management Plan will be implemented that will ensure queuing on City streets is limited and we will work to coordinate construction with nearby construction projects.
In addition, the Project supports Caltrans’ recently adopted Strategic Management Plan. Many aspects of the Project’s transportation design elements, including its location of Project-related jobs and retail, restaurant, and recreational uses near residential and commercial uses and within one quarter mile of transit, and also provision of dedicated bike parking, together encourage pedestrian and non-vehicular mobility. Such measures are encouraged by the new Caltrans Strategic Management Plan, which emphasizes sustainability, livability and economy realized through long-view mobility decisions that avoid urban sprawl, and prioritizes system performance that leverages community partnerships to develop an integrated transportation system. The Project will reduce transportation-related air pollutant and GHG emissions by enforcing truck and equipment construction idling limits, ensuring the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels for all heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment, and implementing numerous green building measures that optimize energy performance and help offset the impact of less efficient surrounding uses.
PROJECT SITE PLAN AND RENDERINGS
Proposed Project Envelope
Alternative Project Envelope(Inside Face of Glazing-FAR)
OUTLINE FOR TALLER BUILDING(PROPOSED PROJECT)
OUTLINE FOR TALLER BUILDING(ALTERNATIVE 7)
OUTLINE FOR TALLER BUILDING(PROPOSED PROJECT)
OUTLINE FOR TALLER BUILDING(ALTERNATIVE 7)
FIGUREAlterna ve 7 - Conceptual Site Plan
Palladium Residences 5-5Source: Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects, Inc., 2014.
N
P C R
FIG
UR
EA
lte
rna
ve 7
- C
on
cep
tual
Ro
of-
Top
Te
rrac
e P
lan
Pal
lad
ium
Re
sid
en
ces
5-6
Sou
rce:
Sta
nle
y Sa
ito
wit
z |
Nat
om
a A
rch
itec
ts, I
nc.
, 20
14
.
PC
R
N
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
Alte
rnat
ive
7
T.O
. PA
RA
PE
T +
359’
(PR
OP
OS
ED
PR
OJE
CT
)
+72
' AB
OV
E S
ELM
A(P
RO
PO
SE
D
PR
OJE
CT
)
25’ S
ET
BA
CK
FR
OM
N
OR
TH
FA
CE
OF
P
ALL
AD
IUM
(PR
OP
OS
ED
PR
OJE
CT
)
Sel
ma
Ave
nue
65’ E
NV
ELO
PE
W
IDT
H(P
RO
PO
SE
D
PR
OJE
CT
)
60’ E
NV
ELO
PE
W
IDT
H
ALT
ER
NA
TIV
E 7
22’ A
DD
TL.
SE
TB
AC
KF
RO
M S
ELM
A
ALT
ER
NA
TIV
E 7
PO
DIU
MT.
O. D
EC
K+
105’
AB
OV
E S
ELM
A
T.O
. PA
RA
PE
T +
395’
50’ S
ET
BA
CK
F
RO
M N
OR
TH
FA
CE
OF
PALL
AD
IUM
TO
P O
F A
LTE
RN
AT
IVE
7B
UIL
DIN
G F
AC
ING
EL
CE
NT
RO
AV
EN
UE
FIG
UR
EA
lte
rna
ve 7
- C
om
par
ave
Bu
ildin
g Se
co
ns
Pal
lad
ium
Re
sid
en
ces
5-7
Sou
rce:
Sta
nle
y Sa
ito
wit
z |
Nat
om
a A
rch
itec
ts, I
nc.
, 20
14
.
PC
R
N
INS
PIR
AT
ION
AL
LIV
ING
23
HEIG
HT B
EHIN
D PA
LLAD
IUM
OP
EN S
PACE
BUF
FER
SIGH
T LI
NES
RETA
INED
OFFI
CE O
F HI
STOR
IC R
ESOU
RCES
REC
OMM
ENDE
D AP
PROV
AL O
F PR
OJEC
T DE
SIGN
envi
ronm
enta
l an
alys
is
over
view
of E
IRHI
STOR
IC
INS
PIR
AT
ION
AL
LIV
ING
15
AERIAL
£¤101
Selma Avenue
N El C
entro
Aven
ue
Sunset Boulevard
Argy
le Av
enue
Hollywood Boulevard
Vine S
treet N G
ower
Stree
t
De Longpre Avenue
Yucca StreetIva
r Ave
nue
HollywoodPalladium
CapitalRecords
PantagesTheatre
W. Hoteland
Residences
Mixed Use Residential and
Commercial
Sunset & Vine Mixed Use
Commercial and
Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Sunset & Vine Tower
CBSColumbia
Square
NickelodeonStudio
Low/Medium Density
Residential
Commercial
Sunset Gower Studios
Arclight Cinemas/Cinerama Dome
Sunset Media Tower
Office and Commercial
HollywoodCommunity
Hospital
Low/Medium Density
Residential
Residential and Commercial
LA Fitness
Selma Avenue
Harold Way
La B
aig Av
enue
CommercialLA FilmSchool
Columbia Square(under
construction)
BLVD 6200(under
construction)
Commercial
Commercial ParkingStructure
Selma and Vine Mixed Use
(under construction)
FIGURE
Source: ESRI, 2010; PCR Services Corporation, 2014.
