Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 07a - Mixed-Use Development at 5-19 W. Huntington Dr. and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Ave. DATE: March 18, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director By: Melissa Chipres, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE ARCADIA TOWN CENTER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 181 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 13,130 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, WHICH INCLUDES A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, MINOR USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW, AND CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AT 5-19 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 25-75 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE CEQA: Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 7618 denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission Approval SUMMARY The Appellant, Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), has filed an appeal to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of a new five-story mixed-use development known as the “Arcadia Town Center,” located at 5-19 W. Huntington Drive and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Avenue. The Arcadia Town Center includes 181 residential units, 13,130 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and 378 parking spaces (one level of subterranean parking and one level of ground level parking). The request also includes incidental outdoor dining for the restaurant uses on the ground level. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Arcadia Town Center mixed-use development; and adopt Resolution No. 7618 (refer to Attachment No. 1), adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and approving Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19-11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21-02 (83325), Site Plan & Design Review No. ADR 19-09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22-25, subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures listed in this staff report. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 2 of 31 BACKGROUND The project site is comprised of five legal lots totaling 2.27 acres that span the entire block from Huntington Drive to Morlan Place, extending along Santa Anita Avenue (refer to Figure No. 1 below). Currently, the site includes 11 commercial buildings and surface parking on each legal lot. All the commercial buildings are currently vacant, except for Monarch Donuts. The property is bordered to the north by a Mercedes Benz dealership (Mercedes Benz of Arcadia), to the east by commercial establishments (Denny's restaurant and a dermatologist office), and to the west by the Arcadia Elks Lodge. To the south, just across Huntington Drive, is Arcadia County Park. Figure 1: Site Plan Planning for the Arcadia Town Center has been underway since 2019, with several key revisions made throughout the process. A major change occurred with the addition of the corner parcel at 5 W. Huntington Drive - the former Jiffy Lube located at the intersection of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The Applicant temporarily paused the project until acquiring the property in 2021, as its inclusion was essential for a cohesive and visually integrated design along both frontages. Following the acquisition, the project was redesigned to seamlessly incorporate the corner parcel, enhancing both functionality and aesthetics. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 3 of 31 The site is currently zoned Downtown Mixed Use (“DMU”) and has a corresponding Downtown Mixed Use designation in the General Plan. Previously, the site had a combination of DMU and Central Business District (“CBD”) zoning and General Plan land use designation, with a Downtown Overlay. In February 2024, both the zoning and General Plan land use designation were updated to ensure consistency across the entire site as part of the Housing Element Update to the General Plan, enabling the site to better accommodate housing development throughout the project. On January 14, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the project with a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Arvizu absent. Further details of the Planning Commission’s discussion are provided later in this staff report. A full project description, along with the Planning Commission Staff Report and approved Minutes, can be found in Attachment No. 4. On January 27, 2025, the Appellant, Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal within the prescribed 10-day appeal period – refer to Appeal letter under Attachment No. 2. SAFER is an organization associated with the Southern California District Council of Laborers, a chartered council of the Laborers International Union of North America (“LIUNA”). They previously submitted the same letter on December 20, 2024, addressing concerns about biological resources, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions during the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IS/MND public review period (November 21, 2024, through December 20, 2024), for which the City provided written responses for consideration by Planning Commission. These documents can also be found under Attachment No. 2. The Notice of Determination (“NOD”) for the Arcadia Town Center was filed at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk on January 17, 2025, and posted at the State Clearinghouse on January 18, 2025. If the City Council approves the project, a new NOD will need to be filed. DISCUSSION The Arcadia Town Center project proposes the construction of a new five-story building with a contemporary design, featuring four floors of residential units (181 condominiums) above 13,130 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. The development will include parking for residents, guests, and customers, with a subterranean parking level dedicated to residents. Additionally, the project plans for seven outdoor dining areas adjacent to the commercial spaces, facing Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The commercial spaces will be oriented toward the streets and connected to public plazas and residential unit lobbies to create an active, vibrant environment. The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) to subdivide the building’s airspace for condominium purposes and consolidate five existing lots into a single parcel – Refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Architectural Plans and TTM. The development will comply with Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 4 of 31 all relevant zoning requirements, including height limits, density, floor area ratio, setbacks, and will align with the City’s design guidelines. The proposed residential condominium units will be sold separately for ownership, with 41 one-bedroom units, 108 two-bedroom units, and 32 three-bedroom units. Renderings from the two intersections along Santa Anita Avenue are provided below as Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2: Corner View of Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive Figure 3: Corner view of Morlan Place and Santa Anita Avenue For a full review of the project, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report, included as Attachment No. 4. As mentioned above, the project meets all relevant development standards and design guidelines. Parking, circulation, access and egress, and traffic impacts have all been evaluated and the project has met all requirements. One unique aspect of the project related to utilities is the need for sewer upsizing. The site is served by an eight-inch sewer line on Santa Anita Avenue and a 10-inch sewer line on Morlan Place, both flowing into an 18-inch Los Angeles County Sanitation District (“LACSD”) trunk line at Camino Real Avenue and 1st Avenue. To accommodate growth Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 5 of 31 in the Santa Anita corridor, including this and other planned projects, the City is replacing approximately 1.3 miles of sewer line on Santa Anita Avenue with a 12-inch pipeline. This sewer upsizing is part of a capital improvement project to handle increased wastewater generation and is expected to be completed by the end of the 2026-27 Fiscal Year. As a condition of approval, the Arcadia Town Center Applicant will contribute 9% of the total cost of the sewer upsizing, as the project will use the new pipeline. The sewer upsizing must be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the Arcadia Town Center. While essential for the project, the upsizing is being carried out by the City and is not part of the project’s direct scope, as noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). The Appeal The Appellant’s concerns focus on how the project impacts the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Specifically, the appeal raises issues related to air quality (including indoor air quality) and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, biological resources, and noise. The appeal letter challenges the adequacy of the environmental analyses conducted under CEQA and expresses concerns about the potential health risks associated with the indoor air quality of the proposed building. It is important to note that both the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), which oversees air quality and Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), which handles biological resources, received the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“NOI”) for the project. Neither agency provided comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), which suggests they did not have concerns about the methodology or assumptions used in the environmental review. This information was presented to the Planning Commission. The three issues raised by the Appellant are outlined below—see Attachment No. 2 for the Appellant’s letter. These issues are addressed directly in the Response to Comments (“RTC”) for the IS/MND, prepared by the environmental firm Psomas - see Attachment No. 5. 1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Appellant’s letter of appeal, including information from the environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), states that the Arcadia Town Center project will negatively affect air quality due to several issues with the MND’s air quality analysis. Specifically, SWAPE contends that: 1. The MND relies on an inadequate air quality analysis. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 6 of 31 2. The Project will cause significant health risks related to air pollutants, which the MND fails to address adequately. 3. The MND does not fully evaluate the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions impacts. 4. The MND lacks all feasible mitigation measures to address the Project’s air quality impacts. SWAPE also alleged that the MND’s air quality technical reports in Appendix A were incomplete. Specifically, the CalEEMod output files provided in the MND included land use inputs but omitted key qualitative outputs regarding both construction and operational emissions, and did not detail changes to the model’s default values. Without access to this data, SWAPE was unable to verify the significance or accuracy of the MND’s air quality modeling and recommends that an EIR be prepared to disclose the complete CalEEMod output files to comply with CEQA’s formal guidelines. The Appellant is correct in noting that CalEEMod provides default model inputs commonly used across the industry, which can be adjusted if more accurate, project-specific data is available. The default inputs were developed based on general assumptions, which may not fully represent every project. Therefore, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) permits modifications to these inputs when more representative data is available. For the Arcadia Town Center project, air quality and GHG emissions modeling was based on detailed, project-specific information, which was gathered through a specialized data needs form and extensive coordination with the Applicant. Where appropriate, the CalEEMod inputs were adjusted to ensure the model accurately reflected the project’s conditions, following industry standard practices. Upon reviewing the IS/MND’s Appendix A files in response to this comment, Psomas discovered that some sections of the CalEEMod.PDF output for the proposed conditions did not populate with modeled data. This issue was caused by a software glitch and, although it had not been observed before or since, the data for existing conditions was fully populated. The sections that did not populate for the proposed conditions are as follows: • Section 2: Emissions Summary • Section 3: Construction Emissions Details • Section 4: Operations Emissions Details • Section 5: Activity Data • Section 8: User Changes to Default Data Despite this issue, all relevant inputs and quantitative outputs were included in the body of the IS/MND. The Appellant’s comment that SWAPE could not verify the accuracy of the air quality modeling due to the missing data is unsubstantiated. The absence of this data does not imply that the air quality and GHG analyses in the MND are necessarily inaccurate. Furthermore, the requirement for an EIR under CEQA arises only when a Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 7 of 31 project may have significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Therefore, the call for disclosure of the complete CalEEMod output files is irrelevant to the determination of the appropriate CEQA documentation. It is also important to note that the provision of CalEEMod output files is not a CEQA or State CEQA Guidelines requirement; it is merely standard industry practice. Additionally, the consulting firm Urban Crossroads further evaluated the potential health risks to sensitive receptors (i.e., nearby residents) from the project. Specifically, they assessed the health risks associated with exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”), including diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which would be generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks and construction equipment during project construction. The health risk assessment concluded that the project would not produce significant TAC emissions during its long-term operation, meaning that an operational health risk assessment (“HRA”) is not required. 2. Biological Resources The Appellant states the Arcadia Town Center project will negatively impact biological resources due to several deficiencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). Specifically, they claim that the MND: 1. Fails to account for the full diversity of species present on the project site, including species with special status. 2. Inadequately analyzes the project's adverse impacts on wildlife. 3. Proposes insufficient mitigation measures to reduce biological impacts. However, these claims are not supported by substantial evidence. The wildlife species identified in the MND align with those observed during the site survey conducted by the project consultant, Psomas, and with species expected to occur in or around the project site. The Appellant does not identify any specific deficiencies in the IS/MND under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or State CEQA Guidelines. Instead, the Appellant relies on a mathematical regression model as an "analytical bridge" to estimate species diversity onsite. This model, however, was developed based on years of surveys conducted in the 41,300-acre Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, a predominantly undeveloped grassland region in central California. Applying this model— designed for a large, open space with native vegetation—to the 2.27-acre, fully developed urban site is both inappropriate and misleading. The Arcadia Town Center site is an urban infill redevelopment area, currently occupied by existing land uses with minimal pervious surfaces and sparse ornamental vegetation. Given its location at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Arcadia, it lacks essential habitat components needed to support native wildlife, such as nesting areas, Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 8 of 31 riparian resources, or diverse plant life for foraging. Urban settings do not support the same level of wildlife diversity as natural habitats. Because the Appellant’s analysis fails to account for these fundamental differences in environmental settings, their conclusions are inaccurate. As a result, no revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. 3. Noise The Appellant states the Arcadia Town Center project will cause significant noise and vibration impacts due to several deficiencies in the MND’s analysis. Specifically, they claim: 1. The MND’s baseline noise data is inadequate. 2. The project will generate potentially significant construction noise. 3. The MND’s operational noise analysis is insufficient. Although the Appellant’s expert consultant believes there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project will cause significant noise and vibration impacts, the analysis conducted in the IS/MND indicates that, with mitigation measure (“MM”) NOI- 1, the impacts related to noise and vibration would be less than significant. Therefore, no changes to the IS/MND are warranted, based on the analysis described below. A short-term noise measurement was conducted at the project site boundaries to establish existing daytime ambient noise levels near land uses adjacent to the project. These measurements were taken during the times when project construction is expected to occur, and they reflect the noise generated by traffic on nearby roadways, including Santa Anita Avenue, Huntington Drive, and Santa Clara Street. Since traffic noise is the primary source of existing ambient noise, the daytime noise levels at locations adjacent to these roads are expected to remain fairly consistent throughout the day. Nighttime noise measurements were not considered necessary, as project construction would be limited to daytime hours. Two measurement locations, to the east and south of the project, are subject to the same traffic noise levels from Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive as nearby Arcadia County Park and residential areas on South Santa Anita Avenue. Because traffic on Santa Clara Street is lower than on the major nearby roads, residential areas along its western side would experience lower noise levels. However, private outdoor areas of these residences would still be exposed to traffic noise from Santa Clara Street. These residences would be shielded from project construction noise by intervening buildings, such as the Mercedes Benz dealership and the Arcadia Elks Lodge. Since the main source of operational noise is expected to be traffic generated by the project, Psomas maintains that 24-hour noise measurements were unnecessary. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 9 of 31 Operational noise impacts were evaluated using Community Noise Equivalent Levels (“CNELs”) to compare the existing environment with potential scenarios, a future without- project and a future with-project scenarios. Additional 24-hour noise measurements would not change the results of the IS/MND analysis. Upon review, all concerns raised by the Appellant were found to be unsupported. The IS/MND thoroughly addressed the potential environmental impacts and no additional mitigation measures were deemed necessary. Consequently, the Planning Commission approved the project, concluding that it met all environmental standards and would bring significant benefits to the area (described further in the “Planning Commission” section below). All assertions made by the Appellant were found to be incorrect and unsupported, and the IS/MND effectively reviewed and discussed all potential environmental impacts, with no new mitigation measures warranted. FINDINGS Minor Use Permit Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Minor Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following findings can be satisfied. In this case, the Minor Use Permit being requested is for a mixed-use development in a downtown zone and for incidental outdoor dining. 1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the proposed mixed-use development and incidental outdoor dining would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Downtown Mixed Use, which allows a residential density of 80 units per acre and a commercial floor area ratio of 1.0. This land use designation allows mixed-use developments and strongly encourages a pedestrian-oriented environment with a complementary mix of commercial and residential uses. The residential units will provide vitality to the area and the proposed commercial uses and restaurants with outdoor dining will help generate increased activity in Downtown Arcadia and along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, and it will continue to convey a commercial appearance along the street. The proposed Arcadia Town Center complies with all the development standards within the DMU Zone, including but not limited to, setbacks, height, open space, density, and parking. As such, the project meets the Development and Municipal Code requirements. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the proposed project, which determined that the project, with mitigation measures, will have less-than- Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 10 of 31 significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed mixed-use development and outdoor dining will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element • Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.8: Encourage development of types that support transit and other alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling and walking. • Policy LU-4.2: Encourage residential development that enhances the visual character, quality, and uniqueness of the City’s neighborhoods and districts. • Policy LU-4.3: Require the provision of adequate private and common open space for residential units. Require sufficient on-site recreational facilities to meet the daily needs of residents, if possible, commensurate with the size of the development. • Policy LU-6.4: Encourage design approaches that create a cohesive, vibrant look and that minimize the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors for new or redeveloped uses. • Policy LU-6.5: Where mixed use is permitted, promote commercial uses that are complementary to adjacent residential uses. 2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (“DMU”) Zone and will be 2.19 acres in size after the dedication to the City for public right-of-way improvements. The site is located within the City’s Downtown area and is bounded by Mercedes Benz of Arcadia to the north across Morlan Place, Denny’s restaurant and other commercial businesses to the east across Santa Anita Avenue, the Arcadia Elks Lodge and other commercial uses to the west, and the Arcadia County Park to the south. The proposed mixed-use development will provide ground-floor commercial uses that will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The project will also provide a residential use that will bring an increase to the residential population in the Downtown area that will support the commercial uses in the area. Additionally, outdoor dining will provide added curb appeal to the Arcadia Town Center and activate the commercial area around the development. As such, the Arcadia Town Center meets the intent of the City’s General Plan vision of the of the DMU Zone, which is to encourage a mix of residential and commercial uses near public transit. Therefore, the proposed development will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 11 of 31 3. The site is physically suitable in terms of: a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, site improvements, loading, and parking. Facts to Support This Finding: The project site will be 2.19 acres in size and can physically accommodate the proposed mixed-use development and outdoor dining. The residential component of the project will provide a density of approximately 79.7 units per acre, which is in compliance with the maximum density for the DMU Zone. The commercial component of the project will have a floor area ratio (“FAR”) far below the maximum allowable FAR of 1.0. All outdoor dining areas have been designed to be located on private property and will not interfere with pedestrian access on or around the site. Additionally, the amount of on-site parking that will be provided for the development meets the minimum required by the Development Code and the project is in close proximity to the Metro A Line Station. Therefore, the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed mixed-use development. b. Streets and highways adequate to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access. Facts to Support This Finding: The project site is located on the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. These streets are designed to be adequate in width and pavement type to carry emergency vehicles and traffic generated by the proposed uses on the site. c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the application and determined that there will be no impacts to public protection services. As part of the environmental review process, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) determined that Fire and Police protection services would not be impacted. The need for new or altered Fire or Police services is usually associated with substantial population growth. Arcadia Town Center would provide approximately 0.82% of the projected population of 62,200 persons by 2045, as projected by the Southern California Association of Governments. This population growth is not considered substantial enough to require new facilities to provide public protection services. To the extent that there will be any direct impact to fire protection services, this development would be subject to paying its fair share through the City’s Fire Impact Fee established for the Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 12 of 31 Downtown. Therefore, no impacts to public protection services are anticipated. d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: As part of the development, new utility connections, including connections for potable water and storm drainage, will be required. Implementation of best management practices by the Applicant during construction and operation would ensure impacts to water quality do not occur. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities through interconnection with existing utilities within City right-of-way abutting the site. The development will require a fair-share payment for upsizing of a sewer line, which is anticipated to be built by the City. 4. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or welfare of the surrounding properties. The project will be compatible with the surrounding commercial uses in the general area. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Arcadia Town Center analyzed all the potential impacts and all the project impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant level, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, no impacts to the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located are anticipated. Tentative Tract Map Section 9105.03.060(A) of the Development Code requires that for a Tentative Tract Map to be granted, it must be found that all of the following findings can be satisfied: 1. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Subdivisions Division of the Development Code. Facts in Support of the Finding: Approval of the Arcadia Town Center with a tentative tract map to merge five lots together as one parcel and then subdivide the airspace for condominium purposes is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation. The land use designation is intended to accommodate Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 13 of 31 mixed-use development with a residential density of up to 80 units per acre, and a floor area ratio of 1.0. The Arcadia Town Center is located in the Downtown area and is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. The site is physically suitable for this type of development, and the approval of the architectural design for the building is compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development. Facts in Support of the Finding: The subject site will measure approximately 2.19 acres in size and is located within the Downtown Mixed Use (“DMU”) Zone. The DMU Zone has a maximum residential density of 80 units per acre, and a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 for non-residential uses. The Arcadia Town Center proposes a residential density of 79.7, and a commercial FAR of 0.13. Therefore, the development is in compliance with the Development Code and the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. In addition, there are no physical impediments to the development of this site for residential condominiums. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative tract map involves merging five lots into a single parcel and subdividing the air space for the mixed- use development. This is considered a minor subdivision on an infill site within an urbanized area. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) have assessed the potential biological impacts of the project on the natural environment and determined that no significant effects would occur. As a result, the project will not cause substantial environmental harm or harm to fish, wildlife, or their habitats. 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision is to merge five lots together as one parcel and subdivide the air space of the proposed mixed-use development. The construction of the Arcadia Town Center will be done in compliance with Building and Fire Codes and all other applicable regulations. The proposed density will be below the maximum allowed by the DMU Zone and the City’s existing infrastructure will adequately serve the new development. In addition, the Project meets all health and safety requirements and will not cause any public health or safety problems. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 14 of 31 property within the proposed subdivision (This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision). Facts in Support of the Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will not impose on any public easements and will provide dedications for public sidewalk access to the City along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive. Therefore, no conflicts for the use of any easements are expected. 6. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements specified by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Arcadia Public Works Services Department determined that the City’s infrastructure will adequately serve the Arcadia Town Center. The City is currently in the process of upsizing an existing sewer line along Santa Anita Avenue that serves the project for which the Applicant will pay a fair share cost to help fund the project. Upon completion, the sewer line will adequately serve the project. Additionally, the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will be satisfied. 7. The proposed design and site improvements of the subdivision conform to the regulations of the Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, complies with all regulations within the Development Code and all other applicable regulations. Site Plan & Design Review Section 9107.19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that the following findings must be met for the approval of the design. 1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulations in the Development Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is in compliance with all the development standards required in the DMU and Downtown Overlay Zone such as FAR, maximum height, setbacks, and parking. Therefore, the project meets the intent of this finding. 2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 15 of 31 Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will feature a contemporary architectural style, incorporating a diverse color palette and high- quality exterior materials. This design will establish a prominent focal point at one of the City’s major intersections, complementing the existing modern buildings along Santa Anita Avenue, while contributing to a vibrant atmosphere in the Downtown area. The design also includes several outdoor plazas on the ground floor, enhancing the commercial experience by encouraging walkability and activating public spaces. Additionally, two corner features will serve as visually striking focal points, drawing attention and enhancing the building’s overall aesthetic appeal. These distinctive elements will create an inviting environment, making the Arcadia Town Center a standout addition to the area. As a result, the proposed design is in full alignment with the City’s Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments. Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is compatible with adjacent sites such as the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia building (101 N. Santa Anita Avenue), the IMS Executive Suites building (150 N. Santa Anita Avenue), and the approved Alexan project regarding scale, design, and creating a Downtown feel to the area along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive. The design of the Arcadia Town Center thoughtfully incorporates the ideas within the City’s Center Design Plan, which promotes increased pedestrian activity, enhances street interaction, and building setbacks that respect the overall scale and mass. To align with these principles, the Arcadia Town Center is setback from Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue, creating inviting public spaces and dining areas for residents and visitors. As a result, the Arcadia Town Center seamlessly integrates with the surrounding properties and developments as this area is in transition to allow for more mixed-use development. 4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping. Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center features a well- planned site layout, with two driveway access points designed to ensure smooth traffic flow within the parking garage. Both driveway access and circulation have been thoroughly reviewed by the City Engineer and are included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to confirm their adequacy for servicing the development. The required parking is provided across two levels, minimizing dead-end drive aisles to enhance circulation throughout the site. Therefore, the site will be adequate in terms of parking and circulation. 5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for compliance with the Development Code and all other applicable City regulations and policies, the Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 16 of 31 General Plan and any appliable specific plan, the Design Guidelines, policies and standards, and efficient site and layout design. Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will fully comply with all applicable standards, the General Plan, and relevant design guidelines, contributing positively to the community’s vision for Downtown Arcadia. Located within the DMU Zone, the project allows for a residential density of up to 80 units per acre and a building height of up to 60 feet. The proposed mass, scale, and design adhere to the City’s Design Guidelines and City Center Design Plan, ensuring compatibility with existing developments in the Downtown area. The development will also support the General Plan’s objectives by engaging the streetscape with inviting commercial storefronts and public plazas at the ground level. Additionally, the design incorporates adequate articulation, breaking up the building mass into distinct segments along each street frontage by positioning public plazas and stepping back the upper floors. As a result, the design of the proposed mixed-use development aligns with the City’s Design Guidelines, City Center Design Plan, and all other applicable standards. In terms of design, the Arcadia Town Center also complies with the City Center Design Plan, which promotes pedestrian activity, street interaction, and buildings that step back to respect the character of existing single-story developments in Downtown Arcadia. The Arcadia Town Center has been thoughtfully designed to incorporate public spaces and dining areas for both residents and visitors, with generous setbacks from the street to create inviting outdoor areas. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission reviewed this project at its meeting on January 14, 2025, and agreed that the location was well-suited for a mixed-use development, given its proximity to the Metro station. They also confirmed that the project met all minimum requirements, including parking, and would enhance the vibrancy of the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive. The Appellant’s representative, Chase Preciado, attended the meeting on behalf of Lozeau Drury LLP and spoke on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”). Mr. Preciado expressed concerns regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and noted that his team had submitted a letter during the MND’s comment period. A response to SAFER’s letter was provided to the Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 17 of 31 Commissioners as part of the agenda packet. Ms. Neary, from the Psomas Environmental firm, also spoke at the meeting, explaining to the Planning Commission why the project did not warrant an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and how all identified impacts were considered less than significant. There were no additional public speakers and no comments from the surrounding residents or businesses other than letters of support from the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association and California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) – refer to Attachment No. 4. The Planning Commission approved the project with a unanimous 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Arvizu absent. They confirmed that all applicable findings supported the project's approval. The Commission also determined that the Appellant's comments did not change the environmental determination. The MND concludes that the project will have less-than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, and this conclusion remains unchanged. A full description of the project and the approved Planning Commission minutes can be found in Attachment No. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared for the Arcadia Town Center (see Attachment No. 5). The IS/MND concluded that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts in the areas of Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A thorough review is provided in the Initial Study and the mitigation measures are incorporated as Conditions of Approval (Nos. 53-59) for the project. To ensure compliance with these measures, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) will be implemented. FISCAL IMPACT While a direct estimate of the impact is not available, the Project will have a positive revenue impact in that additional property taxes will be collected due to the substantial increase in appraised value for the subject site. The Project will also generate User Fees, Park Impact Fees, Transportation Impact Fees, and building permit revenue. Following construction, a modest increase in sales taxes will be expected as a result of the commercial component of the Project. Ancillary fiscal benefit will also result from the spending patterns of new residents in Downtown Arcadia, which will have both private and public fiscal benefits. It is not known if the revenue enhancements will fully offset the demand for services from the residents and businesses on the site; however, multifamily units of the type proposed generally do not have a high demand for public services. The City will upgrade the sewer system to meet increased demand. The Applicant is required to contribute 9% of the total cost for the Santa Anita Avenue sewer upsizing, which involves replacing the sewer line between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 18 of 31 Avenue with a 12-inch diameter line. The sewer upsizing project will be implemented in three phases as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Any future projects along this corridor will also be required to contribute their fair share toward this improvement. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 7618 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the Arcadia Town Center Mixed- Use Development with 181 residential units and 13,130 square feet of commercial space, which includes a Tentative Tract Map, Minor Use Permit, Site Plan & Design Review, and Certificate of Demolition at 5-19 W. Huntington Drive and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Avenue, subject to the following conditions of approval and mitigation measures. 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and recommended for approval to the City Council for Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19-11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21-02 (83325), Site Plan & Design Review No. ADR 19-09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22-25, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. Any minor changes to the development, including the outdoor dining area, may be approved administratively by the Deputy Development Services Director. 2. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a haul route map and staging plan to Planning Services prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. This shall be determined by the City Engineer and/or Public Works Services Director during construction and up until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. A comprehensive landscaping plan consistent with the conceptual landscape plan, approved as part of the project, must be submitted to Building Services for plan check and must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, subject to the approval of the Deputy Development Services Director or their designee. 5. Grading plans shall be submitted to Building Services. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant must submit a parking management plan to the Planning Division outlining the allocation of the Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 19 of 31 parking for the residential units. This Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Deputy Development Services Director, or their designee. 7. The project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: • California Building Code • California Electrical Code • California Mechanical Code • California Plumbing Code • California Energy Code • California Fire Code • California Green Building Standards Code • California Existing Building Code • Arcadia Municipal Code 8. The project shall comply with Chapter 35A Multiple Family Construction Standards in Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.20. 9. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, a dedication along the right-of-way of Santa Anita Avenue shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate a 10-foot parkway for sidewalk and utility purposes, and at the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place to provide a corner cut-off for a standard accessible access ramp. 10. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, a dedication of 1’-6” along the right-of-way of Huntington Drive shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate a 13’-6” wide parkway for sidewalk and utility purposes. 11. All above ground utilities serving the site shall be removed, including all utility poles along property boundaries, and all new utility services shall be placed underground. 12. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map or the issuance of a demolition permit, whichever comes first, the Property Owner/Applicant shall either construct or post security for all public improvements shown on the Tentative Tract Map No. 83325, and the following item(s): • Remove and replace existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter along all property frontages, from property line to property line, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Remove and replace all driveway approaches per City standard plan. • Coordinate with Public Works Services on the protection or replacement of street trees. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 20 of 31 13. A 16” welded steel water main with 56 PSI static pressure is available on Huntington Drive and a 6” cast iron water main with 53 PSI static pressure is available on Morlan Place. Both mains are available for domestic water and/or fire service. The Applicant/Property Owner shall provide calculations to determine the maximum domestic demand, maximum commercial demand, and maximum fire demand in order to verify the required sizes of water services. 14. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide separate water services and meters for each separate structure as well as designated services for specific residential, commercial, and irrigation uses. Domestic water service for residential condominiums shall be provided by a common master meter, with an approved reduced pressure backflow device for meter services protection. 15. An approved back flow prevention device shall be installed for commercial use. 16. In the event that fire suppression is common to the complex, a separate fire service with Double Check Detector Assembly (“DCDA”) shall be required as directed by the Fire Marshal. Fire protection requirements shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department and shall be conformed to the Arcadia Standard Plan. All fire services shall be isolated from domestic water services with approved back flow prevention devices. 17. A Water Meter Clearance Application shall be submitted to the Public Works Services Department prior to final plan check approval. 18. New water service installations shall be installed by the Applicant/Property Owner. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be carried out by the Applicant/Property Owner, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division specifications. 19. The Property Owner/Applicant shall utilize existing sewer laterals, if possible. If any drainage fixture is lower than the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover, an approved type of backwater valve is required to be installed behind the property line. 20. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the project, the Applicant/Property Owner shall make a fair share contribution to the sewer line upsizing project along Santa Anita Avenue. This fair share payment is memorialized as Mitigation Measure UTL-1. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 21 of 31 21. The Property Owner/Applicant shall plant 36-inch box trees in tree wells, with irrigation on Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place. Locations of the tree wells and species of trees are to be determined by the Public Works Services Inspector. 22. The Property Owner/Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) with the State Water Resources Control Board for a General Construction NPDES Permit, due to the proposed project exceeding one acre of disturbed land. The NOI must include items such as the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, applicable fees, and other required documentation. The City will not approve any grading plans until a Waste Discharger Identification number has been issued by the State. 23. The proposed project is subject to low impact development (“LID”) requirements. The Property Owner/Applicant shall integrate LID strategies into the site design. These strategies include using infiltration trenches, bioretention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious concrete/paver, etc. 24. Trash/recycling bins shall be configured to provide easy access for trash collection services. There should be 1-foot clearance around the trash bins/recycling bins and all bins/carts shall meet the specifications of the Public Works Services Department. At a minimum, trash enclosure areas should accommodate three containers: a 3-yard bin for trash, 3-yard bin for recycling, and 69/96 gallon sized carts for organics recycling. The roof clearance for the trash enclosure must be at least 10 feet high. 25. All building areas shall be fully fire-sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. The sprinkler systems serving commercial areas and residential areas shall be segregated. The fire sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station. Notification appliances shall be provided in all common areas. Visual appliances shall be provided in any residential units classified as being accessible. 26. Class I standpipes shall be provided on all floors inside stairwells and shall extend to the roof. Additional standpipes may be required for the building interior. 27. Knox boxes shall be provided for all lobby areas. Any automatic gates used in parking areas shall be equipped with a Knox switch. 28. Minimum 2A:10BC fire extinguishers shall be provided in all common areas. A maximum travel distance of 75 feet shall be provided to fire extinguishers. 29. A minimum of one Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) elevator shall be required. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 22 of 31 30. An Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System shall be provided. 31. The minimum required fire flow for the site shall be 1,500 GPM at 20 PSI. 32. All required exit stairwells shall be designed in an approved manner to allow the segregation of the commercial floors from the residential floors. 33. Three new public fire hydrants shall be provided. One hydrant shall be provided on the west side of the street frontage on Huntington Drive. Two fire hydrants shall be provided on the street frontage of Santa Anita Avenue at approved locations. 34. The Property Owner/Applicant shall prepare a Lighting Plan that provides the type and location of proposed exterior lighting and signage, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Development Services Department. All new lighting will be shielded and down-cast, such that the light is not cast onto adjacent properties or visible from above, and all new lighting shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with the standards codified in Section 9103.01 of the City of Arcadia Development Code. 35. The Project shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) rules and permitting requirements, including but not limited to: • SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance. Compliance with this rule will reduce short-term particulate pollutant emissions. • SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a Project will not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” • SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, which limits the volatile organic content (“VOC”) of architectural coatings used for the Project. 36. Prior to approval of grading plans, the Development Services Department shall verify that the following note is included on the contractor specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”): “To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the Project site should be cleared between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation clearing occurs during the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, the vegetation Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 23 of 31 clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities shall be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest is abandoned.” 37. As required by the City’s Comprehensive Tree Management Program, the Property Owner/Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for the removal and planting of street trees associated with the Project. The Property Owner/Applicant will abide by the standards set forth in the permit, as well as standards contained in the Comprehensive Tree Management Program and other applicable sections of the Arcadia Development and Municipal Codes. 38. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit the Project’s landscape plans, which will include the proposed locations and species of replacement street trees, to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for review. Street tree species will consist of those set forth in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan. 39. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and the Los Angeles County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”). The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (“MLD”), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible, it may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). 40. The Project shall be consistent with the Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the mandatory requirements of the CALGreen Code. Construction activities shall comply with idling requirements and maintenance requirements for on- and off- road vehicles. 41. Geotechnical design considerations for Project implementation are governed by the Arcadia Building Code, as set forth in Article VIII of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which incorporates by reference the California Building Code (“CBC”), including Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 24 of 31 the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and Existing Building Codes (CBSC 2022). Future buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with applicable requirements of the CBC, the Arcadia Municipal Code, and any applicable building and seismic codes in effect at the time the grading plans are approved. 42. Activities at the Project site shall comply with existing Federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport to prevent Project-related risks to public health and safety. All on-site generated waste that meets hazardous waste criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 22), and in a manner to the satisfaction of the local Certified Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”), as applicable. Any hazardous materials removed from the Project site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and Title 40, Section 263 (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) standards; and Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) standards. 43. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), which will require the development and implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). 44. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, including the most current edition of the California Fire Code and the Arcadia Municipal and Development Codes, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants; fire access; water availability; and other similar requirements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Arcadia Development Services Department and the Arcadia Fire Department shall verify compliance with applicable codes and that appropriate fire safety measures are included in the Project design. All such codes and measures shall be implemented prior to occupancy. 45. In accordance with the City’s Ordinance 7492, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall remit the most current Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fee to the City. All money collected as fees imposed shall be used against the capital and infrastructure costs required to maintain acceptable life safety and fire protection in the City. The Development Services Department shall confirm compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 25 of 31 46. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall pay new development fees to the Arcadia Unified School District (“AUSD”) pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. As an option for the payment of developer fees, AUSD and the Property Owner/Applicant can enter into a facility and funding agreement, if approved by both parties. Evidence that agreements have been executed shall be submitted to the Development Services Department, or fees shall be paid with each building permit. 47. In accordance with the City’s Ordinance 2237 and Section 9105.15 of the City’s Development Code, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall remit the most current Park Facilities Impact Fee and/or other negotiated park fees to the City. All money collected as fees imposed shall be deposited in the Park Facilities Impact Fee Program and shall be used for the acquisition, development, and improvement of public parks and recreational facilities in the City, as proposed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Development Services Department shall confirm compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit. 48. The Property Owner/Applicant shall contribute, on a cost-share basis, to the City’s traffic mitigation system for any intersections affected by the Project, as defined in the approved Traffic Impact Study (Traffic Impact Study for the Arcadia Town Center Project, Psomas, September 2024). 49. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and restrictions set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code, including Section 7472 regarding restrictions on discharges into the sewer, and Section 5130 regarding achievement of annual waste diversion rates and other applicable requirements in compliance with, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 939, Assembly Bill 341, and Assembly Bill 1826. 50. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the existing facility may be subject to having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the aforementioned City officials and employees, and may subject to separate building permits. 51. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 26 of 31 damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02, ADR 19-09, and COD 22-25 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project 52. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings, and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from the City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, the Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time, in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project are rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures is detailed in the MMRP. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 27 of 31 53. MM CUL-1. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit the name and qualifications of a qualified archaeologist to the City of Arcadia Development Services Department for review and approval. Once approved, the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Project Applicant/Developer. If suspected cultural (archaeological) resources or tribal cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100- foot radius of the area of discovery. The Project contractor or Property Owner/Applicant shall contact the qualified archaeologist to request an evaluation of the significance of the find and determine an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume. 54. MM NOI-1. The Property Owner/Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of the following construction equipment to beyond the following distances from off-site buildings: (1) vibratory rollers – 25 feet, and (2) Caisson drilling, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and other large equipment (vehicle weight greater than 25,000 lbs.) – 15 feet. Any activities occurring within 5 feet of existing property line shall use non-vibration intensive methods such as the use of concrete saws, universal processors, and/or expansive agents for demolition. 55. MM TRANS-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Applicant for the review and approval of the City of Arcadia, and any other affected jurisdictions in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”). Construction activities shall comply with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia. The Property Owner/Applicant shall begin coordination with the City on the Construction Management Plan as soon as practicable during the final design process and in advance of construction so that effective measures can be developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate construction impacts to parking and circulation within Downtown Arcadia. At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall: • Describe the duration and location of lane closures (if any). • Address traffic control for any partial street closures, detours, or other disruption to traffic circulation during project construction, including as needed, use of flag persons and signage. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 28 of 31 • Identify the routes that construction vehicles would utilize for the delivery of construction materials to access the project site. Haul routes would follow the City’s approved truck routes and avoid residential streets. • Identify the location of parking and materials storage for construction workers during all phases of construction. Parking for construction workers would be provided on-site or at additional off-site locations that are not on public streets. • Identify emergency access points/routes. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the contractor to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material that may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • All hauling or transport of oversize loads would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends or Federal holidays. • Include details on the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connectivity through the Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Require that haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users. • Provisions for the contractor to repair existing pavement, streets, curbs, sidewalks, and/or gutters that may be altered during project construction. The repairs shall be completed in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Require that all construction-related parking and staging of vehicles will be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and will occur either on-site, or on designated off-site parcels that would not adversely affect access or parking within the Downtown. 56. MM TCR-1. A Native American Monitor shall be retained prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities: Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 29 of 31 A. The Property Owner/Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground- disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project, are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. 57. MM TCR-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non- Funerary/Non-Ceremonial): Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 30 of 31 in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. 58. MM TCR-3. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects: A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike according to the California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. 59. MM UTIL-1. Sewer Upsizing Fair Share Payment. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit for the Project, the Property Owner/Applicant shall make a fair share contribution of nine percent (9%) of the total Santa Anita Avenue Sewer Upsizing Project cost to the City’s Development Services Department. This payment shall help fund replacing the existing sewer line on Santa Anita Avenue, between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Avenue, with 12-inch diameter pipelines. The Santa Anita Avenue Sewer Upsizing Project shall be split into three phases and included in the City's Fiscal Year 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan budgets, respectively. The sewer work is expected to be completed by the City's Public Works Services Department by the end of the 2026- 27 Fiscal Year. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until all phases of the Santa Anita Avenue Sewer Upsizing Project are fully implemented. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Services Department, as appropriate. Arcadia Town Center March 18, 2025 Page 31 of 31 Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7618 Attachment No. 2: Appeal Letter, dated January 24, 2025, Original Comment Letter from the Appellant, dated December 20, 2025, and Response to the comments Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans and TTM 21-02 (83325) Attachment No. 4: Planning Commission Minutes, Staff Report, dated January 14, 2024 (Without Attachments) and Letters of Support Attachment No. 5: Response to Comments to the Appeal letter and the Draft MMRP and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). The Appendices to the IS/MND can be found under the Arcadia Town Center Project at: www.arcadiaca.gov/significantprojects Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 7618 RESOLUTION NO. 7618 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE ARCADIA TOWN CENTER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING 181 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 13,130 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; APPROVING ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENTS {TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 21-02 (83325), MINOR USE PERMIT NO. MUP 19-11, SITE PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 19-09, AND CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION NO. COD 22-25) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5-19 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 25-75 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE; AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ("MND") PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") WHEREAS, on August 29, 2019, September 3, 2019, January 8, 2021, and November 3, 2022, applications for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 19-09, Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19-11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21-02 (83325), and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22-25 were filed concurrently by New World International, LLC ("Property Owner/Applicant") to construct the "Arcadia Town Center," a new mixed-use development at 5-19 W. Huntington Drive and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Avenue. The proposal is to consolidate five legal lots into a single parcel to accommodate a new five story, mixed-use building that will consist of 181 residential units, 13,130 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and 378 parking spaces within one level of subterranean parking and one level of ground level parking. The request also includes incidental outdoor dining for the restaurant uses on the ground level (collectively referred to as the "Arcadia Town Center''); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the CEQA guidelines, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") was prepared to consider the environmental impacts of the Project and was circulated for public review and comment 1 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Appeal Letter dated January 24, 2025, Original Comment Letter from the Appellant, dated December 20, 2024, and Response to the Comments dated January, 2025 VIA ONLINE PORTAL January 24, 2025 Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Division Development Services Department City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 earreola@arcadiaca.gov Re: Appeal to the Arcadia City Council Arcadia Town Center Project (Resolution No. 2164, MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, COD 22-25) Dear Mr. Arreola, This appeal letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Arcadia to appeal the proposed Arcadia Town Center Project (“Project”) to the Arcadia City Council. SAFER hereby appeals the entirety of the Arcadia Planning Commission’s January 14, 2025, decision to approve Resolution No. 2164, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approving MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, and COD 22-25 for the Project. The reasons and grounds for the appeal are contained in SAFER’s comment letter to the Planning Commission attached hereto as ATTACHMENT 1. Sincerely, Hayley Uno LOZEAU DRURY LLP ATTACHMENT 1 424<14A 3F8=AA4>;0'4=8>A$;0==4A 8B0;>A4B4?DCH4E4;>?