0 400 800 Feet
Palladium Residences
Project Site andSurrounding Land Useso 4.H-1
Project Boundary
Selma Avenue Area
Sunset Boulevard Area
TRANSIT SERVICE
Vin
e S
t
Sunset Blvd
Wilco
x A
v
Hollywood Blvd
Go
wer
St
Santa Monica Blvd
Co
le A
v
El C
entr
o A
v
Cah
uen
ga B
lvd
Ivar
Av
De Longpre Av
Bro
nso
n A
v
Go
rdo
n S
t
Arg
yle A
v
Tam
ari
nd
Av
Lod
i P
l L
Afton Pl
Carlton Wy
Carlos Av
Co
le P
l
F
Mo
rnin
gsi
de C
t
Leland Wy
Gra
ce A
v
Co
smo
St
Banner Av
Lab
aig
Av
Beach
wo
od
Dr
Selma Av
Hu
dso
n A
v
Vis
Del M
ar
Av
Yucca St
Go
rdo
n S
tFountain Av
Yucca St
Carlos Av
Hu
dso
n A
v
Selma Av
Av
Franklin Av
Lexington Av
£¤101
METRORED LINE
M780
M217
DASHBeachwood Canyon
DASHHollywood/Wilshire
DASHBeachwood Canyon
DASHHollywood
M210
M2/302
M217
M222
M4/704
DASHHollywood/Wilshire
ProjectSite
M210
M210
M180/181
M212/312
EXISTING TRANSIT LINES SERVING THE PROJECT AREAFIGURE 3
N:\Jobs\Active\2500s\2554 - 8555 SM Blvd Traffic Study\Graphics\GIS\MXD
Not to Scale
NNNNN
DRAFT AND FINAL EIR HOLLYWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FINDINGS
October 2014 4.H. Land Use and Planning
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐49
Table 4.H‐4
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
Section300.RedevelopmentPlanGoals1)Encouragetheinvolvementandparticipationof
residents,businesspersons,propertyowners,andcommunityorganizationsintheredevelopmentofthecommunity.
Consistent: TheProjectwouldprovidedevelopmentpursuanttotheRedevelopmentAgency’smandatetoendblightbycreatingnewdevelopmentonunderutilizedparkinglotswithhousing,retail,entertainment,andinthecaseofOption2,hoteluses.ThedevelopmentwouldbeanewprojectaddingvibrancytotheHollywoodCenter,withimprovedpedestrianfacilitiesandlandscapedgroundlevelopenspace.TheProjectalsorepresentsaprivatesectordevelopmentsubjecttopublicreviewunderCEQA.TheProjecthasbeenpresentedtostakeholdersforcommentandpresentedatapublicEIRscopingmeeting.PursuanttoCEQA,theProject’simpactsarebeinganalyzedinanEIRthatwillbecirculatedtointerestedpartiesforcomment,andcommentswillberespondedtoinaFinalEIR.TheProjectwillalsobesubjecttoapublichearingprocess.
2)Preserveandincreaseemployment,andbusinessandinvestmentopportunitiesthroughredevelopmentprogramsand,tothegreatestextentfeasible,promotetheseopportunitiesforminoritiesandwomen.
Consistent: ThisGoalpertainstotheapplicationofredevelopmentprogramsandisadirectivetotheCRA.However,thisprivateProjectwouldaddemploymentopportunitiestothecommunityandwouldcompriseaconsiderableinvestmentinthecommunitythatwouldoccurwithoutCRAprograminvolvement,thussupportingtheultimateintentoftheGoal.
3)Promoteabalancedcommunitymeetingtheneedsoftheresidential,commercial,industrial,artsandentertainmentsectors.
Consistent: This GoaladdressesdevelopmentovertheentireRedevelopmentAreaandisnotfullyapplicabletooneproject.However,thisProjectwouldprovideaconsiderableamountofhousingdevelopment,newcommercialusesandwouldprovideforthecontinueduseofthePalladiumasanentertainmentandeventvenue.TheProjectwouldprovideamixofuseswithintheSiteandwouldcontributetotheoverallcommunitymixanticipatedinthePlanasdiscussedfurther,aboveandbelow.
5)Improvethequalityoftheenvironment,promoteapositiveimageforHollywoodandprovideasafeenvironmentthroughmechanismssuchas:
a. adoptinglandusestandards;b. promotingarchitecturalandurbandesign
standardsincluding:standardsforheight,buildingsetback,continuityofstreetfaçade,buildingmaterials,andcompatibilityofnewconstructionwithexistingstructuresandconcealmentofmechanicalappurtenances;
c. promotinglandscapecriteriaandplantingprogramstoensureadditionalgreenpace;
d. encouragingmaintenanceofthebuiltenvironment;
e. promotingsignandbillboardstandards;
Consistent: ThisGoalpertainstotheapplicationofredevelopmentprogramsandisadirectivetotheCRA.However,thisprivateProjectwouldreplaceavacant,underutilizedparkinglotwithanewdevelopmentthatwouldprovideforthecontinuedoperationofahistoric,cultural,entertainmentresourceaswellasprovidenewdevelopmentthatisconsistentwithtypeandscaleofdevelopmentintheplanareaandapplicabledesignstandards.WhiletheRedevelopmentPlanitselfonlyrecommendsthecreationofdesignstandards,theCityhasproceededwiththedevelopmentofdesignguidelinessuchastheWalkabilityChecklistandtheCitywideandCD13DesignGuidelines,whichsupportsiteplanreviewandcontributetocommunityplanupdatesthroughouttheCity.ProjectconsistencywiththeWalkabilityGuidelines
4.H. Land Use and Planning October 2014
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐50
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
f. coordinatingtheprovisionofhighqualitypublicimprovements;
g. promotingrehabilitationandrestorationguidelines;
h. integratepublicsafetyconcernsintoplanningefforts.
isdiscussedbelow.TheProject’sconsistencywiththeurbandesignguidelinesisaddressedinSection4.A,Aesthetic/VisualResourcesofthisDraftEIR.Asdiscussedtherein,theProjectwouldbeconsistentwiththeguidanceofthisGoal.
6)SupportandpromoteHollywoodasthecenteroftheentertainmentindustryandatouristdestinationthroughtheretention,developmentandexpansionofallsectorsoftheentertainmentindustryandthepreservationoflandmarksrelatedtotheentertainmentindustry.
Consistent: PreservationofthePalladiumasanon‐goingentertainmentandevents(e.g.meetingspace)venuewouldsupportthefacilitiesandattractionsavailabletotouristsandCityresidents;andwouldcontributetothecharacterofHollywoodthatservesasatouristandvisitorattraction.UnderOption2,Residential/Hotel,theProjectwouldincludeupto250hotelrooms,alongwithsupportfacilitiestoaccommodatecertainvisitors,suchasmeetingrooms,toservetouriststothearea.
9)Providehousingchoicesandincreasethesupplyandimprovethequalityofhousingforallincomeandagegroups,especiallyforpersonswithlowandmoderateincomes;andtoprovidehomeownershipopportunitiesandotherhousingchoiceswhichmeettheneedsoftheresidentpopulation.
Consistent: TheProjectwouldnotablyincreasethehousingsupplyintheHollywoodcommunity,providingunitsforpopulationthatseekresidencywithinactivitycentersandthatseekhousinginproximitytothetypesofemploymentandentertainmentvenuesthatareprovidedwithinHollywood.Itwouldprovideupto731residentialunitsunderOption1andupto598unitsunderOption2.Thesehousingunitswouldbeplacedonavacantparkinglotasinfilldevelopmentwithinadevelopedarea.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotrequiredemolitionofexistinghousingstockservingvariedincomelevelsoradverselyaffecttheavailabilityofsingle‐family,lowdensityapartmenthousingopportunities.Thatis,itwouldaddtotherangeofhousingopportunitiesavailableovertheHollywoodarea,andprovideatypeof“housingmilieu”thatisnotreadilyavailableatotherlocationsintheCity.Theunitswouldrangefromstudiotothreebedroomsinsize,withalargemajorityoftheunitsbeingstudioandone‐bedroom.Thisvarietyinsizewouldprimarilyaccommodatehousingforsingles,couplesandworkingprofessionals,whilesomeunitscouldaccommodatesmallfamilies.
10)Promotethedevelopmentofsoundresidentialneighborhoodsthroughmechanismssuchaslanduse,densityanddesignstandards,publicimprovements,propertyrehabilitation,sensitivein‐fillhousing,trafficandcirculationprogramming,developmentofopenspacesandothersupportservicesnecessarytoenableresidentstoliveandworkinHollywood.