<4=C'4AE824B8A42C>A $;0==8=6->=8=68E8B8>= $;0==8=6->=8=68E8B8>= 4E4;>?<4=C'4AE824B4?0AC<4=C 4E4;>?<4=C'4AE824B4?0AC<4=C 8CH>5A203808CH>5A20380 +4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E4 +4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E4 $#>G $#>G A20380 A20380 A20380 40AA4>;00A20380206>E ;5;>A4B0A20380206>E !0A8;H==4+8;0=34A708A =3>=>A01;4><<8BB8>=4AB A203808CH$;0==8=6><<8BB8>= +4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E4 $#>G A20380 ?;0==8=60A20380206>E % /--%.4/.4(%)4)'!4%$%'!4)6%%#,!2!4)/.&/24(%2#!$)!/7. %.4%22/*%#4/ 40A!AAA4>;0!B;>A4B0=3>=>A01;4!4<14AB>5C74A203808CH$;0==8=6 ><<8BB8>= (78B2><<4=C8BBD1<8CC43>=1470;5>5'D??>AC4AB;;80=245>A=E8A>=<4=C0; &4B?>=B818;8CHM'&NA460A38=6C74!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>=M!"N?A4?0A435>A C74A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C'"> M$A>942CN;>20C43>=C742A>BBBCA44CB >5+4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E40=3">AC7'0=C0=8C0E4=D48=3>F=C>F=A20380(74$A>942C 8=E>;E4BC7434E4;>?<4=C>5058E4BC>AH D=8C<8G43DB4A4B834=C80;0=32><<4A280; 1D8;38=6F8C7>=4;4E4;>501>E46A>D=3?0A:8=60=3>=4;4E4;>5D=34A6A>D=3?0A:8=6 B38B2DBB4314;>FC74A48B0508A0A6D<4=CC70CC74$A>942C<0HA4BD;C8=B86=85820=C 03E4AB48<?02CB>=18>;>6820;A4B>DA24B=>8B408A@D0;8CH0=38=3>>A08A@D0;8CH(74A45>A4 '&A4B?42C5D;;HA4@D4BCBC70CC748CH>5A20380M8CHN?A4?0A40=4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02C A4?>ACM&N145>A40??A>E8=6C74$A>942CC>0=0;HI40=3<8C860C4C74B48<?02CB8=022>A30=24 F8C7C740;85>A=80=E8A>=<4=C0;%D0;8CH2CM%N '&PBA4E84F>5C74!"F0B0BB8BC431H4G?4ACF8;3;85418>;>68BCA'70F= A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 '<0;;F>>3$7=>8B44G?4AC=8(>=274E05A><C7402>DBC820;2>=BD;C8=658A<+8;B>=7A86 08A@D0;8CH4G?4ACB!0CC064<0==$60=3A$0D;&>B4=54;3$75A><C74 4=E8A>=<4=C0;2>=BD;C8=658A<'>8;+0C4A8A$A>C42C8>==C4A?A8B4M'+$N0=38=3>>A08A @D0;8CH4G?4AC0=324AC858438=3DBCA80;7H684=8BCA0=28B#554A<0==$A'<0;;F>>3PB FA8CC4=2><<4=CB0=3*0A40CC0274374A4C>0BG7818C0=30A48=2>A?>A0C4374A48=1H A454A4=248=C748A4=C8A4CH!B(>=274E0PBFA8CC4=2><<4=CB0=3*0A40CC0274374A4C>0B G7818C0=30A48=2>A?>A0C4374A48=1HA454A4=248=C748A4=C8A4CH'+$PBFA8CC4=2><<4=CB 0=3*0A40CC0274374A4C>0BG7818C0=30A48=2>A?>A0C4374A48=1HA454A4=248=C748A 4=C8A4CH!A#554A<0==PBFA8CC4=2><<4=CB0=3*0A40CC0274374A4C>0BG7818C0=30A4 8=2>A?>A0C4374A48=1HA454A4=248=C748A4=C8A4CH (74$A>942C8=E>;E4BC742>=BCAD2C8>=>50=4F58E4BC>AH<8G43DB4A4B834=C80;0=3 2><<4A280;1D8;38=6F8C70C>C0;2><18=435;>>A0A40>5 B@D0A4544C(741D8;38=6 8=2;D34B B@D0A4544C>52><<4A280;B?024>=C746A>D=35;>>ACF8;;0;B>70E4 <D;C850<8;HA4B834=C80;D=8CB8=2;D38=6 >=4143A>><D=8CB CF>143A>><D=8CB0=3 C7A44143A>><D=8CB(74$A>942C70B B@D0A4544C>5A4B834=C80;0<4=8CHB?0240=3 B@D0A4544C>5?D1;820=3?A8E0C4>?4=B?024338C8>=0;;HC74$A>942CF8;;70E4>=4;4E4;>5 6A>D=35;>>A?0A:8=60=3>=4;4E4;>5BD1C4AA0=40=?0A:8=65>A?0A:8=6B?024BC>C0;(74 $A>942CA4@D8A4BC746A038=6>50??A>G8<0C4;H 2D182H0A3B>540AC70BF4;; (74$A>942C8=E>;E4BC742>=B>;830C8>=>558E44G8BC8=62>=C86D>DB?0A24;B4=2><?0BB8=6 02A4B8=C>0B8=6;4;>C>22D?H8=6 =4C02A4B B@D0A4544C>51D8;301;4;>C0A40 (74$A>942CB8C4PBBB4BB>A$0A24;"D<14AB0A4 0=3 ;; ?0A24;B>=C74B8C470E40;0=3DB434B86=0C8>=>5>F=C>F=!8G43)B40=30A4I>=430B >F=C>F=!8G43)B4 (74B8C48B;>20C430C +4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E40=3">AC7'0=C0=8C0E4=D4 8=05D;;H34E4;>?43?>AC8>=>5C743>F=C>F=0A40>5C748CH>5A20380(74B8C48B1>D=3431H +4BCD=C8=6C>=A8E4C>C74B>DC7">AC7'0=C0=8C0E4=D4C>C7440BC!>A;0=$;024C>C74 =>AC70=30=;:B >364C>C74F4BC(74B8C48BBDAA>D=343C>C74=>AC740BC0=3F4BC1H 4G8BC8=6DA10=34E4;>?<4=C8=2;D38=6A4C08;40C4A84B>55824B020A340;4AB78?0=30BB>280C43 BDA5024?0A:8=6'8=6;450<8;HA4B834=24B0A4;>20C4301>DC 544C=>AC7F4BC>5C74B8C402A>BB 0=3<D;C850<8;HA4B834=24B0A4;>20C4301>DC 544CB>DC740BC>5C74B8C40;>=6'0=C0=8C0 E4=D4A20380>D=CH$0A:8B;>20C438<<4380C4;HB>DC7>5C74B8C402A>BB+4BCD=C8=6C>= A8E4 (74$A>942CB8C42DAA4=C;H2>=C08=B4;4E4=C>C0;2><<4A280;1D8;38=6B8=2;D38=6C4=>=4 BC>AH1D8;38=6B0=3>=4CF>BC>AH1D8;38=60=30BB>280C43BDA5024?0A:8=6;>CB;;4G8BC8=6 34E4;>?<4=C>=C74B8C4F>D;31434<>;8B7435>AC74$A>942C(74$A>942CF8;;0;B>A4<>E4 4G8BC8=6CA44B>=C74$A>942CB8C48=2;D38=6B8GCA44B?A>C42C431HC748CH A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 BC740;85>A=80'D?A4<4>DAC74;3M.8/5=>&70B144=?A4?0A435>A0=>=4G4<?C ?A>942C1DCBD1BC0=C80;4E834=248=C74A42>A3BD??>ACB0508A0A6D<4=CC70CC74?A>942C<0HA4BD;C 8=B86=85820=C03E4AB48<?02CBC74?A>?4AA4<43H8BC>>A34A?A4?0A0C8>=>50=&N *((0)$/$ .!*- // -)14/1*0/# *./$-0'$/2"(/ $./ 0; C7 M'86=85820=C4=E8A>=<4=C0;45542CN8B3458=43E4AH1A>03;H0BM0BD1BC0=C80;>A ?>C4=C80;;HBD1BC0=C80;03E4AB4270=648=C744=E8A>=<4=CN$D1&4B>34.M$&N/J B440;B> 0;85>A=80>34>5&46D;0C8>=B.M&N/J =45542C>=C744=E8A>=<4=C =443=>C14M<><4=C>DBNC><44CC74%C4BC5>AB86=85820=248C8B4=>D67C70CC748<?02CB 0A4M=>CCA8E80;N*$')1 $/2*!*.)" ' . 0;3M(74O5>A4<>BC ?A8=28?;4P8=8=C4A?A4C8=6%8BC70CC74 468B;0CDA48=C4=343C7402CC>14A403B>0BC>055>A3 C745D;;4BC?>BB81;4?A>C42C8>=C>C744=E8A>=<4=CF8C78=C74A40B>=01;4B2>?4>5C74BC0CDC>AH ;0=6D064N *((0)$/$ .!*- // -)14/1 ' ." )2 0;?? C7 (74&8BC74E4AH740AC>5%& -.!$ ' $/$3 ).!*-*' *)/-*'1 $/2*! & -.!$ ' 0;?? C7 *& /-*/ /*-.1 $/2*!-( )/* 0;?? C7 (74&8B0=M4=E8A>=<4=C0;O0;0A<14;;PF7>B4?DA?>B48BC>0;4AC C74?D1;820=38CBA4B?>=B81;4>558280;BC>4=E8A>=<4=C0;270=64B145>A4C74H70E4A402743C74 42>;>6820;?>8=CB>5=>A4CDA=N& -.!$ ' $/$3 )..0+- 0;?? C70C (74& 0;B>5D=2C8>=B0B0M3>2D<4=C>5022>D=C018;8CHN8=C4=343C>M34<>=BCA0C4C>0=0??A474=B8E4 28C8I4=AHC70CC74064=2H70B8=502C0=0;HI430=32>=B834A43C7442>;>6820;8<?;820C8>=B>58CB 02C8>=N0- ' $"#/.(+-*1 ( )/...)1 " )/.*!)$1*! ' 0;3 (74&?A>24BBM?A>C42CB=>C>=;HC744=E8A>=<4=C1DC0;B>8=5>A<43B4;56>E4A=<4=CN *& /-*/ /*-. 0;?? C7 =&8BA4@D8A4385MC74A48BBD1BC0=C80;4E834=248=;867C>5C74F7>;4A42>A3145>A4 C74;403064=2HC70CC74?A>942C<0H70E40B86=85820=C45542C>=C744=E8A>=<4=CN$&J 3B440;B>*& /-*/ /*-.BD?A0 0;?? C70C=!"8=BC403>50= &8B?A>?4A>=;H85?A>942CA4E8B8>=BF>D;30E>83>A<8C860C4C74?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C45542CB 834=C858438=C748=8C80;BCD3HMC>0?>8=CF74A42;40A;H=>B86=85820=C45542C>=C744=E8A>=<4=C F>D;3>22DA0=3C74A48B=>BD1BC0=C80;4E834=248=;867C>5C74F7>;4A42>A3145>A4C74 ?D1;82064=2HC70CC74?A>942C0BA4E8B43<0H70E40B86=85820=C45542C>=C744=E8A>=<4=CN %$1 $/2*!*.)" ' . 0;?? C7 .@D>C8=6$&JJ 2/=C70C2>=C4GCM<0HN<40=B0A40B>=01;4?>BB818;8CH>50B86=85820=C45542C>=C74 4=E8A>=<4=C$&JJ 0 0*& /-*/ /*-..0+- 0;?? C7 0C "0 !*--*/ /$*)*!&'). /$./*-$ .1 $/2*!&') 0;?? C7 =&<DBC14?A4?0A43A0C74AC70=0=!"MF74=4E4A8C20=14508A;H0A6D43>=C74 10B8B>5BD1BC0=C80;4E834=24C70CC74?A>942C<0H70E40B86=85820=C4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02CN* $')1 $/2*!*.)" ' . 0;3)=34AC78BM508A0A6D<4=CNBC0=30A30= &8BA4@D8A43850=HBD1BC0=C80;4E834=248=C74A42>A38=3820C4BC70C0?A>942C<0H70E40= A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 03E4AB44=E8A>=<4=C0;45542CL4E4=852>=CA0AH4E834=244G8BCBC>BD??>ACC74064=2HPB3428B8>= &J 5 *& /-*/ /*-..0+- 0;?? C70C /)$.'0.00*) *$ /21 *0)/2*!/)$.'0. 0;?? C7 0$'*/)$' - ). *0))1 $/2*!)$)$/. 0;?? C7 (74M508A0A6D<4=CN BC0=30A32A40C4B0M;>FC7A4B7>;3N50E>A8=64=E8A>=<4=C0;A4E84FC7A>D670=&A0C74AC70= C7A>D678BBD0=24>5=460C8E4342;0A0C8>=B>A=>C824B>54G4<?C8>=5A><%*& / -*/ /*-.BD?A0 0;?? C70C (74M508A0A6D<4=CNBC0=30A38BE8ACD0;;HC74>??>B8C4>5C74CH?820;3454A4=C80;BC0=30A3 022>A343C>064=284BB0;4038=6%CA40C8B44G?;08=B (78BO508A0A6D<4=CPBC0=30A38BE4AH38554A4=C5A><C74BC0=30A3=>A<0;;H5>;;>F431H ?D1;82064=284B8=<0:8=603<8=8BCA0C8E434C4A<8=0C8>=B#A38=0A8;H?D1;82064=284B F4867C744E834=248=C74A42>A3145>A4C74<0=3A402703428B8>=10B43>=0 ?A4?>=34A0=24>5C744E834=24.8C0C8>=B/(74508A0A6D<4=CBC0=30A31H2>=CA0BC ?A4E4=CBC74;403064=2H5A><F48678=62><?4C8=64E834=24C>34C4A<8=4F7>70B0 14CC4A0A6D<4=C2>=24A=8=6C74;8:4;87>>3>A4GC4=C>50?>C4=C80;4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02C (74;403064=2HPB3428B8>=8BC7DB;0A64;H;460;A0C74AC70=502CD0;8C3>4B=>CA4B>;E4 2>=5;82CB8=C744E834=241DC34C4A<8=4B>=;HF74C74ABD1BC0=C80;4E834=244G8BCB8=C74 A42>A3C>BD??>ACC74?A4B2A8143508A0A6D<4=C >BC:0-8B72:4-/$ ) - J?? (74>DACB70E44G?;08=43C70C M8C8B0@D4BC8>=>5;0F=>C502CF74C74A0508A0A6D<4=C4G8BCB0=3C742>DACB>F4=>3454A4=24 C>C74;403064=2HPB34C4A<8=0C8>=&4E84F8B34=>E>F8C70?A454A4=245>AA4B>;E8=63>D1CB8= 50E>A>54=E8A>=<4=C0;A4E84FN*& /-*/ /*-.BD?A0 0;?? C70C (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#4-!8(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4!$6%23%)-0!#43/. ")/,/')#!,2%3/52#%3 G?4ACF8;3;85418>;>68BCA'70F='<0;;F>>3$770BA4E84F43C74$A>942CPB!" 8CB18>;>6820;C427=820;A4?>AC0=3>C74AA4;4E0=C3>2D<4=CBA460A38=6C74$A>942CPB18>;>6820; 8<?02CBB38B2DBB4314;>FA'<0;;F>>35>D=3C70CC74$A>942CF8;;03E4AB4;H05542C 18>;>6820;A4B>DA24B1420DB4 C74!"508;43C>022>D=C5>AC7438E4AB8CH>5B?4284B?A4B4=C >=C74$A>942CB8C48=2;D38=6B4E4A0;B?4280;BC0CDBB?4284BC74!"8=034@D0C4;H0=0;HI43 C74$A>942CPB03E4AB48<?02CB>=F8;3;8540=3C74!"PB?A>?>B43<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B0A4 8=BD558284=CC>A43D24C74$A>942CPB18>;>6820;8<?02CB (%&!),%$4/!##/5.4&/24(%$)6%23)48/&30%#)%302%3%.4/.4(%2/*%#4 3)4%).#,5$).'3%6%2!,30%#)!,34!45330%#)%3 A'<0;;F>>3PB0BB>280C418>;>68BC">A8:>'<0;;F>>3!'2>=3D2C430$A>942CB8C4 E8B8C>=424<14A 5>A7>DABG0C DA8=674AE8B8C!B'<0;;F>>334C42C43 A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 B?4284B>5E4AC41A0C4F8;3;8540C>A039024=CC>C74$A>942CB8C48=2;D38=6B8GB?4284BF8C7 B?4280;BC0CDBC74;;4=PB7D<<8=618A3C740;85>A=806D;;0=3C74"DCC0;;PBF>>3?42:4A F78270A40;;;8BC430B8A3B>5>=B4AE0C8>=>=24A=1HC74)'8B7+8;3;854'4AE8240=3 C74>>?4APB70F:A43C08;4370F:0=3?4A46A8=450;2>=F78270A40;;8A3B>5$A4HD=34AC74 0;85>A=808B70<4>340C )B8=60=>=;8=40AA46A4BB8>=<>34;A'<0;;F>>3?A4382C43C70C01>DC C>C0;B?4284B >5E4AC41A0C4F8;3;854F4A40E08;01;4C>1434C42C430CC74B8C43DA8=6!B'<0;;F>>3PB424<14A E8B8CCF824C74=D<14A>5B?4284BB7402CD0;;H34C42C430C;C7>D67!B '<0;;F>>3PBB8C4E8B8C>=;H;0BC437>DABA'<0;;F>>30;B>20;2D;0C43C70C2>=C8=D430=3 <>A44GC4=B8E4BDAE4HBF>D;3A4E40;0=4E4=6A40C4A38E4AB8CH>5F8;3;8540CC74B8C4D?C> B?4284B>5E4AC41A0C4F8;3;8548=2;D38=6B?4280;BC0CDBB?4284B0C (>02784E4C74%PB?A8<0AH>1942C8E4C>38B2;>B4?>C4=C80;4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02CB>5 0?A>?>B43?A>942CC7418>;>6820;0=0;HB8BB7>D;3834=C85HF7827F8;3;854B?4284B0A4:=>F=C> >22DA0CC74?A>?>B43?A>942CB8C4F7827B?4280;BC0CDBB?4284B0A4;8:4;HC>>22DA0=3C74 ;8<8C0C8>=B>5C74BDAE4H455>ACB38A42C43C>C74B8C4=0;HBCB=443C78B8=5>A<0C8>=C> 270A02C4A8I4C744=E8A>=<4=C0;B4CC8=60B010B8B5>A?A4382C8=6?>C4=C80;?A>942C8<?02CBC> 18>;>6820;A4B>DA24BG0C %A4@D8A4B6>E4A=<4=C064=284BC>34B2A814C74M4=E8A>=<4=C0;B4CC8=6N>5C74 $A>942C%D834;8=4BJ 3 %$1 $/2*!*.)" ' . 0;?? C7 (74M4=E8A>=<4=C0;B4CC8=6N8B3458=430BMC74?7HB820;2>=38C8>=BF78274G8BCF8C78=C74 0A40F7827F8;;1405542C431H0?A>?>B43?A>942C8=2;D38=6;0=308AF0C4A<8=4A0;B5;>A0 50D=00<184=C=>8B40=3>1942CB>578BC>A82>A04BC74C82B86=85820=24ND834;8=4BJ . D834;8=4BJ $"#/#*0. $ ' # .0 1 $/2*!)/ -03 0;?? C7 4A4C74!"383=>C?A>E834C74A4BD;CB>50=H584;3BDAE4HB2>=3D2C43C>34C42C18A3B >A>C74AF8;3;854>=C74$A>942CB8C4G0C &460A38=6C74;02:>518A3BDAE4HB8= ?0AC82D;0AA'<0;;F>>3BC0C43C70CC74M;02:>5BDAE4HB;40E4BC748CH>5A203801;8=3C>0=H ?>C4=C80;8<?02CBC>18A3B1420DB4F8C7>DC0BDAE4HC74A48B=>B>D=310B8B5>A270A02C4A8I8=6 C744G8BC8=64=E8A>=<4=C0;B4CC8=6N$A>24438=6F8C7C74?A>942CF8C7>DC2><?;4C8=60E80= BDAE4HB2>D;30;B>A4BD;C8=786718A3<>AC0;8CHA0C4B5A><F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B0=32>BCBC>C74 1D8;38=6PB>F=4A85C74F8=3>FBA4@D8A418A3B0546;0BB45DAC74A=>C4BC70CC74!"508;BC> A4?>ACC748<?>AC0=24>5C74B8C4PBCA44BC>18A3BF78278B8<?>AC0=C1420DB4C74B8C4PBCA44B 45542C8E4;H2A40C4>?4=B?0240=3E4AC820;7018C0C5>A18A3B 338C8>=0;;HC74!"3>4B=>C?A>E834C74A4BD;CB>50=H34B:C>?A4E84F>50E08;01;4 ;8C4A0CDA40=330C010B4BC>834=C85H>22DAA4=24A42>A3B>5B?4280;BC0CDBB?4284B>A0BB4BBC74 >22DAA4=24A0C4B>50E80=B?4284B8=C74$A>942C0A400C A'<0;;F>>3BC0C43C70C 34B:C>?A4E84F8B8<?>AC0=CC>8=5>A<584;3BDAE4HB0=3BD??;4<4=C8=C4A?A4C0C8>=>5C748A 58=38=6B0C 0B43>=78BA4E84F>50E08;01;430C010B4BBD270B48A30=38"0CDA0;8BC A'<0;;F>>34BC8<0C4BC70CB?4280;BC0CDB18A3B?4284B0A4:=>F=C>>22DA2;>B44=>D67C> A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 C74$A>942CB8C4C>F0AA0=C0=0;HB8B>5C748A>22DAA4=24?>C4=C80;0C (7DB1H508;8=6C>022DA0C4;H270A02C4A8I4C7418>;>6820;B?4284BDB8=6C74$A>942CB8C4 8=2;D38=6C74502CC70CC74B8C4BD??>ACB0C;40BCB8GB?4280;BC0CDBB?4284BC74!"8=034@D0C4;H 34B2A814BC74$A>942CPBM4=E8A>=<4=C0;B4CC8=6N0=3C74A41H8=BD558284=C;H0=0;HI4BC74$A>942CPB 18>;>6820;8<?02CB0C A'<0;;F>>3C74A45>A42>=2;D34BC70CMC74A48B0C;40BC0508A 0A6D<4=CC>14<0345>AC74=443C>?A4?0A40=&C>022DA0C4;H270A02C4A8I4C74F8;3;854 2><<D=8CH>=C74?A>942CB8C4N0C (%2%)335"34!.4)!,%6)$%.#%4(!44(%2/*%#47),,(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4)-0!#43/. ")/,/')#!,2%3/52#%34(!44(%&!),34/!.!,89%!.$-)4)'!4% A'<0;;F>>32>=2;D343C70CC74!"8=034@D0C4;H033A4BB43C74$A>942CPBE0A8>DB B86=85820=C8<?02CB>=18>;>6820;A4B>DA24B8=2;D38=6 8=C4A54A4=24F8C7F8;3;854<>E4<4=C 18A3F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=<>AC0;8CHCA05582<>AC0;8CH0=3 2D<D;0C8E48<?02CB =C4A54A4=24F8C7+8;3;854!>E4<4=C (74!"8=2;D34B=>0=0;HB8B>5F74C74AC74$A>942CF>D;38=C4A54A4F8C7;>20;F8;3;854 <>E4<4=CA'<0;;F>>35>D=3C70CC74$A>942CF>D;32;40A;H8=C4A54A4F8C7F8;3;854 <>E4<4=C8=C740A401420DB4C74$A>942CF>D;38=B4AC0<83A8B41D8;38=68=C>C7408AB?024C70C 70B;>=6144=DB431H18A3B5>A<86A0C8>=38B?4AB0;7><4A0=64?0CA>;0=35>A068=6A '<0;;F>>3C7DB2>=2;D343C70CM0508A0A6D<4=C20=14<0345>AC74=443C>?A4?0A40=&C> 0??A>?A80C4;H0=0;HI4C74?A>942CPB?>C4=C80;8<?02CBC>E>;0=CF8;3;8540=37>FC7>B48<?02CBC> <>E4<4=C20=14<8C860C43N 8A3+8=3>F>;;8B8>=B 22>A38=6C>A'70F='<0;;F>>3C74$A>942CF8;;70E40B86=85820=C8<?02C>=18A3B 0B0A4BD;C>5F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B(748CH70B=>C0=0;HI43>A<8C860C43C74B4?>C4=C80;8<?02CB >=B?4280;BC0CDB18A3B?4284B=0;HI8=6C74?>C4=C80;8<?02C>=F8;3;8545A><F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B 8B4B?4280;;H8<?>AC0=C1420DB4M.F/8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B0A4>5C4=270A02C4A8I430B48C74AC74B42>=3 >AC78A3;0A64BCB>DA24>57D<0=20DB4318A3<>AC0;8CHN (74$A>942CF>D;32>=BCAD2C058E4BC>AH1D8;38=6F7827F>D;34G?>B4;>20;18A3BC> <0=HF8=3>FB2><?>B8=6C741D8;38=6PB502034B1DCC74!"3>4B=>CA4?>ACC745D;;4GC4=C>5 4GC4A8>A6;0BBF8=3>FB>=C74?A>?>B431D8;38=60C >F4E4AA'<0;;F>>3?A4382CB B@D0A4<4C4AB>54GC4A8>A6;0BB>=C74?A>942C1D8;38=60B43>=C78B0<>D=C>5 4GC4A8>A6;0BBA'<0;;F>>34BC8<0C4BC70CC74$A>942CF8;;20DB4 0==D0;18A3340C7B5A>< F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=BA'<0;;F>>3PB30C010B4A4E84F0=3!B'<0;;F>>3PBB8C4E8B8C 8=3820C4C70CC74A40A40C;40BCB?4280;BC0CDB18A3B?4284BF8C7C74?>C4=C80;C>DB4C7408AB?024 0A>D=3C74$A>942CB8C40C !>BC>5C74?A4382C4318A3F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=340C7BF>D;314 >518A3B?A>C42C43D=34AC745434A0;!86A0C>AH8A3(A40CH2C0=3C740;85>A=80!86A0C>AH8A3 $A>C42C8>=2CMC7DB20DB8=6B86=85820=CD=<8C860C438<?02CBN0C 8E4=C744BC8<0C43 A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 ;4E4;>518A3F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=<>AC0;8CH0=3C74!"PB;02:>5?A>?>B43<8C860C8>=A '<0;;F>>32>=2;D343C70CMC74?A>?>B43?A>942CF>D;3A4BD;C8=?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C03E4AB4 18>;>6820;8<?02CBN(748CHC7DB<DBC?A4?0A40=&C>0=0;HI40=3<8C860C4C74 $A>942CPB?>C4=C80;8<?02CB5A><18A3F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B (A05582<?02CB A'<0;;F>>35>D=3C70CC74!"3>4B=>C0=0;HI4C74$A>942CPB?>C4=C80;8<?02CBC> F8;3;8545A><A>032>;;8B8>=<>AC0;8CH0B0A4BD;C>58=2A40B43CA0558264=4A0C431HC74$A>942C BA'<0;;F>>34G?;08=BE4782;42>;;8B8>=B70E4022>D=C435>AC74340C7B>5<0=H C7>DB0=3B>50<?78180=A4?C8;4<0<<0;18A30=30AC7A>?>350D=00=3C748<?02CB70E4>5C4= 144=5>D=3C>14B86=85820=C0CC74?>?D;0C8>=;4E4;A'<0;;F>>3?A>E834BB4E4A0;BCD384B 34<>=BCA0C8=6B86=85820=C0=8<0;340C7B3D4C>2>;;8B8>=B8=C74C7>DB0=3B?4A :8;><4C4AB>5 A>03?4AH40A0C(74!"508;BC>0=0;HI4F74C74A8=2A40B43CA0558264=4A0C431HC74 $A>942CF>D;3A4BD;C8=B86=85820=C8<?02CBC>F8;3;854 (74!"4BC8<0C4B 0==D0;E4782;4<8;4BCA0E4;43M*!(BN5>A4<?;>H44B 0B43>=C78B4BC8<0C4A'<0;;F>>320;2D;0C43C70CC74$A>942CF>D;320DB4 0??A>G8<0C4;H E4AC41A0C4F8;3;85450C0;8C84B?4AH40A3D4C>2>;;8B8>=BF8C7?A>942C64=4A0C43 CA055824C74A45>A42>=2;D343C70CMC74?A>942C64=4A0C43CA05582F>D;320DB4BD1BC0=C80; B86=85820=C8<?02CBC>F8;3;854N0?>C4=C80;8<?02CC70CC74!"3>4B=>C0=0;HI40C A'<0;;F>>3PB2><<4=CBC7DB2>=BC8CDC4BD1BC0=C80;4E834=24BD??>AC8=60508A0A6D<4=CC70C C74$A>942CPBCA05582F8;;70E40B86=85820=C8<?02C>=B?4280;BC0CDBB?4284B>5F8;3;854=&8B A4@D8A43C>0=0;HI40=3<8C860C4C78B8<?02C D<D;0C8E4<?02CB %3>2D<4=CBBD270BC74!"<DBC38B2DBB2D<D;0C8E48<?02CB0=3<8C860C4 B86=85820=C2D<D;0C8E48<?02CB &J 0(78BA4@D8A4<4=C5;>FB5A><% '42C8>= F7827A4@D8A4B058=38=6C70C0?A>942C<0H70E40B86=85820=C45542C>=C74 4=E8A>=<4=C85 (74?>BB81;445542CB>50?A>942C0A48=38E83D0;;H;8<8C431DC2D<D;0C8E4;H 2>=B834A01;4OD<D;0C8E4;H2>=B834A01;4P<40=BC70CC748=2A4<4=C0;45542CB >50=8=38E83D0;?A>942C0A42>=B834A01;4F74=E84F438=2>==42C8>=F8C7C74 45542CB>5?0BC?A>942CBC7445542CB>5>C74A2DAA4=C?A>942CB0=3C7445542CB>5 ?A>101;45DCDA4?A>942CB ;460;;H034@D0C42D<D;0C8E48<?02CB0=0;HB8BE84FB0?0AC82D;0A?A>942C>E4AC8<40=3 8=2>=9D=2C8>=F8C7>C74AA4;0C43?0BC?A4B4=C0=3A40B>=01;H5>A4B4401;4?A>101;45DCDA4 ?A>942CBF7>B48<?02CB<867C2><?>D=3>A8=C4AA4;0C4F8C7C7>B4>5C74?A>942C0C70=3 +78;402:=>F;4368=6=4F$A>942CA4;0C4318>;>6820;8<?02CBC74!"508;BC>0=0;HI4 C74$A>942CPB?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C2D<D;0C8E418>;>6820;8<?02CB=BC403C74!"38B<8BB4B A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 F8C7>DC4E834=24C74?>C4=C80;5>A2D<D;0C8E48<?02CBBC4<<8=65A><C74$A>942C1H2;08<8=6 C70C2><?;80=24F8C70??;8201;4;0=3DB40=34=E8A>=<4=C0;A46D;0C8>=BF>D;34=BDA4C70C M4=E8A>=<4=C0;45542CB0BB>280C43F8C7C74$A>942CF>D;3=>C2><18=4F8C745542CB5A>< A40B>=01;H5>A4B4401;45DCDA434E4;>?<4=C8=C748CHC>20DB42D<D;0C8E4;H2>=B834A01;4 B86=85820=C8<?02CBN!"0C (74?A>1;4<F8C7C78B0=0;HB8B0B8C0??;84BC>18>;>6820; A4B>DA24B8BC70CC74!"28C4B=>B?428582A4@D8A4<4=CBC70CF>D;3BD1BC0=C80;;H;4BB4= 2D<D;0C8E48<?02CBC>F8;3;8548=C740A40 (74@D4BC8>=C70C%A4@D8A4BC748CHC>033A4BB0=3C70CC74!"508;BC>033A4BB 8BF74C74AC74$A>942CPB8<?02CBF8;;14B86=85820=CF74=2><18=43F8C7>C74A?0BC2DAA4=C0=3 ?A>101;45DCDA4?A>942CBH508;8=6C>?A>E834C78B10B828=5>A<0C8>=C74!"PB2D<D;0C8E4 18>;>6820;8<?02C0=0;HB8B8B=>CBD??>AC431HBD1BC0=C80;4E834=24 A'<0;;F>>35>D=3C70CC74M.!"PB/0=0;HB8B>5?>C4=C80;?A>942C2>=CA81DC8>=BC> 2D<D;0C8E48<?02CB8B5;0F43NBC0C8=6C70CC74!"M?A>E834B=>4G?;0=0C8>=>57>F 8<?;4<4=C8=6?0AC82D;0AA4@D8A4<4=CB>5C748CHPB4=4A0;$;0=F>D;3<8=8<8I40E>83>A>55B4C C74?A>942CPB2>=CA81DC8>=BC>2D<D;0C8E48<?02CB>=F8;3;854NG0C A'<0;;F>>3 20;2D;0C43C70CC74$A>942CPB8=2A4<4=C0;45542CBF>D;38=2;D34 0==D0;18A350C0;8C84B5A>< F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B0BF4;;0B C> 0==D0;E4AC41A0C4F8;3;85450C0;8C84B3D4C>2>;;8B8>=B F8C7?A>942C64=4A0C43CA055820C 8:4F8B4C74$A>942CF>D;35A06<4=CC7404A80;7018C0C >5E>;0=CF8;3;8541H8=B4AC8=606;0BB2>E4A43<83A8B41D8;38=68=C>08AB?02478BC>A820;;HDB431H E>;0=CF8;3;854 (%:302/0/3%$-)4)'!4)/.-%!352%3!2%).35&&)#)%.44/2%$5#%4(% 2/*%#4:3!$6%23%")/,/')#!,)-0!#43 (74!">554AB<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC>A43D24C74$A>942CPB03E4AB48<?02CB>= 18>;>6820;A4B>DA24B#=4?A>?>B43<8C860C8>=<40BDA4!8C860C8>=!40BDA4&&#8BC74 34;0H4334E4;>?<4=C>5;0=3B20?4?;0=B0C>F4E4AC78B2>=BC8CDC4B3454AA43 <8C860C8>=F7827%?A>7818CB %38B0;;>FB3454AA8=6C745>A<D;0C8>=>5<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC>?>BC0??A>E0; BCD384B%D834;8=4BJ 0 0)./-*(1 *0)/2*! )*$)* 0;??3 =064=2H<0H>=;H3454AC745>A<D;0C8>=>5<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B F74=8C?>BB4BB4BMO<40=8=65D;8=5>A<0C8>=PA40B>=01;H9DBC85H8=60=4G?42C0C8>=>5 2><?;80=24N0)./-*(0C . '.*-( )/*' $/2..*$/$*)1 $/2 *0)$'*! -( )/* 0;??3 <8C860C8>=<40BDA4B<0H143454AA43>=;H M5>A:8=3B>58<?02CB5>AF7827<8C860C8>=8B:=>F=C>14540B81;4N;403064=2H8B?A42;D343 5A><<0:8=6C74A4@D8A43%58=38=6BD=;4BBC74A42>A3B7>FBC70C0;;D=24AC08=C84BA460A38=6 C74<8C860C8>=>58<?02CB70E4144=A4B>;E430=064=2H<0H=>CA4;H>=<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B>5 D=24AC08=4558202H>A540B818;8CH$)". *0)/2-(0- 01 $/2*!)!*- 0;??358=38=66A>D=3F0C4A?DA270B406A44<4=C8=034@D0C4<8C860C8>=1420DB4 C74A4F0B=>4E834=24C70CA4?;024<4=CF0C4AF0B0E08;01;4(78B0??A>02774;?BM8=BDA4C74 8=C46A8CH>5C74?A>24BB>53428B8>=<0:8=61H?A42;D38=6BCD11>A=?A>1;4<B>AB4A8>DB2A8C828B< A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064>5 5A><148=6BF4?CD=34AC74AD6N *) -) $/$3 ).*! *./ .)1) $./ "-$0'/0-'..) 0;3 +78;4B?42858234C08;B>5<8C860C8>=<40BDA4<0H143454AA430=064=2H8BA4@D8A43C> 2><<8C8CB4;5C><8C860C8>=03>?CB?428582?4A5>A<0=24BC0=30A3BC74<8C860C8>=F8;;02784E4 0=3834=C85HC74CH?4B>5?>C4=C80;02C8>=BC70C20=540B81;H02784E4C70C?4A5>A<0=24 BC0=30A30=3C70CF8;;142>=B834A430=0;HI430=3?>C4=C80;;H8=2>A?>A0C438=C74<8C860C8>= <40BDA4 - . -1 $')/ 1 $/2*!)/ 0;?? C7 ) *,0$)+/*- .0 )/ -1 *0)/2*! - 0;?? C7 !>A4>E4AM<8C860C8>=<40BDA4.B/.C70C3>/=><>A4C70=A4@D8A40A4?>AC14?A4?0A430=3 5>;;>F43N3>=>C?A>E834034@D0C48=5>A<0C8>=5>A8=5>A<433428B8>=<0:8=6D=34A% ))" - $//. "0 )1 *0)/2*!-)" 0;?? C7 D834;8=4BJ 0 H3454AA8=6C7434E4;>?<4=C>5B?428582<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B C748CH70B45542C8E4;H?A42;D343?D1;828=?DC8=C>C7434E4;>?<4=C>5C7>B4<40BDA4B% ?A>7818CBC78B0??A>027B4G?;08=431HC742>DAC8= *((0)$/$ .!*- // -)14/1 $#(*) 0;?? C7 .&/4;80=24>=C4=C0C8E4?;0=B5>A5DCDA4<8C860C8>=05C4A2><?;4C8>=>5C74% ?A>24BBB86=85820=C;HD=34A<8=4B%PB6>0;B>55D;;38B2;>BDA40=38=5>A<43 3428B8>=<0:8=60=3./2>=B4@D4=C;HC74B4<8C860C8>=?;0=B70E4144=>E4ACDA=43 >=9D38280;A4E84F0B2>=BC8CDC8=68<?A>?4A3454AA0;>54=E8A>=<4=C0;0BB4BB<4=C !8C860C8>=!40BDA4&&#2>=BC8CDC4B3454AA43<8C860C8>=1420DB48C4=C08;B 5>A<D;0C8=6;0=3B20?4?;0=B0C0=D=B?42858435DCDA430C4G0C(748CH70B=>C 2><<8CC438CB4;5C><8C860C8>=03>?C43B?428582?4A5>A<0=24BC0=30A3BC74<8C860C8>=F8;; 02784E4>A834=C85843C74CH?4B>5?>C4=C80;02C8>=BC70C20=540B81;H02784E4C74?4A5>A<0=24 BC0=30A3B (748CH20==>CA4;H>=C7434E4;>?<4=C>5<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B8=C745DCDA41420DB4 C74A48B=>F0HC>4=BDA4C70CC74<8C860C8>=F8;;14034@D0C4>A4G0<?;474A4145>A4$A>942C 0??A>E0;C74?D1;8270B=>F0HC>4=BDA4C70CC74;0=3B20?4?;0=BF8;;14=458CF8;3;8540C (78B3454AA43<8C860C8>=8B8=E0;83D=34A%0=3C74$A>942CPB8<?02CB>=18>;>6820; A4B>DA24BA4<08=B86=85820=C=&8BA4@D8A43C>34E4;>?2;40A4=5>A2401;4<8C860C8>= <40BDA4BC>033A4BBC74$A>942CPBB86=85820=C03E4AB418>;>6820;8<?02CB 338C8>=0;;HC74!"?A>?