Consistent: TheProjectwouldprovideaconsiderableamountofnewresidentialdevelopmentonaninfillsite,makinguseofavailableFARincentivesandwithoutintrudingonnearbyresidentialneighborhoods.AsindicatedintheTransportation,UtilityandServiceSections,ofthisDraftEIR,Section4.L,Section4.MandSection4.K,respectively,theProjectwouldhavesufficientinfrastructuretomeetitsneeds.TheProjectincludesgroundlevelopenspacethatwouldprovidepublicpedestrianandopenspaceamenities.ForfurtherdiscussionrefertoSection4.K.5,ParksandRecreation.
October 2014 4.H. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐51
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
11)Recognize,promoteandsupporttheretention,restorationandappropriatereuseofexistingbuildings,groupingsofbuildingsandotherphysicalfeaturesespeciallythosehavingsignificanthistoricand/orarchitecturalvalueandensurethatnewdevelopmentissensitivetothesefeaturesthroughlanduseanddevelopmentcriteria.
Consistent.TheProjectwouldretainthePalladiumasahistoricresourceandarchitecturalfocusofSitedevelopment.TheProjectwouldbedesignedtocreatevisualinterestthroughvariationsinbuildingheight,architecture,landscaping,anddesign.EnhancementofthePalladiumwouldconformtotheSecretaryoftheInteriorStandards.TheenhancementprogramwouldsupportthePalladium’scontinuedcontributiontotheculturalframeworkofthearea.Keyimprovementscouldincludeenhancementstothehistoricmainlobbytomatchorenhancethecharacteroftheoriginalbuildingdesign,replacementofdoorsunderthemarquee,andimprovementstotheballroom.Inaddition,extensivelandscaping,openspace,andpedestrianlinkswouldbeintroducedtoconnectandintegrateallelementsoftheProject.
12)SupportandencourageacirculationsystemwhichwillimprovethequalityoflifeinHollywood,includingpedestrian,automobile,parkingandmasstransitsystemswithanemphasisonservingexistingfacilitiesandmeetingfutureneeds.
Consistent:TheProjectwouldincreasepopulationdensityinproximitytotheMetroredlinestation,otherregionalMetrobuslines,andtheLADOTDashlinesthatprovidepublictransitthroughoutthecoreoftheHollywoodarea.Further,theProjectwouldincludebicyclefacilitiesforProjectresidents,employeesandvisitors.TheProjectwouldprovide,asmitigation,physicalimprovementsattwointersections,signalizationimprovementstoenhancetrafficflowsatsevenintersections,implementationofatraveldemandmanagementprogramandtrafficcalmingmeasuresalongonestretchofroadway.
14)Promoteandencouragedevelopmentofrecreationalandculturalfacilitiesandopenspacesnecessarytosupportattractiveresidentialneighborhoodsandcommercialcenters.
Consistent.ThePalladiumwouldcontinuetooperateasaneventandentertainmentvenue,maintainingtheexistingfacilitiesandretainingthebuilding’sdefiningexteriorarchitecturalfeatures.TheProjectwouldalsoproviderecreationalandopenspaceusesontheProjectSite.TheProjectwouldimprovepedestrianfacilitiesandopenspaceontheProjectSitewiththeprovisionofthelandscapedcourtyardsandstreetscapeamenities.AlsotheProjectwouldprovideactiverecreationalfacilities,includinggym,spafacilities,privatebalconies,andlandscapedroofandpoolterracestohelpmeettheneedsofresidentsandreduceparkandrecreationalimpacts.
Section500.LandUsesPermittedintheProjectAreaSection502.MapTheRedevelopmentPlanMap,"ExhibitA.1,"…showsthelocationoftheProjectAreaboundaries,theimmediatelyadjacentstreets,thepublicrights‐of‐way,theproposedlandusestobepermittedintheProjectAreaforallpublic,semipublicandprivatelandanddesignateddistrictsofspecialimport.
Consistent: ExhibitA.1, theRedevelopmentPlanMap,designatedparcelswithinthePlanareaforproposedlanduses,anddesignatedtheProjectSitefor“CommercialManufacturing”onthenorthern,SelmaAvenueAreaandas“RegionalCommercial”onthesouthern,SunsetBoulevardArea.Thesedesignationsareconsistentwiththedesignationsinthe1988HollywoodCommunityPlan.
4.H. Land Use and Planning October 2014
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐52
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
NotwithstandinganythingtothecontraryinthisPlan,thelandusespermittedintheProjectAreashallbethosepermittedbytheGeneralPlan,theapplicableCommunityPlan,andanyapplicableCityzoningordinance,allastheynowexistorarehereafteramendedand/orsupplementedfromtimetotime.Theinitiationofanyproposedamendmentand/orsupplementtotheGeneralPlan,applicableCommunityPlan,and/oranyapplicableCityzoningordinanceshallbecoordinatedbetweentheDepartmentofCityPlanningandtheAgency.