>B4B>C74A<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BBD270B?A42>=BCAD2C8>= =4BC8=618A3BDAE4HB0=3?A>2DA4<4=C>5=424BB0AH?4A<8CB>F4E4AA'<0;;F>>3 2>=2;D34BC70CC74B4<40BDA4BF>D;3=>C0E>83C74;>=6C4A<B86=85820=C18>;>6820;8<?02CB 20DB431H?4A<0=4=C7018C0C34BCAD2C8>=;>BB>5A4?A>3D2C8E420?028CH0CC74$A>942CB8C40=3 8=2A40B43F8;3;854<>AC0;8CH5A><?A>942C64=4A0C43CA055820=3F8=3>F2>;;8B8>=B0C A'<0;;F>>3PB2><<4=CBC7DB2>=BC8CDC4BD1BC0=C80;4E834=24C70CC74$A>942CPB8<?02CB>= 18>;>6820;A4B>DA24BF>D;3A4<08=B86=85820=C=424BB8C0C8=6?A4?0A0C8>=>50=& A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 A'<0;;F>>38=BC403>554AB=D<4A>DB>C74A<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC70CC748CHB7>D;3 8<?;4<4=CC>A43D24C74$A>942CPBB86=85820=C03E4AB48<?02CB>=18>;>6820;A4B>DA24BB7>D;3C74 $A>942C?A>2443$>C4=C80;<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B8=2;D34DB4>518A3B0546;0BB0=3F8=3>F CA40C<4=CB2><?4=B0C>AH<8C860C8>=5>AA>03<>AC0;8CH5D=38=6>5F8;3;854A47018;8C0C8>= 5028;8C84B0=3=0C8E4?;0=C;0=3B20?8=60C (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#4-!8(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4!$6%23%)-0!#43/. ./)3%!.$6)"2!4)/. ">8B44G?4AC=8(>=274E05A><C7402>DBC820;2>=BD;C8=658A<+8;B>=7A8670B A4E84F43C74$A>942CPB!"8CB=>8B40=3E81A0C8>=C427=820;A4?>ACB8=??4=38G0=3>C74A A4;4E0=C3>2D<4=CBA460A38=6C74$A>942CPB=>8B40=3E81A0C8>=8<?02CBB38B2DBB4314;>F!B (>=274E02>=2;D343C70CC74$A>942CF8;;03E4AB4;H05542C=>8B40=3E81A0C8>=;4E4;B1420DB4 C74!"PB=>8B40=0;HB8BA4;84B>=0=8=034@D0C4=>8B410B4;8=4C74$A>942CF8;;A4BD;C8= ?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C2>=BCAD2C8>==>8B48<?02CB0=3C74!"PB>?4A0C8>=0;=>8B40=0;HB8B 8B8=BD558284=C(7DB74A4G?4AC2><<4=CB2>=BC8CDC4BD1BC0=C80;4E834=24>50508A0A6D<4=CC70C C74$A>942CF8;;70E4B86=85820=C8<?02CB>==>8B40=3E81A0C8>= (%:3./)3%!.!,83)32%,)%3/.!.).!$%15!4%,8%34!",)3(%$./)3% "!3%,).% !B(>=274E02>=2;D343C70CC74<0==4A8=F7827C74!"34C4A<8=43C744G8BC8=6 =>8B410B4;8=4F0B5;0F43>A4G0<?;4B745>D=3C70CC74!"PB0<184=C=>8B4<40BDA4<4=CB F4A4C0:4=0CC74$A>942C1>D=30A84BA0C74AC70=0CB4=B8C8E4A424?C>ABBD270B=40A1HA4B834=24B ;>20C43 544C5A><C74B8C4>='>DC7'0=C0=8C0E4=D40=3 544C5A><C74B8C4>='0=C0 ;0A0'CA44CG0C!"0C '740;B>5>D=3C70CC74B7>ACC4A<0<184=C=>8B4;4E4; <40BDA4<4=CB20?CDA43=48C74AC745;D2CD0C8>=>5=>8B4;4E4;B>E4AC7430H=>AC74039DBC<4=C>5 =>8B4F8C738BC0=245A><C74B>DA24B<40BDA43G0C!"0CBC74!"8CB4;5 02:=>F;43643MC740<184=CF>D;35;D2CD0C4>E4AC742>DAB4>54027F>A:30H0BF4;;0B10B43 >=38BC0=240=3A4;0C8E4;>20C8>=5A><C74B8C4N!"0C!>A4>E4AC74=>8B4 <40BDA4<4=CB2;>B4C>C74'0=C0;0A0A4B834=24BF4A43><8=0C431H*=>8B438A42C;H=4GC C>C74$A>942CB8C4G0C !B(>=274E0C7DB2>=2;D343C70CC74$A>942C<DBC?4A5>A<?A>?4A;H3>2D<4=C43 0<184=C<40BDA4<4=CB=40AB4=B8C8E4A424?C>ABC70C20?CDA4C742DAA4=C10B4;8=42>=38C8>=B 3DA8=6@D84C?4A8>3B>5C7430H0=3=867CC>34C4A<8=4C748<?02C>52>=BCAD2C8>=0=3>?4A0C8>=0; =>8B4(748CHC74A45>A4<DBC?A4?0A40=&C>0=0;HI4C74B4?>C4=C80;8<?02CB (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#47),,2%35,4).0/4%.4)!,,83)'.)&)#!.4 #/.3425#4)/../)3%)-0!#43 !B(>=274E00;B>5>D=3C70CC74!"508;43C>38B2;>B40=3<8C860C4C74$A>942CPB ?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C=>8B48<?02CB5A><2>=BCAD2C8>=(74!"2;08<BC70CC74A40A4=> B4=B8C8E4A424?C>AB=40AC74$A>942CB8C41DC8C40A;84A834=C85843A4B834=24B0B2;>B40B 544C A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 5A><C74B8C4>='0=C0=8C0E4=D40=33>4B=>C?A4382C2>=BCAD2C8>==>8B48<?02CB0CC74B4 A4B834=24B!"0C!B(>=274E04BC8<0C4BC70CC74$A>942CPB2>=BCAD2C8>==>8B4 ;4E4;BF>D;3A0=645A>< C>342814;B0CC74'0=C0=8C0A4B834=24B0=3C>342814;B0C C74'0=C0;0A0A4B834=24BG0C DAC74A<>A4!B(>=274E05>D=3C70CC74!"508;43C>4G?;828C;H4BC01;8B70=H 2>=BCAD2C8>==>8B42A8C4A80CA454A4=243C74=>8B4;8<8CB>5C748CH>5A20380">8B4#A38=0=24 M#A38=0=24N1DC><8CC43C74#A38=0=24PB039DBC<4=CBC>=>8B4;8<8CB5>A8<?D;B8E4B>D=3B 8CH>5A20380">8B4#A38=0=24J 1!"0CG0C (74#A38=0=24PB 30HC8<4=>8B4;8<8C5>AA4B834=C80;;0=38B342814;B(7DB0CC74'0=C0=8C0A4B834=24BC74 ?A4382C43=>8B4;4E4;BF>D;34G2443C74#A38=0=24;8<8C1HC>342814;B4G2;D38=60=H4GCA0 =>8B48<?02CB5A><8<?D;B8E4=>8B4B>DA24B;8:4902:70<<4AB0C (74%D834;8=4B28C438=C74!"BC0C4C70C=>8B48<?02CB0A4B86=85820=C85C74 ?A>?>B43?A>942CF>D;3A4BD;C8=M64=4A0C8>=>50BD1BC0=C80;C4<?>A0AH>A?4A<0=4=C8=2A40B48= 0<184=C=>8B4;4E4;BN!"0C >F4E4AC74!";02:B0B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;35>A0 MBD1BC0=C80;8=2A40B4N5>A$A>942C=>8B4G0C (74!"DB4BB7>ACC4A<0<184=C=>8B4 ;4E4;B>5 C>35>A30HC8<47>DAB1DC0B38B2DBB4301>E4C74B4<40BDA4<4=CBF4A4=>C C0:4=B4=B8C8E4A424?C>AB0=3F4A48=034@D0C4C>022DA0C4;H270A02C4A8I4;>20;0<184=C=>8B4 ;4E4;BG0C !"0C !B(>=274E05>D=3C70CC74?A4382C43=>8B4;4E4;5>A 34<>;8C8>=0CC74'0=C0;0A0A4B834=24B8B342814;B 342814;B>E4AC740<184=C=>8B4;4E4; 0CC74F4BC4A=$A>942C1>D=30AH(78B 342814;8=2A40B48BBD1942C8E4;H740A30B0=0??A>G8<0C4 3>D1;8=68=;>D3=4BB0C 338C8>=0;;HC74!"3>4B=>C38B2DBB0=H<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B5>AC74$A>942CPB ?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C2>=BCAD2C8>==>8B48<?02CB0C !B(>=274E04BC8<0C4BC70C=>8B4 10AA84AB0CC74?4A8<4C4A>5C74B8C42>D;3A43D24=>8B41H C> 342814;B1DC=>C4BC70C 2>=CA02C>AB20=14A4;D2C0=CC>DB410AA84AB1420DB4C74HB;>F?A>3D2C8>=0C #E4A0;;C748CH<DBC?A4?0A40=&C>?A>?4A;H4E0;D0C4C74$A>942CPB2>=BCAD2C8>= =>8B48<?02CB8=2;D38=6C74=>8B48=2A40B4>E4A0<184=C;4E4;B0CB4=B8C8E4A424?C>A;>20C8>=BB !B(>=274E0BC0C4BM85C748=2A40B48BB86=85820=CC74$A>942C<DBC?A>?4A;H4E0;D0C4<8C860C8>= <40BDA4BC>A43D24C748<?02CBC>;4BBC70=B86=85820=CN0C (%:3/0%2!4)/.!,./)3%!.!,83)3)3).#/-0,%4% (74!"2;08<BF8C7>DC4E834=24C70CC74$A>942CF8;;70E4=>>?4A0C8>=0;=>8B4 8<?02C>F4E4A!B(>=274E05>D=3C70C!"834=C85843*=>8B40B0?>C4=C80; >?4A0C8>=0;=>8B4B>DA241DC;02:430=H@D0=C8C0C8E40=0;HB8BC>?A4382CC744G?42C43;4E4;B>5 <4270=820;=>8B40C!"0C!B(>=274E00;B>5>D=3C70CC74!"508;43C> 033A4BB?>C4=C80;=>8B48<?02CB5A><C74$A>942CPB?0A:8=660A0644=CA0=24>AE4=C8;0C8>=BHBC4< G0C A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#4-!8(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4!)215!,)48)-0!#43 8A@D0;8CH4G?4ACB!0CC064<0==$60=3A$0D;&>B4=54;3$75A><C74 4=E8A>=<4=C0;2>=BD;C8=658A<'>8;+0C4A8A$A>C42C8>==C4A?A8B4M'+$N70E4A4E84F43 C74$A>942CPB!"8CB08A@D0;8CH0=36A44=7>DB460BC427=820;A4?>ACB8=??4=38G0=3>C74A A4;4E0=C3>2D<4=CBA460A38=6C74$A>942CPB08A@D0;8CH8<?02CBB38B2DBB4314;>F'+$ 2>=2;D343C70CC74A48B0508A0A6D<4=CC70CC74$A>942CF8;;03E4AB4;H05542C08A@D0;8CH1420DB4 C74!"A4;843>=0=8=034@D0C408A@D0;8CH0=0;HB8BC74$A>942CF8;;70E4B86=85820=C 8<?02CBA4;0C43C>08A?>;;DC0=C740;C7A8B:BC70CC74!"508;43C>034@D0C4;H033A4BBC74 !"8=034@D0C4;H4E0;D0C43C74$A>942CPB6A44=7>DB460BMN8<?02CB0=3 C74!" 3>4B=>C8=2;D340;;540B81;4<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC>033A4BBC74$A>942CPB08A@D0;8CH8<?02CB '+$A42><<4=3BC70CM.0/==E8A>=<4=C0;<?02C&4?>ACB7>D;314?A4?0A43C> 034@D0C4;H0BB4BB0=3<8C860C4C74?>C4=C80;08A@D0;8CH740;C7A8B:0=38<?02CBC70CC74 ?A>942C<0H70E4>=C744=E8A>=<4=CNG0C (%2%,)%$/.!.).!$%15!4%!)215!,)48!.!,83)3 0=3DB434E4;>?<4=C?A>942CBD=34A%CH?820;;H4E0;D0C408A@D0;8CH8<?02CB0=3 20;2D;0C4?>C4=C80;2A8C4A8008A?>;;DC0=C4<8BB8>=BDB8=6C740;85>A=80<8BB8>=BBC8<0C>A !>34;M0;!>3N)B8=6B8C4B?4285828=?DC34C08;BC74<>34;20;2D;0C4B0?A>942CPB 2>=BCAD2C8>=0=3>?4A0C8>=0;4<8BB8>=B64=4A0C8=6M>DC?DC58;4BN(74>DC?DC58;4B34B2A814F70C ?0A0<4C4ABF4A4DB438=20;2D;0C8=6C74?A>942CPB08A?>;;DC0=C4<8BB8>=B0=3B7>FF74A43450D;C E0;D4BF4A4270=6430C 4A4'+$5>D=3C70CC74!"0=38CB08A@D0;8CHC427=820;A4?>ACB8=??4=38G 508;43C>?A>E8342><?;4C40;!>3>DC?DC58;4BCB58;4B8=2;D343;0=3DB48=?DCB1DC><8CC43 0;;>C74A@D0;8C0C8E4>DC?DCBA460A38=6C74$A>942CPB2>=BCAD2C8>=0=3>?4A0C8>=0;4<8BB8>=B0=3 C74H0;B>><8CC4334C08;B>=270=64BC>C74<>34;PB3450D;CE0;D4B0C??4=38G0C +8C7>DC0224BBC>C78B30C0'+$F0BD=01;4C>E4A85HC74?>C4=C80;B86=85820=240=3 022DA02H>5C74!"08A@D0;8CH<>34;8=6G0C'+$2>=2;D343C70CM.0/=& B7>D;314?A4?0A43C>38B2;>B4C74$A>942CPB2><?;4C40;!>3>DC?DC58;4B0=30374A4C> %PB5>A<0;6D834;8=4BN0C (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#4-!8(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4)-0!#432%,!4%$4/!)2 0/,,54!.4(%!,4(2)3+34(!44(%&!),%$4/!$%15!4%,8!$$2%33 (74!"34C4A<8=43C70CC74$A>942CF>D;3A4BD;C8=0=46;8681;4740;C7A8B:8<?02C F8C7>DC?4A5>A<8=602>=BCAD2C8>=740;C7A8B:0=0;HB8BM&N4E4=C7>D67%A4@D8A4B0;; ?A>?>B43?A>942CBC>2>==42CC748A08A?>;;DC0=C4<8BB8>=BC>?>C4=C80;03E4AB48<?02CB>=7D<0= 740;C7(74!"C74A45>A4E8>;0C4B%1420DB48C3>4B=>C2>==42CC74$A>942CPB 2>=BCAD2C8>=A4;0C434<8BB8>=B>5384B4;?0AC82D;0C4<0CC4AM$!N0:=>F=7D<0=20A28=>64= C>?>C4=C80;740;C7A8B:BC>=40A1HB4=B8C8E4A424?C>AB!>A4>E4AC74!"3>4B=>C 2><?0A4C74$A>942CPB4G24BB20=24AA8B:C>C74%B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;3>5C74'>DC7>0BC 8A%D0;8CH!0=064<4=C8BCA82CM'%!N A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 '+$PB>F=0;!>320;2D;0C8>=BB7>F43C70CC74$A>942CPB2>=BCAD2C8>=02C8E8C84B F8;;?A>3D2401>DC ?>D=3B>5$!>E4AC74<>=C72>=BCAD2C8>=?4A8>3'+$ C74=2>=3D2C430=&C><40BDA4C74740;C7A8B:B5A><C74B4$!4<8BB8>=BDB8=6 &'&"0B2A44=8=6;4E4;08A@D0;8CH38B?4AB8>=<>34;C70C<40BDA4BC74<0G8<D< ?>C4=C80;2>=24=CA0C8>=B>508A2>=C0<8=0=CB05542C8=6=40A1HB4=B8C8E4A424?C>ABBD270B8=50=CB '+$=>C43C70C85M&'&"8=3820C4B0?>C4=C80;08A@D0;8CH70I0A3034C08;43 <>34;8=60=0;HB8B8BA4@D8A43145>A4$A>942C0??A>E0;N A><8CB&'+$5>D=3C70CC744G24BB20=24AA8B:5A><C74$A>942CPB$! 4<8BB8>=B0CC74=40A4BCB4=B8C8E4A424?C>AF>D;314?4A<8;;8>=5>A8=50=CB>E4AC74 <>=C72>=BCAD2C8>=?4A8>30C(78B50A4G2443BC74'%!PBB86=85820=24C7A4B7>;3>5 ?4A<8;;8>=0C'+$C7DB2>=2;D343C70CMC78BA4BD;CB8=0?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C 8<?02C=>C?A4E8>DB;H033A4BB43>A834=C858438=C74'!"N0=3M0=&B7>D;314?A4?0A43 C>8=2;D3402><?A474=B8E4&C70C?A>?4A;H4E0;D0C4B8<?02CB5A><2>=BCAD2C8>=N0C (%&!),%$4/!$%15!4%,8!33%334(%2/*%#4:3)-0!#43/.'2%%.(/53%'!3 %-)33)/.3 (74!"4BC8<0C4BC70CC74$A>942CF8;;?A>3D24=4C0==D0;4<8BB8>=B>5 <4CA82C>=B>520A1>=38>G8344@D8E0;4=CB?4AH40A>F4E4A1420DB4C74!"PB 0;!>3>DC?DC58;4B383=>C?A>E834C744<8BB8>=4BC8<0C4B>A0=HA4;4E0=C8=?DCB0B8345A>< ;0=3DB4B'+$F0BD=01;4C>E4A85HC74;468C8<02H>5C744<8BB8>=4BC8<0C4BC74!" ?A>E834BB0A4BD;CC74$A>942CPB4<8BB8>=B2>D;314D=34A4BC8<0C43'+$ 2>=2;D34BC70CMD=C8;0=&8B?A4?0A43C>8=2;D342><?;4C40;!>3>DC?DC58;4BF420==>C 4=BDA4C74$A>942CPB4<8BB8>=B0A4022DA0C4;H20;2D;0C430=3C74'!"PB0=0;HB8B B7>D;3=>C14A4;843D?>=N (%$/%3./4).#,5$%!,,&%!3)",%-)4)'!4)/.-%!352%34/!$$2%334(%2/*%#4:3 !)215!,)48)-0!#43 420DB4C74$A>942CF>D;3A4BD;C8=B86=85820=C740;C7A8B:BC>8=38E83D0;B8=C74 2><<D=8CH0A>D=3C74$A>942CB8C4MC74'!"<DBC8=2;D340;;540B81;4<8C860C8>=C>033A4BB C74$A>942CPB?>C4=C80;08A@D0;8CH0=3740;C7A8B:BNG0CD834;8=4BJ 6 '+$>554ABE0A8>DB<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC70CC748CH2>D;34E0;D0C4C>A43D24C74$! 4<8BB8>=B5A><$A>942C2>=BCAD2C8>='D27<40BDA4B8=2;D340<>=6>C74AC78=6B<8=8<8I0C8>= >5D==424BB0AHE4782D;0A0=3<0278=4AHDC8;8I0C8>=>52;40=5D4;64=4A0C>AB0=34G8BC8=6?>F4A B>DA24BDB4>50;C4A=0C8E45D4;0=34;42CA824@D8?<4=C0=3A4@D8A438<?;4<4=C0C8>=>5(84A 4@D8?<4=C>A14CC4A5>A0;;4=68=4B01>E4 7>AB4?>F4AG0C(74B4<40BDA4BF>D;3 45542C8E4;HA43D24$A>942CA4;0C43$!4<8BB8>=B1H8=C46A0C8=6;>F4A4<8CC8=634B86=540CDA4B 8=C>C74$A>942C8=CDA=<8=8<8I8=64<8BB8>=B3DA8=62>=BCAD2C8>=0C'+$2>=2;D34B C70CM0=&B7>D;314?A4?0A43C>8=2;D340;;540B81;4<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BN A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 (%2%)3!&!)2!2'5-%.44(!44(%2/*%#4-!8(!6%3)'.)&)#!.4!$6%23%)-0!#43/. ).$//2!)215!,)48 4AC858438=3DBCA80;7H684=8BCA0=28B#554A<0==$70BA4E84F43C74$A>942C C748A42C>APB4C4A<8=0C8>=0=3>C74A3>2D<4=CBA460A38=6C74$A>942CPB8=3>>A08A4<8BB8>=B (74B43>2D<4=CB?A>E834=>0=0;HB8B>5C74$A>942CPB8=3>>A08A@D0;8CH8<?02CB!A#554A<0== 2>=2;D34BC70CC74$A>942CF8;;4G?>B48CB5DCDA4A4B834=CBC>B86=85820=C740;C78<?02CBA4;0C43C> 8=3>>A08A@D0;8CH?0AC82D;0A;H4<8BB8>=B>5C7420=24A20DB8=6274<820;5>A<0;347H34!A #554A<0==8B0;4038=64G?4AC>=8=3>>A08A@D0;8CH0=370B?D1;8B7434GC4=B8E4;H>=C74C>?82 !A#554A<0==4G?;08=BC70C<0=H2><?>B8C4F>>3?A>3D2CBDB438=1D8;38=6<0C4A80;B 2><<>=;H5>D=38=A4B834=24B2>=C08=5>A<0;347H3410B436;D4BF7827A4;40B45>A<0;347H34 60B>E4A0E4AH;>=6?4A8>3>5C8<44BC0C4BM(74?A8<0AHB>DA24>55>A<0;347H348=3>>AB8B 2><?>B8C4F>>3?A>3D2CB<0=D502CDA43F8C7DA405>A<0;347H34A4B8=BBD270B?;HF>>3 <438D<34=B8CH5814A1>0A30=3?0AC82;41>0A3(74B4<0C4A80;B0A42><<>=;HDB438= A4B834=C80;>558240=3A4C08;1D8;38=62>=BCAD2C8>=5>A5;>>A8=62018=4CAH10B41>0A3BF8=3>F B7034B8=C4A8>A3>>AB0=3F8=3>F0=33>>ACA8<BNG0C >A<0;347H348B0:=>F=7D<0=20A28=>64=2;0BB858431HC74'C0C40B0(>G828A >=C0<8=0=C(74'%!70B4BC01;8B7430%B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;35>A08A1>A=420=24A A8B:>5 ?4A<8;;8>=!A#554A<0==5>D=3C70C5DCDA4$A>942C>22D?0=CB<0H144G?>B43C>0 20=24AA8B:5A><5>A<0;347H344<8BB8>=B>501>DC ?4A<8;;8>=5>AA4B834=CB0=3 ?4A <8;;8>=5>A2><<4A280;4<?;>H44B4E4=0BBD<8=6C70C0;;<0C4A80;B2><?;HF8C7C740;85>A=80 8A&4B>DA24B>0A3PBM&N5>A<0;347H3408A1>A=4C>G82B2>=CA>;<40BDA40C (78B4G2443BC74'%!PB%B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;35>A08A1>A=420=24AA8B:0C !A#554A<0==2>=2;D34BC70CC74$A>942CF8;;70E4B86=85820=C4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02CB C70C<DBC140=0;HI438=0=&>A!"0=3<8C860C8>=<40BDA4B<DBC148<?>B43C>A43D24C74 A08B4320=24AA8B:0C !A#554A<0==?A4B2A814B0<4C7>3>;>6H5>A4BC8<0C8=6C74 $A>942CPB5>A<0;347H344<8BB8>=B5>A0<>A4?A>942CB?428582740;C7A8B:0BB4BB<4=C0C 40;B>834=C8584B540B81;4B4E4A0;<8C860C8>=<40BDA4BC>342A40B4C74B86=85820=C740;C7 A8B:B;8:48=BC0;;8=608AE4=C8;0C8>=BHBC4<B0=3A4@D8A8=6C74DB4>52><?>B8C4F>>3<0C4A80;B >=;H5>A0;;8=C4A8>A58=8B7BHBC4<BC70C0A4<034F8C7&0??A>E43=>033435>A<0;347H34 M"NA4B8=B>AD;CA0;>F4<8CC8=65>A<0;347H34M) NA4B8=B0C +74=0?A>942C4G2443B03D;H03>?C43%B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;30B74A4C78B0;>=4 4BC01;8B74BBD1BC0=C80;4E834=24C70CC74?A>942CF8;;70E40B86=85820=C03E4AB44=E8A>=<4=C0; 8<?02C=34438=<0=H8=BC0=24BBD2708A@D0;8CHC7A4B7>;3B0A4C74>=;H2A8C4A80A4E84F430=3 CA40C430B38B?>B8C8E48=4E0;D0C8=6C74B86=85820=24>50?A>942CPB08A@D0;8CH8<?02CB " # )&1 *0)/2*!*)*( 0;?? C7 .>D=CH0??;84B8A8BCA82CPB M?D1;8B743%@D0=C8C0C8E42A8C4A80N0=3MC7A4B7>;3;4E4;>52D<D;0C8E4B86=85820=24N/. '.* *((0)$/$ .!*- // -)1$-*)( )/1 '$!*-)$ .*0- ." )2 0;?? C7 .MOC7A4B7>;3>5B86=85820=24P5>A068E4=4=E8A>=<4=C0;45542C8B B8<?;HC70C;4E4;0CF7827C74;403064=2H58=3BC7445542CB>5C74?A>942CC>14B86=85820=CN/(74 A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 0;85>A=80'D?A4<4>DAC70BB7>F=C748<?>AC0=240=08A38BCA82CB86=85820=24C7A4B7>;370B8= ?A>E838=6BD1BC0=C80;4E834=24>50B86=85820=C03E4AB48<?02C *((0)$/$ .!*- // - )1$-*)( )/1*0/# *./$-0'$/2)" ( )/ $./ 0; C7 .4BC8<0C434<8BB8>=B8=4G24BB>508A38BCA82CPBB86=85820=24C7A4B7>;3BM2>=BC8CDC4BD1BC0=C80; 4E834=24BD??>AC8=60508A0A6D<4=C5>A0B86=85820=C03E4AB48<?02CN/'8=244G?4AC4E834=24 B7>FBC74$A>942CF8;;4G2443C74'%!PB%B86=85820=24C7A4B7>;3C74A48BBD1BC0=C80; 4E834=24C70C0=MD=BCD3843?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C4=E8A>=<4=C0;45542C./N4G8BCB -$ ). *! *''*!)/ * - ).1)/ * /2 (/2 *'' $./ 0;C7 (748CHPB508;DA4C>033A4BBC74$A>942CPB5>A<0;347H344<8BB8>=B8B2>=CA0AHC>C74 0;85>A=80'D?A4<4>DACPB3428B8>=8= '$!*-)$0$'$)")0./-2..4)12- $- 0'$/2"(/ $./ 0; C7M N(74>DAC74;38= C70C% 3>4B=>C64=4A0;;HA4@D8A4;403064=284BC>0=0;HI4C748<?02CB>5039024=C4=E8A>=<4=C0; 2>=38C8>=B>=0?A>942C0C >F4E4AC>C744GC4=CC70C0?A>942C<0H4G024A10C4 4G8BC8=64=E8A>=<4=C0;2>=38C8>=B0C>A=40A0?A>942CB8C4C7>B445542CBF>D;3BC8;;70E4C>14 2>=B834A43?DABD0=CC>%0C .M%20;;BD?>=0=064=2HC>4E0;D0C44G8BC8=6 2>=38C8>=B8=>A34AC>0BB4BBF74C74A0?A>942C2>D;34G024A10C470I0A3BC70C0A40;A403H ?A4B4=CN/=B>7>;38=6C74>DAC4G?A4BB;H74;3C70C%PBBC0CDC>AH;0=6D064A4@D8A4B;403 064=284BC>38B2;>B40=30=0;HI4M8<?02CB>=0?A>942CPBDB4AB>AA4B834=CBC70C0A8B45A><C74 ?A>942CPB45542CB>=C744=E8A>=<4=CN0C (7420A28=>64=825>A<0;347H344<8BB8>=B!A#554A<0==70B834=C858430A4=>C0= 4G8BC8=64=E8A>=<4=C0;2>=38C8>=(7>B44<8BB8>=BF8;;145A><C74$A>942C&4B834=C80;C4=0=CB F8;;14C74$A>942CPBDB4ABDAA4=C;HC74A48B?A4BD<01;H;8CC;4C>=>5>A<0;347H344<8BB8>=B0C C74B8C4#=241D8;CC74$A>942CF8;;BC0AC4<8CC8=65>A<0;347H340C;4E4;B?>B8=6B86=85820=C38A42C 0=32D<D;0C8E4740;C7A8B:BC>C74$A>942CPBDB4AB(740;85>A=80'D?A4<4>DAC8= 4G?A4BB;H5>D=3C70CC78B08A4<8BB8>=0=3740;C78<?02C5A><C74$A>942C>=C744=E8A>=<4=C0=3 0M?A>942CPBDB4AB0=3A4B834=CBN<DBC14033A4BB43D=34A% (740;85>A=80'D?A4<4>DACPBA40B>=8=68BF4;;6A>D=3438=%PBBC0CDC>AH ;0=6D064%4G?A4BB;H8=2;D34B0?A>942CPB45542CB>=7D<0=148=6B0B0=45542C>=C74 4=E8A>=<4=CC70C<DBC14033A4BB438=0=4=E8A>=<4=C0;A4E84FM'42C8>= 1PB4G?A4BB ;0=6D0645>A4G0<?;4A4@D8A4B058=38=6>50OB86=85820=C45542C>=C744=E8A>=<4=CPJ 1F74=4E4AC74O4=E8A>=<4=C0;45542CB>50?A>942CF8;;20DB4BD1BC0=C80;03E4AB445542CB *)#0() $)".48C74A38A42C;H>A8=38A42C;HPN 0; C70C .4<?70B8B8=>A868=0;/ 8:4F8B4MC74 468B;0CDA470B<0342;40AL8=342;0A0C8>=B022><?0=H8=6%PB4=02C<4=CL C70C?D1;82740;C70=3B054CH0A4>56A40C8<?>AC0=248=C74BC0CDC>AHB274<4N28C8=646JJ BD13B1236 BD13B13C6>4BF8C7>DCB0H8=6C70CC74$A>942CPB 5DCDA4A4B834=CB0=32><<4A280;4<?;>H44B0A47D<0=148=6B0=3C748A740;C70=3B054CH<DBC 14BD1942C43C>%PBB0546D0A3B (748CH70B03DCHC>8=E4BC860C48BBD4BA4;0C8=6C>0?A>942CPB?>C4=C80;4=E8A>=<4=C0; 8<?02CB *0)/2)$//$*) $./*1 *0)/2*! -) 0;?? C7 K.M.)/=34A%C74;403064=2H140AB01DA34=C>8=E4BC860C4?>C4=C80; A20380(>F=4=C4A$A>942C '&><<4=C>=!8C860C43"460C8E442;0A0C8>= 424<14A $064 >5 4=E8A>=<4=C0;8<?02CBN/(74$A>942CF8;;70E4B86=85820=C45542CB>=8=3>>A08A@D0;8CH0=3 740;C7A8B:B1H4<8CC8=65>A<0;347H34C70CF8;;4G?>B45DCDA4A4B834=CB0=32><<4A280; 4<?;>H44BC>20=24AA8B:B4G24438=6'%!PBB86=85820=24C7A4B7>;35>A20=24AA8B:>5 ?4A <8;;8>==;867C>5C78B8<?02C0=3C748CHPB;02:>50=H4E834=24C>C742>=CA0AHC748CH<DBC ?A4?0A40=&145>A40??A>E8=6C74$A>942CC>0=0;HI40=3<8C860C4C74B48<?02CB B38B2DBB4301>E4C74A48B0508A0A6D<4=CC70CC74$A>942C<0H70E4B86=85820=C03E4AB4 8<?02CB>=18>;>6820;A4B>DA24B=>8B408A@D0;8CH0=38=3>>A08A@D0;8CH=&8BC74A45>A4 A4@D8A43C>0=0;HI40=3<8C860C4C74$A>942CPB?>C4=C80;;HB86=85820=C45542CB(7DB'& A4B?42C5D;;HA4@D4BCBC70CC748CH=>CA4;H>=C74!"0=38=BC403?A4?0A40=328A2D;0C40=& 145>A45DAC74A2>=B834A0C8>=>5C74$A>942C '8=24A4;H 0H;4H)=> #-)&)&, $ 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Attn. Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 12 December 2024 RE: Arcadia Town Center Dear Mr. Arreola, I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Arcadia Town Center project, which I understand would add a five-story, 440,938 square-foot mixed-use building on 2.27 acres located on the corner of Huntington Dr. and N Santa Anita Ave. in Arcadia, CA. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (City of Arcadia 2024). My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.8 hours from 06:47 to 09:35 hours on 6 December 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. Conditions were sunny with 3 MPH northeast wind and temperatures of 52-63° F. The site contains unoccupied office and commercial buildings and a parking lot, with multiple ornamental trees and shrubs (Photos 1-3). 2 Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Noriko saw Cooper’s hawk and peregrine falcon (Photos 3 and 4), Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 5 and 12), house finch and red-crowned parrot (Photos 6 and 7), American crow and black phoebe (Photos 8 and 9), acorn woodpecker (Photo 10), Allen’s hummingbird (Photo 11), western bluebird and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 13 and 14), northern rough-winged swallow and California gull (Photos 15 and 16), mourning dove and band- tailed pigeon (Photos 17 and 18), northern mockingbird (Photos 19 and 20), eastern fox squirrel (Photo 21), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including six species with special status (Table 1). Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. 3 Photos 3 and 4. Cooper’s hawk (left), and peregrine falcon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photo 5. Anna’s hummingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 4 Photos 6 and 7. House finch (left) and red-crowned parrot (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 8 and 9. American crow with a piece of bread (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 5 Photo 10. Acorn woodpeckers just off of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 11 and 12. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Anna’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 6 Photos 13 and 14. Western bluebird just off of the project site (left), and yellow- rumped warbler on the project site (right), 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 15 and 16. Northern rough-winged swallow (left), and California gull (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 7 Photos 17 and 18. Mourning dove (left) and band-tailed pigeon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 19 and 20. Northern mockingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 8 Photo 21. Eastern fox squirrel just off the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.8 hours of survey on 6 December 2024. Common name Species name Status1 Notes Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flew over Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Flew over Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Territorial; chased NRWS and ALHU Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Perched and flew over California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL 3 flew over Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Chased BTPI on site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just off site Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Collected acorns Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just off site Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Flew over, perched nearby Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis Many Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Perched, foraged American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many Common raven Corvus corax Flew over Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Foraged, perched on site 9 Common name Species name Status1 Notes Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged on site Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Just off site Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Perched European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Flock flew over Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Perched House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Perched, socialized Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Just off site 1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5). The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model fit to her survey predicts 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected during that morning, or twice the number of species she actually detected (Figure 1). Unknown are the identities of those species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 38 other south-coast sites she and I have surveyed in California. Noriko’s rate of detections of species at the project site tracked the 95% confidence interval estimated from other surveys in California’s south coast region (Figure 1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 6 December 2024 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence. At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to 10 accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ܴ෠ =ଵ ଵ ௔ൗା௕×(ு௢௨௥௦)೎ , where ܴ෠ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on Noriko’s visual- scan surveys on 31 August and 1 September 2024. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 12.1 species over my first 2.8 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (2.8 hours to match the 2.8 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 21.2% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research si te. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 25 species Noriko detected after her 2.8 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 21.2% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Minutes into survey 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Model prediction r2 = 0.98, loss = 21.9 95% CI of 38 visual- scan surveys 2019-2024 Actual count of speciesCu m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o f w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s d e t e c t e d 11 would likely detect 25 0.212ൗ = 118 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 118 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. Because my prediction of 118 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed to inventory the project site for wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. Figure 2. Mean (95% CI) predicted wildlife species richness, ܴ෠ , as a nonlinear function of hour-long survey increments across 46 visual-scan survey stations across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 2015ࣣ2019. Note that the location of the study is largely irrelevant to the utility of the graph to the interpretation of survey outcomes at the project site. It is the pattern in the data that is relevant, because the pattern is typical of the pattern seen elsewhere. EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL SETTING The IS/MND fails to complete the first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources, which is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site. This first analytical step should also characterize the wildlife community that uses that portion of the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the project’s building. This appropriated airspace is habitat that would be lost to many species of birds, where avian habitat is defined by a species’ use of its environment (Hall et al. 1997), typically based on measurement (Smallwood 0204060801000 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative number of surveys (hours) (9 5 % C I ) 12 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is habitat to many species. It is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat not just to volant wildlife that fly through it, but to any and every animal that breaths air. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is part of the existing environmental setting, and it needs to be characterized as such in CEQA review. The IS/MND makes no mention of the aerosphere, let alone which species of birds might use it. To achieve the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should identify which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, and the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. However, the IS/MND provides neither the results of a field survey to detect species of wildlife nor of a desktop review to identify occurrence records of special-status species in the project area. Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys No surveys for birds were completed at the project site. Surveys are needed to characterize bird flights during both day and night, and the bird flights need to be further attributed by species, heights above ground, flight directions, and specific flight behaviors. The lack of surveys leaves the City of Arcadia blind to any potential project impacts to birds, because without a survey there is no sound basis for characterizing the existing environmental setting. Going forward with the project without completing appropriate avian surveys would be indefensible, and doing so could result in high costs to birds and to the building’s owner if windows require retrofits or window glass needs to be marked for visibility post-construction (see below, under Bird-Window Collisions). The IS/MND reports that the site supports 26 trees, but only three of which are protected by City Code. However, the IS/MND fails to report the importance of the site’s trees to birds. The trees on site serve to expand the vertical structural available to birds on the adjoining County Park and golf course, the combination of which composes a considerable open space within an expansive urbanized landscape. The trees on the project site effectively add open space to birds. Of Noriko Smallwood’s 130 observations of birds in flight during her survey, 38 were headed to or from trees on the project site. House finches, yellow-rumped warblers and red-crowned parrots flew to and from the palm trees located in the middle of the site. An Allen’s hummingbird and an Anna’s hummingbird flew back and forth to other trees in the middle of the site. All of these and more observations should have been made by wildlife biologists sent to the project site by the City of Arcadia. 13 Noriko saw 17 species flying through the airspace of the project site, and all these flying birds were within the height domain of the proposed building. Of the flying birds, 44% were within 30 feet of the ground, and 93% were within 60 feet of the ground. Three of the birds circled over the site (including the peregrine falcon), while 38 were headed west, 30 east, 35 north, and 21 south. Unknown, however, are the numbers of birds, their heights above ground, behaviors, and their bearings in other seasons or at night. These details matter because they can affect collision rates with the building’s windows, and whether the building can be designed to minimize collisions. Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. The IS/MND includes no desktop review to assess avian species’ occurrence likelihoods in or near the airspace that would be appropriated by the proposed project. The lack of a desktop review for avian flight paths and for special-status species likely to occur at the project site leaves the City of Arcadia uninformed of and unprepared for potential project impacts to birds. It also fails to publicly disclose potential impacts to birds. In my assessment based on database review, 77 special-status species of birds are known to occur near enough to the project site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Members of these 77 species can fly within the aerosphere of the project site and would be vulnerable to collision with the building or with loss of energy caused by the need to circumnavigate the building. Of these 77 special-status species, 6 (8%) have been documented on or just next to the project site, 45 (58%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), 11 (14%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 14 (18%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Most (80.5%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the site’s airspace carries considerable potential for supporting the travels of many special-status species of birds based on proximity of recorded occurrences. 14 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko. Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Very close Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Nearby San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus CFP Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close 15 Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just offsite Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP, CCE Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP Nearby Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just offsite American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP On site Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Very close Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Very close Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Very close 16 Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Very close Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M Nearby Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC In range Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). Because the project would consist of a mid-rise building with many windows, avian use of the local aerosphere should be of principal concern. Of the available records of tracked birds, 2,585 birds of 117 species have been recorded flying into the Los Angeles Metropolitan area from 18 countries of the Americas, from as far away as Argentina, 17 Bahamas, and Canada (https://explorer.audubon.org/explore/locations/ MYSwLgngvAMg9gZwAQEEB2BzApgGywgbgCcsMQ40oBhFA4OAVzTCOgFUBlWnAQ zCgDMAFgB0ABgCsAiQHYCOClAC0ARhUAOEQCYhE3UA/connections?locationAddr ess=Los+Angeles%2C+California&y=2403411.3245877805&x=2517121.9601057805&zo om=7&legend=expand&layersPanel=expand). According to BirdCast, which detects flying birds via radar, nearly 794,000 birds were in flight over Los Angeles County during the night of 28 April 2024. I am unable to locate the major pathways of these flights, but Terrill et al. (2021) found up to 13,500 birds per morning1 flying low through Bear Divide. Headed to and from Bear Divide, these birds would have been similarly channeled by terrain in and around the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. More than 11 million birds flew across Los Angeles County through the 2024 spring migration by the time of this writing (https://dashboard.birdcast.info/region/US-CA- 037). Bird flights across Los Angeles averaged 107,539 flights per night in spring 2024. Most of these flights ranged in height from 100 feet to 10,000 feet above ground. I am unaware of the distribution of flight heights of birds crossing the City of Arcadia, but at a nearby study site (Coachella Valley), McCrary et al. (1982) detected 12.9% of nocturnally migrating birds below 100 m altitude, which corresponds with the heights of the proposed building of either option. Assuming this percentage also applies to birds flying across the aerosphere overlying the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area including Arcadia, then migratory flights documented by BirdCast would average 13,873 birds per night to be flying in the dark and within the height domain of the proposed building. That 13,500 birds per night were documented flying through the Bear Divide during peak migration likely attests to considerable uncertainty in the BirdCast data. Such uncertainty should be treated in a manner that is consistent with the precautionary principle in risk assessment. The BirdCast data might be missing many of the migratory birds that fly low due to ground clutter.2 Ground clutter in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area comes in the forms of buildings and trees. In summary, the basis exists for concern that a large number of birds might routinely fly through the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the proposed building. Potential collision impacts from this project are addressed below, under the heading Bird-Window Collisions. Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway, which includes the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. At least 77 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, many of the special- status species in Table 2 have been document ed as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Surveys by qualified behavioral ecologists are needed to characterize bird flight activity in the project area. A desktop review is also needed to identify the special-status species 1 Morning flights are regarded as continuation of nocturnal flights into daylight hours. 2 Ground clutter generates solid radar echoes that hide the echoes of individual birds. 18 of birds most at risk of encountering the building while flying through the area. The analysis should provide guidance to the orientation and design of the building. Also, it should provide guidance to mitigation measures. Based on Noriko Smallwood’s brief survey of the site for vertebrate wildlife, and based on my cursory desktop review for the potential of special-status species of wildlife to occur at the site, there is at least a fair argument to be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community of the project site. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting is an essential foundation for analysis of potential project impacts, but the IS/MND provides no foundation for an impacts analysis. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how the proposed project would affect members of each potentially occurring special- status species and of each species of bird likely to attempt to fly through the airspace of the project. In the following, I analyze impacts likely to result from the project but which are not addressed in the IS/MND. INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the IS/MND includes no analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The project would insert a midrise building into the airspace that has been used by birds on migration, dispersal, home range patrol and foraging over millions of years. This building would obviously interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Noriko Smallwood observed and photographed birds flying through the airspace of the project site. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to volant wildlife and how those impacts to movement can be mitigated. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS The project would add a 5-story mixed-use building, which would expose the birds of Arcadia to many windows composing the building’s facades. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 19 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend 20 to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants (Van Doren et al. 2021) as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo- Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. Project Impact Prediction By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m 2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project. 21 The IS/MND does not disclose the extent of glass windows on the proposed new building. I therefore measured the extents of windows depicted in the IS/MND’s schematics of the building, though in doing so I omitted measurement of the glass railings. I adjusted my measured extent of exterior glass for the exterior glass that was either not visible or only obliquely visible on façades of interior spaces such as around the courtyard and within projections of the building My adjustment was 50%, which was conservative. With this adjustment, I estimate the project would include 2,966 m2 of exterior glass windows. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimates of glass in either project, I predict annual bird deaths of 217 (95% CI: 129௅305). The vast majority of bird-window collision deaths would be of birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of bird-window collisions that might be caused by the project. TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 22ȸ25), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. 22 Photo 22. A white-tailed antelope squirrel runs across the road just in the Coachella Valley, 26 May 2022. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo 23. A coyote uses the crosswalk to cross a road on 2 February 2023. Not all drivers stop, nor do all animals use the crosswalk. Too often, animals are injured or killed when they attempt to cross roads. Photos 24 and 25. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle on a California road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.) The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study 23 found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but al so skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts 1,302,015 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 554 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. However, compared to the study area of Mendelsohn et al. (2009), fewer animals would be killed in the urbanized part of Arcadia that surrounds the project site, so an adjustment is warranted. Assuming that the number of wild animals encountered by project-generated traffic would be only 30% of the number of animals encountered by traffic in the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, the annual death toll to wildlife resulting from project- generated traffic would be 166. Even this assumed lower mortality would qualify as a 24 significant impact, and based on my review of the available documents, it would not be mitigated. Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS’MND’s analysis of potential project contributions to cumulative impacts is flawed. According to the IS/MND (p. 3-114), “All reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. … all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the Development Code and AMC. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations and implementation of the mitigation program would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts.” However, according to the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.” The IS/MND cites no specific requirements that would substantially lessen cumulative impacts to wildlife in the area. The CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) futher state, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND provides no explanation of how implementing particular requirements of the City’s General Plan would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife. To measure the impacts of habitat loss and cumulative impacts to wildlife caused by development projects that had to comply with existing policies and regulations, Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time 25 of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects to wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well. The project would insert a glass-covered midrise building into the airspace that has been used by volant wildlife for millions of years to travel across the Los Angeles Basin. The project would further fragment aerial habitat of volant wildlife, and this would contribute cumulatively to other similar impacts caused by other midrise and high-rise buildings in the area. The project would also cause a predicted 217 (95% CI: 129௅305) bird-window collision fatalities. Additionally, the project would generate a predicted annual VMT of 1,302,015, which would contribute 166 to 554 wildlife-automobile collision fatalities to the cumulative annual mortality already underway in Arcadia and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. A cumulative impacts analysis needs to be completed. MITIGATION MEASURES The IS/MND summarizes three measures to mitigate potential project impacts to wildlife, but these measures are incomplete and inadequate. Below my comments on these measures are my recommendations for mitigation that should be considered in an EIR. RR BIO-1: If vegetation clearing occurs during the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. ... If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities shall be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest is abandoned. Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey unlikely to achieve much of any conservation 26 benefit to birds, and the IS/MND – like all other CEQA review documents I have read – cites no evidence of efficacy. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season, whereas preconstruction surveys take place only once and not necessarily at the optimal time for detecting nesting by birds. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey. One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas, as examples (and not suggesting these particular species occur at the project site), killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities. Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests they might salvage are only the nests of the year. Preconstruction surveys can do nothing to mitigate the loss of productive capacity that ensues construction. All subsequent years of productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey. Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable. RR BIO-2: …the Project Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain permits from the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for the removal and planting of Protected trees and street trees in the public right-of-way associated with the Project. … The obtaining of a necessary permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure, as it does not necessarily avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts. RR BIO-3: The Project Applicant/Property Owner shall submit the Project’s landscape plans, which will include the proposed locations and species of replacement street trees, to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for review. Street tree species will consist of those set forth in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan. This measure defers its own formulation to an unspecified later date that arrives after the public has had the opportunity to participate with the environmental review of the 27 project. It fails to suggest that any of the landscaping would be intended to benefit wildlife. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce 28 collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. The City of Arcadia should also follow the examples of other major cities and formulate its own mitigation guidelines for analysis of potential impacts and for mitigating those impacts. Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with the building’s windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the building. Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges. Thank you for your consideration, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 29 LITERATURE CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745. Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Arcadia. 2024. Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Psomas. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 30 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82. Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. 31 Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 McCrary, M. D., R. L. McKernan, R. E. Landry, W. D. Wagner, and R. W. Schreiber. 1982. Nocturnal avian migration assessment of the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study Area, Spring 1982. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. 32 Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14. Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density inÀuences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implicat ions for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. 33 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037. Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360. Terrill, R. S., C. A. Dean, J. Garrett, D. W. Maxwell, L. Hill, A. Farnsworth, A. M. Dokter, M. W. Tingley. 2021. A novel locality for the observation of thousands of passerine birds during spring migration in Los Angeles County, California. Western Birds 52:322̽339. doi 10.21199/WB52.4.4 Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D. Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021. Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118 ͓ʹͶǦͲͲʹǤ ͳͺǡ ʹͲʹͶ ͳͻ͵ͻǡͳͷͲ ǡͻͶ͸ͳʹ SUBJECT: Arcadia Town Center Project City of Arcadia, CA Review and Comment on Noise Study Ǥǡ ǡ ǣ Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, November 2024 (IS / MND) Appendix G Noise Calculations (Appendix G) ȋȌǦ ǦǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ͵Ǥͳ͵Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǡͳͻ͸͸Ǥ ͷ͹ ǡ ǤǤ Ǧ ȋȌǡǡǤ ǡ Ǥ WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 2 Adverse Effects of Noise1 ǡǡǡǤ Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.ǡ ǦǤǡ ȋȌ ȋȌ Ǥ Speech Interference.Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǡͳͷͳͺ ǤͶͷͷͲͳǡ ͵ͲǤ ǯǤǡ Ǥ Sleep Disturbance.ǡ ǡǡǤǤǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡǡǡ Ǥǡ ǡǡǤ Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects.ǯ ǲǳǤ ǡǡǤ Ǥ Impaired Cognitive Performance.ǯ ȋȌ ǡǡǡǤ Ǥ 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise , eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf) WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 3 Baseline Noise is Not Properly Established ȀǤ Ȁ Ǥ ʹͲ ȏǤ ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐ ǡǡ ȋͶͳͲȌǤȋʹͺͲȌǤ ʹͲ Ǧ ʹͲǦ Ǥ Ȁǡǲ ǳȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐǤ Ǥ ǡʹͲǡ Ǥ The Project must conduct properly documented ambient measurements near sensitive receptors that capture the current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine the impact of construction and operational noise. Figure 1 Project Site and Noise Sensitive Receivers Potentially Significant Construction Noise Impacts Ȁǯ Ǥ̶̶ȏ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐǡ ʹͺͲȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ʹȐǤ Ǥ ȀʹͷȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐ ǡ͸Ͳ͸ͻ ͷ͸͸ͷǡ ͳǤ Residences Residences Park /Memorial WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 4 Table 1 Estimated Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Levels (Leq, dBA) 95 feet – Arcadia County Park1 10 feet – Elk Lodge1 280 feet – Santa Anita Residences 2 410 feet – Santa Clara Residences 2 Ground Cleaning / Demolition ͹ͺ98 6965 Excavation ͹͵93 6460 Foundation Construction ͹ʹ92 6359 Building Construction ͸ͻ89 6056 Paving and Site Cleanup ͸ͻ89 6056 ͳǤ ʹͷȀ ʹǤʹͲȗȋȀͻͷȌ ȀǤ ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͷȐǡͷ͸ͳͲǤ͵ȋȌǡ Ǥʹǡʹͷ ȀͷͷǤ ͷͻǡȋȌǤ ʹͷ Ǥ Ȁǡ ȀʹʹȀ Ǥʹͷ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ Ȁ ǲ ǳȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͲȐǤȀ ǲǳǤǦȀͷͶ ͸͸ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐǤǡ Ǥͳǡ ͸ͷǡͳͳ ǤͳͲǦ Ǥ Ȁ ǤͳͲͳͷ 2 https://library.municode.com/ca/arcadia/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTIVPUWEMOPO_CH6NORE_PT1G EPR_4610.3NOLI WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 5 ǡǡǡ . The Project must properly evaluate construction noise impacts, including the noise increase over ambient levels at sensitive receptor locations. If the increase is significant the Project must properly evaluate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Operational Analysis Incomplete ȀǤ ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Conclusion ǤȀ ǡǦǤ ǡ ȀǦǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com December 18, 2024 Hayley Uno Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject: Comments on the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (SCH No. 2024110749) Dear Ms. Uno, We have reviewed the November 2024 Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Arcadia (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 440,938-square-feet (“SF”) of residential space, including 181 dwelling units and 378 parking spaces on the 2.27-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. Emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that the project may have on the environment. Air Quality Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).1 CalEEMod uses default values tailored to site-specific details such as land use type, meteorological data, lot size, project type, and typical equipment associated with that type. If project-specific details are available, users can modify these defaults, but CEQA requires substantial evidence to justify such changes. Once the inputs are finalized, the model calculates the 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. 2 project's construction and operational emissions and generates "output files." These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate where default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the values selected. Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files in Appendix A of the IS/MND reveals that the “Arcadia Town Center v2” includes land use inputs but omits all other qualitative outputs regarding the Project’s construction-related and operational emission (pp. 38, 39). Note: Only sections 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2 are included for reader clarity. Without access to specific emissions values, we are unable to verify the potential significance or accuracy of the Project’s model. Furthermore, the “Arcadia Town Center v2” model does not include the “User Changes to Default” table. (Appendix A, pp. 54) Without access to the “User Changes to Default Data” table, we are unable to verify whether changes were made to the model’s default values. CEQA requires public disclosure of environmental impacts to 3 ensure transparency with regards to potential environmental impacts of land use developments.2 An EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s complete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND determines that the Project would result in a negligible health risk impact without conducting a construction health risk analysis (“HRA”). CEQA requires all proposed projects to connect their emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.3 As the IS/MND does not establish a connection between the Project’s construction-related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions and potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project violates CEQA’s requirement. Additionally, the IS/MND does not compare the Project's excess cancer risk to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 10 in one million.4 An assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors due to Project construction should be conducted to comply with the most relevant guidance. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We conducted an HRA using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model that estimates maximum potential concentrations of air contaminants affecting nearby sensitive receptors.5 If AERSCREEN indicates a potential air quality hazard, a detailed modeling analysis is required before Project approval. 6 To conduct a preliminary, screening-level construction HRA, it is necessary to have an estimate of the Project's annual particulate matter 10 ("PM10") exhaust emissions.7 However, as detailed in the section of this letter titled Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files, the Project's CalEEMod files exclude the projected values for construction-related emissions. In the absence of this requisite information, we created a model using the Project-specific details provided in the IS/MND and related documents to estimate PM10 emissions. 2 “Environmental Review Guidelines.” San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, September 2024, available at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/ceqa/DRAFT-SDAPCD-CEQA- Guidelines.pdf#:~:text=It%20is%20intended%20to%20require%20public%20disclosure,under%20what%20circumst ances%20to%20approve%20such%20projects.&text=In%20accordance%20with%20Section%2015063%20of%20th e,have%20a%20significant%20effect%20on%20the%20environment. 3 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 4 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 5 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 6 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263. 7 “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” CARB, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health. 4 Our analysis included 173,760-SF of “Apartments Mid Rise,” 151,200-SF of “Enclosed Parking with Elevator,” 4,000-SF of “Strip Mall,” 1-acre of “City Park,” 5,000-SF of “User Defined Commercial,” and 5,000-SF of “General Office Building,” consistent with the Project’s original model. Additionally, as the Project’s construction duration was not properly justified or disclosed, we developed a proportionately altered construction schedule to match the total construction duration of 29 months (IS/MND, p. 2-11).8 All other values were left as default.9 Following Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) recommendations, we began residential exposure at the third trimester of life. Our CalEEMod emissions indicate that construction will produce approximately 380 pounds of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) over the 730-day period. 10 The AERSCREEN model simulates maximum concentrations from emission sources using an average emission rate. We calculated this average DPM emission rate to account for variations in equipment usage and truck trips during construction using the following equation: Emission Rate ቀ grams secondቁ = 380 lbs 730 days × 453.6 grams lbs × 1 day 24 hours × 1 hour 3,600 seconds =૙.૙૙૚૝૝ ܏/ܛ We estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00144 grams per second (“g/s”). Construction was simulated as a 2.27-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 136- by 68-meters. A release height of 3 meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of the city of Arcadia was obtained from U.S. 2023 Census data.11 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.12 According to the AERSCREEN output files the maximally exposed individual receptor would be located 75 meters from the Project site. However, the IS/MD states that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 280 feet, or 85 meters, from the Project site (p. 3-10). The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is 2.670 ђg/m3 DPM at around 100 meters downwind.13 Multiplying this single-hour 8 See Attachment A for the proportionately altered construction phases’ calculations. 9 See Attachment B for SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files. 10 See Attachment C for health risk calculations. 11 “Arcadia” U.S. Census Bureau, 2023, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602462?q=arcadia. 12 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 13 Note: AERSCREEN output files come in increments of 25 meters, so our emissions calculations are slightly underestimated. 5 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2670 ђg/m3 for Project construction at the nearest sensitive receptor.14 The excess cancer risk to the nearest sensitive receptor was calculated using applicable HRA methodologies as prescribed by OEHHA, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation. 15 Guidance from OEHHA and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) suggests utilizing a standard point estimate approach, with high-point estimate breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) to accurately assess risk, especially for susceptible populations like children. The residential exposure parameters considered in our screening-level HRA include daily breathing rates, exposure duration, ASFs, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency for different age groups (see table below). Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)16 Age Sensitivity Factor 17 Exposure Duration (years) Fraction of Time at Home 18 Exposure Frequency (days/year)19 Exposure Time (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24 Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24 Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24 Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24 The procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose per age group for the inhalation pathway. Contaminate dose is then multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. The following dose algorithm was used to assess exposure assumptions: 14 See Attachment D for AERSCREEN output files. 15 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 16 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 18 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 6 Dose୅୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟ୥ୣ ୥୰୭୳୮ = Cୟ୧୰ × EF × ൤ BR BW൨ × A × CF where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair сĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚŝŶĂŝƌ;ʅŐͬŵϯͿ EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1) CF = conversion factor (1x10-ϲ͕ʅŐƚŽŵŐ͕>ƚŽŵϯͿ We used the following equation to calculate the overall cancer risk per appropriate age group: Cancer Risk ୅୍ୖ = Dose୅୍ୖ ×CPF ×ASF ×FAH ×ED AT where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 730-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.75 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below. The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction Age Group Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06 Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05 Construction 2 8.04E-05 The excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant stage of life at the nearest sensitive receptor, over the course of Project construction are approximately 3.63 and 76.7 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over just the course of the Project construction is approximately 7 80.4 in one million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. This results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the IS/MND. Our analysis represents a conservative screening-level HRA, which prioritizes public health. It is used to show the potential correlation between Project emissions and adverse health risks. The U.S. EPA recommends the use of a screening-level analysis as the first phase of a tiered approach to conducting exposure assumptions, as outlined in their Exposure Assessment Guidelines. 20 Screening-level analyses require further evaluation with more developed modeling. Our initial HRA demonstrates that Project construction could lead to significant health risks. An EIR should be prepared to include a comprehensive HRA that properly evaluates impacts from construction. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project will produce a net annual GHG emissions of 2,181-metric-tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 3-50, Table 17). The IS/MND indicates that the GHG emission values are included in Appendix A. However, as previously addressed, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files do not provide the emissions estimates or include any relevant inputs beyond the land uses. We are therefore unable to verify the legitimacy of the estimates presented in the table above and, as such, the Project’s GHG emissions could be underestimated. Until an EIR is prepared to include complete CalEEMod output files we cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and the IS/MND’s GHG analysis should not be relied upon for Project significance. Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions As the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact to individuals in the community surrounding the Project site, the IS/MND must include all feasible mitigation to address the Project’s potential air quality and health risks. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2): 20 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992,available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263. 8 “When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.” The IS/MND should evaluate the following mitigation measures to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction (see list below). The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report provides the following mitigation measures:21 x Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. x Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. x Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. x Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions. x Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. x Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts due to traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. x Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). If construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and 21 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 – 4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 9 remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible. The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”22 The proposed mitigation measures would effectively reduce Project-related DPM emissions by integrating lower-emitting design features into the Project, thereby minimizing emissions during construction. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures and updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses. This will ensure that necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 22 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗ĂůDŽĚKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗Z^ZEKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗DĂƚƚ,ĂŐĞŵĂŶŶs ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ&͗WĂƵůZŽƐĞŶĨĞůĚs Phase Default Phase Length Construction Duration % Construction Duration Revised Phase Length Demolition 20 381 0.0525 891 47 Site Preparation 3 381 0.0079 891 7 Grading 6 381 0.0157 891 14 Construction 220 381 0.5774 891 514 Paving 10 381 0.0262 891 23 Architectural Coating 10 381 0.0262 891 23 Total Default Construction Duration Revised Construction Duration Start Date 1/1/2026 1/1/2026 End Date 1/17/2027 6/10/2028 Total Days 381 891 Construction Schedule Calculations ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 1 / 57 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 2 / 57 3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated 3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated 3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 3 / 57 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 4 / 57 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 5 / 57 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 6 / 57 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 7 / 57 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Arcadia Town Center Construction Start Date 1/1/2026 Operational Year 2028 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)0.50 Precipitation (days)24.4 Location 34.140403578150526, -118.03194606892856 County Los Angeles-South Coast City Arcadia Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 4922 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Apartments Mid Rise 181 Dwelling Unit 2.27 173,760 2,000 — 536 — Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 8 / 57 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 378 Space 0.00 151,200 0.00 — — — City Park 1.00 Acre 0.00 0.00 21,825 21,825 — — User Defined Recreational 5.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 5,000 1,000 1,000 — — Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000 800 — — — General Office Building 5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000 1,000 — — — 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 1.62 1.33 10.4 16.5 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 0.30 0.24 1.89 3.01 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 9 / 57 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) —————————————————— 2026 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 2027 2.25 1.88 11.9 24.4 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,262 6,262 0.26 0.31 11.9 6,373 2028 0.79 0.66 5.58 9.02 0.01 0.20 0.52 0.54 0.19 0.12 0.23 — 1,440 1,440 0.05 0.02 1.48 1,447 Daily - Winter (Max) —————————————————— 2026 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 2027 2.24 1.86 12.1 22.6 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,126 6,126 0.18 0.31 0.31 6,223 2028 2.15 1.78 11.5 21.9 0.03 0.30 3.00 3.29 0.27 0.72 0.99 — 6,049 6,049 0.17 0.31 0.28 6,145 Average Daily —————————————————— 2026 1.62 1.30 10.4 15.9 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 2027 1.60 1.33 8.68 16.5 0.02 0.24 2.11 2.34 0.22 0.51 0.72 — 4,402 4,402 0.13 0.22 3.68 4,474 2028 0.42 0.35 2.31 4.43 0.01 0.06 0.53 0.59 0.06 0.13 0.18 — 1,130 1,130 0.03 0.05 0.83 1,148 Annual—————————————————— 2026 0.30 0.24 1.89 2.90 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 2027 0.29 0.24 1.58 3.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.38 0.43 0.04 0.09 0.13 — 729 729 0.02 0.04 0.61 741 2028 0.08 0.06 0.42 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 187 187 0.01 0.01 0.14 190 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 10 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Area 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 11 / 57 Mobile 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 Area 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average Daily —————————————————— Mobile 3.75 3.39 2.75 28.2 0.07 0.04 7.03 7.07 0.04 1.79 1.83 — 7,411 7,411 0.36 0.31 9.14 7,522 Area 9.14 8.69 0.37 18.3 0.02 0.90 — 0.90 0.88 — 0.88 116 261 377 0.35 < 0.005 — 387 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 Annual—————————————————— Mobile 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245 Area1.671.590.073.33<0.0050.16— 0.160.16— 0.1619.243.262.40.06<0.005— 64.1 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 440 440 0.03 < 0.005 — 442 Water———————————2.5214.016.50.260.01—24.9 Waste———————————12.70.0012.71.270.00—44.6 Refrig.————————————————0.210.21 Total 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 12 / 57 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.21 0.18 1.67 1.88 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 321 321 0.01 < 0.005 — 322 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.04 0.03 0.30 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.2 53.