IntheeventtheGeneralPlan,theapplicableCommunityPlan,and/oranyapplicableCityzoningordinanceisamendedand/orsupplementedwithregardtoanylanduseintheProjectArea,thelanduseprovisionsofthisPlan,including,withoutlimitation,allExhibitsattachedhereto,shallbeautomaticallymodifiedaccordinglywithouttheneedforanyformalplanamendmentprocess.
Atsuchtime,theAgencyshallbeauthorizedtoreplaceanyExhibitsheretowithmodifiedExhibitsinordertoconformtosuchamendedorsupplementedGeneralPlan,applicableCommunityPlan,orapplicableCityzoningordinance.
TheremainingportionofSection502,discussesproceduresbywhichthePlanmapmightbeadjusted,andindicatesthatitistheintentoftheRedevelopmentPlantostaycurrentwith,andbemodifiedtoreflectchangesintheHollywoodCommunityPlan.
TheProject’sproposedGeneralPlanandzoningamendmentswould,byvirtueofSection502,becomeapplicabletotheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanaswell,andtherewouldbeconsistencyamongstplans.Asindicatedinthediscussionregardingthe1988HollywoodCommunityPlan,above,suchachangeindesignationwouldbefullyconsistentwiththeintentofboththe1988HollywoodCommunityPlanandtheprovisionsofSection506.2.3ofthisPlanaswell.
506.2.3RegionalCenterCommercialDensityDevelopmentwithintheRegionalCenterCommercialdesignationshallnotexceedtheequivalentofanaveragefloorarearatio(F.A.R.)of4.5:1fortheentireareasodesignated.
ItistheintentofthisPlan,however,tofocusdevelopmentwithintheRegionalCenterCommercialdesignation,ashereinaftersetforth,inordertoprovideforeconomicdevelopmentandguidanceintheorderlydevelopmentofahighqualitycommercial,recreationalandresidentialurbanenvironmentwithanemphasisonentertainmentorienteduses.Therefore,developmentwithintheRegionalCenterCommercialdesignationshallbefocusedonareasservedbyadequatetransportationfacilitiesandtransportationdemandmanagementprograms.Furtheritshallreinforcethehistoricaldevelopmentpatternsofthearea,stimulateappropriateresidentialhousingandprovidetransitionscompatiblewithadjacentlowerdensityresidentialneighborhoods.
Proposeddevelopmentinexcessof4.5:1F.A.R.uptobutnottoexceed6:1F.A.R.orsuchotherdensitymaybepermittedbyfutureamendmentstotheCommunityPlan,onaspecificsitemaybepermittedashereinaftersetforthprovidedthattheproposeddevelopmentfurthersthe
Consistent:TheProjectisproposingadevelopmentthatwouldbebuilttoanFARof6.0:1,andassuchwouldbesubjecttoreviewunderthecriteriaestablishedforincreasesfromthebaselineFARof4.5:1.AsindicatedthestandardisthataProjectmeetatleastthecriteriaestablishedin“objectivea)”andoneadditionalobjectiveofitems“b”through“f.”OfthesixobjectiveslistedtheProjectwouldmeetthecriteriaestablishedinthefirstfive,withthelastnotapplicabletotheProject,asfollows:
a) TheProjectwouldbeconsistentwiththelandusesencouragedfordesignated“RegionalCenters,”pursuanttotheFrameworkElementandtheHollywoodCommunityPlan(both1988and2012versions).ItwouldprovideamixofusesandadevelopmentdensitythatisconsistentwiththatdesignationandcomplementothermixeduseactivitiesintheProjectvicinity.ItwouldprovideamixofusesincludingcontinuedoperationsofthePalladiumbuildingasanon‐goingentertainmentvenue,retailusesthatprovideemploymentopportunitiesandenhancecommercialservicesintheHollywoodarea,andalargenumberofnewhousingunitswithinthearea.TheprovisionofresidentialunitsatthisHollywoodlocationwouldprovidehousingincloseproximitytocommercial,
October 2014 4.H. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐53
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
goalsandintentofthisPlanandtheCommunityPlanandmeetsobjective“a”andatleastoneotherofthefollowingobjectives:
a)toconcentratehighintensityand/ordensitydevelopmentinareaswithreasonableproximityordirectaccesstohighcapacitytransportationfacilitiesorwhicheffectivelyutilizetransportationdemandmanagementprograms;
retail,entertainment,andrestaurantuses.UnderOption2,theProjectwouldalsocontributealargenumberofhotelunitstothearea,thussupportingtourismandtheeconomicviabilityoftheentertainment,commercialandtouristactivitiesinthearea.ItwouldprovidethisdevelopmentlessthanonequartermilefromtheMetroredlinestationandadjacenttonumerousMetroregionalbuslinesandthreeLADOTDashlinesthatservethedowntownHollywoodarea.
b)toprovidefornewdevelopmentwhichcompliments[sic]theexistingbuildingsinareashavingarchitecturallyand/orhistoricallysignificantstructuresortoencourageappropriatedevelopmentinareasthatdonothavearchitecturallyand/orhistoricallysignificantbuildings.
b) TheProjectwouldpreserveandenhancetheHollywoodPalladiumandprovideforitscontinueduseanentertainmentandeventvenue.TheProjecthasbeendesignedtomaintaintheprominenceofthePalladiumasanarchitecturalandhistoricfeatureonSunsetBoulevardandtoframethebuilding.Keydesignfeaturesthatcontributetomeetingthisstandardinclude:1)preservationandenhancementofthePalladiumbuilding;2)theproposedbuildingadjacenttothePalladiumonSunsetBoulevardislowerinheightthanthePalladiumandsetbackfartherfromSunsetBoulevardthanthePalladium;3)viewsofthemainentryonArgyleAvenuehavebeenmaintained,framedbynewlandscapinganddecorativefeatures,suchasfountains;4)thearchitectureofthenewbuildingswouldincludecurvilinearbuildingprofilesthatcomplementtheStreamlineModernestyleofthePalladiumBuildingandmarquees;5)thenewbuildingshavelargesetbacksfromthePalladium;and6)interpretativedisplaysregardingthePalladiumanditshistorywouldbeprovidedatkeylocationsoutsideand/orinsidethePalladium.
c)toprovidefocalpointsofentertainment,touristorpedestrianorientedusesinordertocreateaqualityurbanenvironment;and
c) ThePalladiumwouldprovideadestinationfortouriststovisitandcontributetothehistoricHollywoodcharacterthatattractsvisitorstothearea.Further,theProjectwouldenhancethequalityofthepedestrianenvironmentintheProjectvicinitybyaddingpedestrianfriendly,streetlevelretailandentertainmentuses,addinglandscapedandstreetscapedcourtyardsandpathsthroughtheProjectSite,andaddingnewlandscapingattheProjectedges.
4.H. Land Use and Planning October 2014
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐54
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
d)toencouragethedevelopmentofappropriatelydesignedhousingtoprovideabalanceinthecommunity.
d) TheProjectwouldprovideupto731newdwellingunitsunderOption1andupto598unitsunderOption2.TheunitswouldbeprovidedinadistinctivestructurethatcomplementsthePalladium.TheProjectwouldprovideahighdensitycomplexwithinanactivitycenter.ThisdevelopmentwouldvaryfromandofferanalternativeoptiontothesinglefamilyneighborhoodsandlowtomidriseapartmentprojectsthatarepredominantinHollywood.TheProjectwouldprovidehousingforpeopledthatwouldliketoresideamongtheentertainment,andserviceactivitiesprovidedintheHollywoodCenter.
e)toprovideforsubstantial,welldesigned,publicopenspaceintheProjectArea.
e) TheProject’sgroundlevelwouldincludeapproximately33,800squarefeetofpubliclyaccessiblecourtyardsandpathwaysthatprovidepedestrianconnectivitywithinthesurroundingarea,providelandscapeandstreetscapeamenitiesforpedestriansandcreateagatewaytotheProjectSite,withanenhancedapproachtotheHollywoodPalladiumbuilding.TheProjectwouldreplaceanexisting,fencedparkinglotwiththreecourtyardsfacingSunsetBoulevard,ArgyleAvenueandElCentroAvenuethatwouldopentheSitetopedestrianswithpedestrianmovementthroughtheProjectSite.Thecourtyardsandpedestrianpathswouldincludesuchfeaturesasacentralreflectingpoolandplantedarea,seating,acanopyoftrees,withasmallfountainatthestreet,andawallplannedtoaccommodateartworkdepictingthehistoryofthePalladium.
f)toprovidesocialservicesorfacilitiesforsocialserviceswhichaddressthecommunity’sneeds.a
f) N/A
516.SignsandBillboardsAllsignsmustconformtoCitysignandbillboardstandardsastheynowexistorarehereafterlegislated.Itisrecognizedthatthecoordinationofsignsandbillboardswithintheprojectareaaffectitsappearanceandimage.Therefore,itistheintentofthisPlanthattheAgencymay,afterpublichearing,adoptadditionalsignandbillboardstandardsforaportionofortheentireProjectAreawhichmaybemorerestrictivethanCitystandardsinordertofurtherthegoalsofthisPlanortheobjectivesofaspecialdistrictasestablishedbythisPlan.
Consistent.AllsignagewouldbeconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheHollywoodSignageSupplementUseDistrict.TheexistingPalladiumsignsandmarqueeswouldberetainedasiconiclandmarksandmajorfeaturesoftheProject.Newsignagewouldincludebuildingidentification,wayfinding,andsecuritymarkings.CommercialsignageforthegroundlevelretailwouldbesimilartootherexistingstreetfrontcommercialsignageintheProjectareaandnewaccentlightingwouldcomplementbuildingarchitecture.Pole‐mountedlightfixtureslocatedon‐siteorwithintheadjacentpublicrights‐of‐waywouldbeshieldedanddirectedtowardstheareastobelitandawayfromadjacentsensitiveuses.
October 2014 4.H. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.H‐4 (Continued)
Consistency of the Project with Applicable Sections
of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCH#2013081022 4.H‐55
Plan Provision Analysis of Project Consistency
5.17.Utilities.TheAgencymayrequirethatallutilitiesbeplacedundergroundwheneverphysicallyandeconomicallyfeasibleasdeterminedbytheAgency.
Consistent.UtilitieswithintheProjectSitewouldbeprovidedunderground.
519.SetbacksParkingfornewdevelopmentsshallnotbepermittedintherequiredresidentialfrontyards.Setbackareasnotusedforaccess,or,whenpermittedparking,shallbelandscapedandmaintainedbytheownerunlessotherwisespecifiedinaParticipationorDevelopmentAgreement.TheAgencymayadoptDesign(s)forDevelopmentwhichestablishsetbackandlandscaperequirementsfornewdevelopmentswithintheProjectArea.
Consistent.TheProject’ssetbackareaswouldbelandscapedforaestheticappearanceandsupportofpedestrianmovements.Projectparkingwouldbeprovidedinsubterraneanandabovegroundstructures.Noparkingwouldbeprovidedinresidentialfrontyards.
a Section 506.2.3 provides additional guidance regarding the process by which in increase in FAR to 6.0:1 would occur subject to review
per the standards sited above.
Source:PCRServicesCorporation,2014
Agreement executed by the CRA Board; and approval by the Planning Commission, or City Council onAppeal.17
Development of the Project as proposed would require a zone change and general plan amendment todesignatebothlotsasRegionalCenterCommercialwithC4zoningpermittingresidentialandhotelusesatheightdistrict“2”,similartotheupdatesapprovedunderthe2012HollywoodCommunityPlan.Withsuchapprovals,theProjectwouldbeconsistentwiththeSite’szoning.
TheproposedchangesinlandusedesignationwouldunifythezoningandGeneralPlandesignationsacrosstheProjectSite,correctanirregularlotdesignationatvariancefromlandusedesignationsonsurroundingproperties,andwouldbettersupportthe1988HollywoodCommunityPlanpoliciesfordevelopmentoftheHollywoodCenterthandothecurrentdesignations. Therefore,suchachangeinzoningdesignationwouldnotbeconsideredtohaveanadverseeffectonthelanduserelationshipsintheProjectvicinity;andsuchazone change would be consistent with the applicable plans. The Project would be consistent with thepermitteduses,heightsandFARandsetbacksassociatedwiththeproposedzoning.
17 As discussed under the regulatory discussion regarding the Hollywood Redevelopment Project/Plan, responsibilities formerly
assignedtotheCommunityRedevelopmentAgencyarecurrentlybeingtransferredtotheCityofLosAngeles.
2.0 Corrections and Additions March 2015
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 2‐36
Onenewbullet/approvalhasbeenaddedtothelistasfollows:
AfindingofProjectConsistencywith theHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanaswellasanynecessaryconsiderationbytheauthorizedsuccessoragencytotheCommunityRedevelopmentAgency;
2. Volume I, Page 4.H‐22. The last paragraph on the page is revised to read as follows:
Construction activitieswould largely be confined to the Project Site. Occasional lLane closures for utilityhook‐ups, truck queuing at adjacent curbsides and/or construction activities would be limited to theconstructionphase,short‐termandconsistentwith thepracticesofconstructionprogramsthroughout theregion.WiththeimplementationofregulatorymeasuresandSitesecurity/screening,constructionactivitieswouldnotprecludenearbyusesfromcarryingtheirdailyactivitiesnoralternearbylanduserelationships.Therefore,constructionimpactsonlandusewouldbelessthansignificant.
3. Volume 1, page 4.H‐48. A new paragraph is added after the first full paragraph on this page as
follows:
Section 506.2.3 also includes three findings or determinations for future amendments to the CommunityPlan to permit development that exceeds an FAR of 4.5:1 up to a 6.0:1 FAR. The threefindings/determinationsareasfollows:
1. TheproposeddevelopmentconformswiththeprovisionsandgoalsoftheRedevelopmentPlanandanyapplicable Design(s) for Development or requirements of the Hollywood Boulevard District orHollywoodCoreTransitionDistrict.
AsdiscussedinthepreviousparagraphsandTable4.H‐4onpage4.H‐49oftheDraftEIR,theProjectisconsistentwiththeprovisionsandgoalsoftheHollywoodRedevelopmentPlan.TheProjectdoesnot lie within the boundaries of Design for Development and it lies outside of the HollywoodBoulevardDistrictandHollywoodCoreTransitionDistrict.
2. Permitting the proposed development serves a public purpose objective such as: the provision ofadditionalopenspace,cultural facilities,publicparking,or therehabilitationofanarchitecturallyorhistoricallysignificantbuilding.
As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, the Project includes the public purpose objective ofpreservingandenhancingtheHollywoodPalladium.TheProject’sfirstobjective,listedonpage2‐9of the Draft EIR, is to “Protect the Hollywood Palladium as a cultural resource, and allowenhancementsincludingrepairsandrestorationcompatiblewithhistoricfeaturesofthePalladium.”ThesecondandthirdProjectobjectivesalsoemphasizetheimportanceofhighlightingthePalladiumthroughtheProject’sdesign:“Developiconic,landmarkbuildingsthatpayshomagetotheHollywoodPalladium, with building designs that visually frame the Palladium and building heights that areconsistent with and add variation to the existing high‐rise Hollywood skyline;” and “Design theProject’s buildings to maintain the Palladium as the visual focus on Sunset Boulevard throughsetbacks,andprovideavisualbufferandopenspacebetweenthenewProject’snewbuildingsandthePalladium.”
March 2015 2.0 Corrections and Additions
CityofLosAngeles PalladiumResidencesSCHNo.2013081022 2‐37
TheProjectalso includesaproposedzoningcondition that requires theApplicant tonominate thePalladiumasaHistoric‐CulturalMonumentinaccordancewiththeCity’sCulturalHeritageOrdinancepriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermitfortheProject.Finally,theProjectproposestoimplementaPalladium Preservation and Enhancement Plan as described in PDF‐HIST‐1 and a HistoricInterpretiveExhibitforthePalladiumasdescribedinPDF‐HIST‐2.
3. Anyadverseenvironmentaleffectsespeciallyimpactsuponthetransportationandcirculationsystemoftheareacausedbyproposeddevelopmentshallbemitigatedorareoverriddenbyothersocial,economicorphysicalconsiderations,andstatementsoffindingsaremade.
TheDraftEIRhasevaluatedtheProject’simpactsonthetransportationandcirculationsystem.Aftermitigation,underOption1therewouldbesignificantandunavoidableimpactsatthreeintersectionswhen measured against both the existing and future baseline conditions. Under Option 2, therewould be significant and unavoidable impacts at four intersections when measured against theexisting baseline conditions and five intersections when measured against the future baselineconditions.
Theanalysisalsoidentifiedasignificantimpactononeneighborhoodstreetsegmentwhenmeasuredagainstexistingbaseline conditions, anddue to the largenumberof relatedprojects, a cumulativesignificantconstructiontrafficimpactwhenconsideredagainstfuturebaselineconditions.TheDraftEIR identified mitigation measures that would substantially reduce neighborhood street segmentimpacts as well as construction traffic impacts, but these impacts would remain significant andunavoidable.
TheDraftEIRalsoevaluatedProject impactsof21additionalenvironmentaltopicsconsistentwiththe CEQA Guidelines. The analysis identified potentially significant and unavoidable impactsregarding air quality and noise during construction. Even with the implementation of therecommendedmitigationmeasures, the Projectwould, on a temporary basis, exceed the SCAQMDregionalsignificancethresholdsforNOx,duringaonetotwodayperiodwhenacontinuousconcretepouring would be performed. Further, even though noise barriers would be constructed asmitigationtoreduceconstructionnoiselevels,attimesofmaximumconstructionactivitynoiselevelsmayexceedthesignificancethresholds.
Thus, the EIR has fully analyzed the Project’s potentially significant impacts, identified feasiblemitigation measures, and identified certain areas where impacts would remain significant andunavoidable.ProjectapprovalwouldrequireFindingsandaStatementofOverridingConsiderationspursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which would satisfy the requirements of thisHollywoodRedevelopmentPlanprovisionaswell.
D‐2. Letter from CRA/LA Regarding Floor Area Ratio ‐ Regional Center Commercial Designation Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.