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 13 / 57 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.0 21.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.47 3.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 14 / 57 2,725—0.020.112,7162,716—0.39—0.390.42—0.420.0310.89.841.131.34Off-Roa d Equipm Dust From Material Movement ——————1.591.59—0.170.17——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.3 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.030.03—<0.005<0.005——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.62 8.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.65 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.010.01—<0.005<0.005——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 15 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust From Material Movement ——————7.107.10—3.433.43——————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 16 / 57 0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust From Material Movement ——————7.107.10—3.433.43——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.07 0.05 0.49 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.5 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.270.27—0.130.13——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.050.05—0.020.02——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 17 / 57 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 137 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.97 0.43 32.8 12.9 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,252 27,252 1.51 4.35 61.1 28,649 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.93 0.41 34.1 13.0 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,264 27,264 1.51 4.35 1.59 28,601 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.00 5.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.32 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,045 1,045 0.06 0.17 1.01 1,098 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 173 173 0.01 0.03 0.17 182 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 18 / 57 2,208—0.020.092,2012,201—0.33—0.330.36—0.360.0211.810.11.181.41Off-Roa d Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.41 1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.74 0.62 5.32 6.19 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,159 1,159 0.05 0.01 — 1,163 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.14 0.11 0.97 1.13 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 192 192 0.01 < 0.005 — 192 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.83 0.73 0.77 12.8 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,694 2,694 0.11 0.09 9.11 2,734 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.60 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,447 1,447 0.06 0.21 3.91 1,514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 19 / 57 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.83 0.73 0.87 11.0 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,553 2,553 0.12 0.09 0.24 2,585 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.67 0.79 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,448 1,448 0.06 0.21 0.10 1,511 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.43 0.38 0.50 6.04 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.32 0.32 — 1,364 1,364 0.06 0.05 2.08 1,382 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.88 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 762 762 0.03 0.11 0.89 796 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.34 229 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 126 126 0.01 0.02 0.15 132 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 20 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.97 0.81 6.93 8.36 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.18 0.15 1.26 1.53 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.80 0.71 0.69 11.9 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,642 2,642 0.11 0.09 8.23 2,681 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.53 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,419 1,419 0.06 0.20 3.70 1,483 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.79 0.69 0.86 10.1 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,505 2,505 0.04 0.09 0.21 2,534 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.59 0.74 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,420 1,420 0.06 0.20 0.10 1,480 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 21 / 57 Worker 0.57 0.49 0.61 7.59 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,815 1,815 0.03 0.07 2.53 1,839 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.14 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.01 0.08 0.08 — 1,014 1,014 0.04 0.14 1.14 1,058 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 301 301 < 0.005 0.01 0.42 304 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 168 168 0.01 0.02 0.19 175 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.29 1.08 9.23 11.7 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.21 0.18 1.52 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 22 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.77 0.67 0.77 9.53 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,460 2,460 0.03 0.09 0.19 2,489 Vendor 0.09 0.03 1.52 0.71 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,387 1,387 0.05 0.20 0.09 1,447 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.13 0.11 0.13 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 410 410 0.01 0.02 0.53 416 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 228 228 0.01 0.03 0.25 238 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 67.9 67.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 68.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 23 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.52 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.4 78.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.6 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 24 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 196 196 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 188 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 25 / 57 134—< 0.0050.01134134—0.01—0.010.02—0.02< 0.0051.120.810.110.13Off-Roa d Equipm Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.41 8.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.44 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.15 0.14 0.14 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.01 0.02 1.48 526 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 26 / 57 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.21 5.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 3.30 2.99 2.15 25.8 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,574 6,574 0.30 0.25 18.2 6,675 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 15.5 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 27 / 57 1,2523.420.050.061,2331,233—0.300.290.011.161.150.010.014.800.400.540.60Strip Mall General Office Building 0.16 0.15 0.11 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 339 339 0.02 0.01 0.94 344 Total 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 3.27 2.96 2.35 23.7 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,302 6,302 0.31 0.27 0.47 6,389 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.8 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 0.59 0.54 0.44 4.41 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,182 1,182 0.06 0.05 0.09 1,198 General Office Building 0.16 0.15 0.12 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 325 325 0.02 0.01 0.02 329 Total 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.56 0.51 0.41 4.22 0.01 0.01 1.05 1.06 0.01 0.27 0.27 — 1,003 1,003 0.05 0.04 1.24 1,018 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 28 / 57 City Park < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 0.22 184 General Office Building 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 41.8 Total 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————9679670.060.01—971 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————8138130.050.01—817 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 29 / 57 57.5—< 0.005<0.00557.357.3————————————Strip Mall General Office Building ————————————1301300.01<0.005—130 Total————————————1,9681,9680.120.01—1,975 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————9679670.060.01—971 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————8138130.050.01—817 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ————————————57.357.3<0.005<0.005—57.5 General Office Building ————————————1301300.01<0.005—130 Total————————————1,9681,9680.120.01—1,975 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————1601600.01<0.005—161 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————1351350.01<0.005—135 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 30 / 57 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ————————————9.489.48<0.005<0.005—9.52 General Office Building ————————————21.521.5<0.005<0.005—21.6 Total————————————3263260.02<0.005—327 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 31 / 57 40.7—< 0.005<0.00540.640.6—<0.005—< 0.005<0.005—<0.005< 0.0050.030.03<0.005< 0.005General Office Building Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 General Office Building < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.7 Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 107 107 0.01 < 0.005 — 107 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 32 / 57 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 General Office Building < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.74 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 — 115 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Consum er Product s 4.034.03———————————————— Landsca pe Equipm ent 2.22 2.08 0.16 17.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.2 Total 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 33 / 57 ————————————————4.034.03Consum er Product s Total 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Annual—————————————————— Hearths 0.66 0.59 0.05 1.15 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 36.7 56.0 0.06 < 0.005 — 57.6 Consum er Product s 0.740.74———————————————— Landsca pe Equipm ent 0.28 0.26 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.46 6.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.49 Total 1.67 1.59 0.07 3.33 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 43.2 62.4 0.06 < 0.005 — 64.1 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————12.967.280.11.330.03—123 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 34 / 57 5.28—< 0.005<0.0055.265.260.00———————————City Park User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.240.24<0.005<0.005—0.24 Strip Mall ———————————0.573.033.590.06<0.005—5.47 General Office Building ———————————1.708.9310.60.18<0.005—16.3 Total———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————12.967.280.11.330.03—123 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.005.265.26<0.005<0.005—5.28 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.240.24<0.005<0.005—0.24 Strip Mall ———————————0.573.033.590.06<0.005—5.47 General Office Building ———————————1.708.9310.60.18<0.005—16.3 Total———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————2.1411.113.30.220.01—20.3 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 35 / 57 Enclose Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.000.870.87<0.005<0.005—0.87 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.040.04<0.005<0.005—0.04 Strip Mall ———————————0.090.500.600.01<0.005—0.91 General Office Building ———————————0.281.481.760.03<0.005—2.69 Total———————————2.5214.016.50.260.01—24.9 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————72.20.0072.27.210.00—252 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.050.000.05<0.0050.00—0.16 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 36 / 57 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————2.260.002.260.230.00—7.92 General Office Building ———————————2.510.002.510.250.00—8.77 Total———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————72.20.0072.27.210.00—252 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.050.000.05<0.0050.00—0.16 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————2.260.002.260.230.00—7.92 General Office Building ———————————2.510.002.510.250.00—8.77 Total———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————11.90.0011.91.190.00—41.8 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 37 / 57 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Enclose d Parking with Elevator City Park ———————————0.010.000.01<0.0050.00—0.03 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————0.370.000.370.040.00—1.31 General Office Building ———————————0.410.000.410.040.00—1.45 Total———————————12.70.0012.71.270.00—44.6 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————1.241.24 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————0.020.02 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 38 / 57 0.010.01————————————————General Office Building Total————————————————1.281.28 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————1.241.24 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————0.020.02 General Office Building ————————————————0.010.01 Total————————————————1.281.28 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————0.210.21 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————<0.005<0.005 General Office Building ————————————————<0.005<0.005 Total————————————————0.210.21 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 39 / 57 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 40 / 57 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati on TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 41 / 57 Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 42 / 57 Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 3/6/2026 5.00 47.0 — Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 43 / 57 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2026 3/17/2026 5.00 7.00 — Grading Grading 3/18/2026 4/6/2026 5.00 14.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 4/7/2026 3/24/2028 5.00 514 — Paving Paving 3/27/2028 4/26/2028 5.00 23.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/27/2028 5/29/2028 5.00 23.0 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 44 / 57 0.5610.08.001.00AverageDieselPaving Cement and Mortar Mixers Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT SitePreparation———— Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 401 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT Building Construction ———— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 45 / 57 Building Construction Worker 199 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 46.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT Paving———— Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 39.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of Debris) Acres Paved (acres) Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 46 / 57 Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Site Preparation — — 10.5 0.00 — Grading — 44,870 6.00 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Apartments Mid Rise — 0% Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100% City Park 0.00 0% User Defined Recreational 0.00 0% Strip Mall 0.00 0% General Office Building 0.00 0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 47 / 57 Apartments Mid Rise 985 889 740 341,650 8,659 7,815 6,510 3,004,398 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.78 1.96 2.19 420 7.15 18.0 20.1 3,848 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 177 168 81.7 59,249 1,625 1,542 749 543,218 General Office Building 48.7 11.1 3.50 13,455 447 101 32.1 123,365 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 9 Gas Fireplaces 154 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 18 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 9 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 9 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 48 / 57 Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) ————— 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 663,516 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,010,339 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 558,144 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Strip Mall 39,285 532 0.0330 0.0040 23,948 General Office Building 89,101 532 0.0330 0.0040 126,732 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 6,746,558 34,282 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 680,192 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 49 / 57 User Defined Recreational 0.00 31,166 Strip Mall 296,290 11,220 General Office Building 888,669 14,025 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 134 — Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 — City Park 0.09 — User Defined Recreational 0.00 — Strip Mall 4.20 — General Office Building 4.65 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 City Park Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 City Park Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 50 / 57 18.04.004.00<0.0052,088R-410AStrip Mall Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Strip Mall Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators and freezers R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 General Office Building Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00 General Office Building Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 51 / 57 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 9.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth Wildfire 16.9 annual hectares burned Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 52 / 57 Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5),Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score TemperatureandExtremeHeat300N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A SeaLevelRise100N/A Wildfire100N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 000N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score TemperatureandExtremeHeat3113 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A SeaLevelRise1112 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 53 / 57 Wildfire1112 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 84.6 AQ-PM 70.7 AQ-DPM 57.7 Drinking Water 73.7 Lead Risk Housing 54.4 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 70.1 Traffic 80.3 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 74.9 Groundwater 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 54 / 57 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 59.8 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 70.4 Sensitive Population — Asthma 6.04 Cardio-vascular 7.47 Low Birth Weights 7.29 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 42.7 Housing 10.2 Linguistic 80.2 Poverty 27.9 Unemployment 45.8 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 84.3320929 Employed 68.92082638 Median HI 57.88528166 Education — Bachelor's or higher 80.67496471 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 84.88387014 Transportation — Auto Access 70.20402926 Active commuting 5.915565251 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 55 / 57 Social — 2-parent households 35.26241499 Voting 21.00603105 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 87.47593995 Park access 34.12036443 Retail density 39.49698447 Supermarket access 46.73424868 Tree canopy 66.75221352 Housing — Homeownership 46.75991274 Housing habitability 43.07712049 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 33.1707943 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 70.48633389 Uncrowded housing 63.4800462 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 52.11086873 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 94.2 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 97.0 Cognitively Disabled 87.2 Physically Disabled 80.2 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 56 / 57 Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.0 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 97.1 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 84.9 Elderly 16.5 English Speaking 18.2 Foreign-born 95.7 Outdoor Workers 60.7 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 34.1 Traffic Density 80.4 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 23.2 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 20.4 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 57 / 57 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 65.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Consistent with IS/MND's model. Construction: Construction Phases Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND. Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.06 Total DPM (lbs) 380 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.328767123 Total DPM (g) 90729.86301 Construction Duration (days) 365 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438513 Total DPM (lbs) 120 Release Height (meters) 3 Total DPM (g) 54432 Total Acreage 2.27 Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Horizontal (meters) 135.55 End Date 1/1/2027 Min Horizontal (meters) 67.77 Construction Days 365 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Arcadia Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Population 54,157 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Start Date 1/1/2026 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 1/1/2028 Total DPM (lbs) 80 Total Construction Days 730 Total DPM (g) 36288 Total Years of Construction 2.00 Start Date 1/1/2027 Total Years of Operation 28.00 End Date 1/1/2028 Construction Days 365 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Construction Duration (days) 180 Total DPM (lbs) 9.863013699 Total DPM (g) 4473.863014 Start Date 1/1/2028 End Date 6/29/2028 Construction Days 180 2028 2027 Construction 2026 Total ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Age Group Duration (years)Concentration (ug/m3)Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06 Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05 Construction 2 8.04E-05 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction AERSCREEN21112/AERMOD21112 12/16/24 14:10:10 TITLE:ArcadiaTownCenter,Construction ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ******************************AREAPARAMETERS**************************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ SOURCEEMISSIONRATE: 0.144EŞ02g/s 0.114EŞ01lb/hr AREAEMISSIONRATE: 0.157EŞ06g/(sŞm2) 0.124EŞ05lb/(hrŞm2) AREAHEIGHT: 3.00meters 9.84feet AREASOURCELONGSIDE: 135.55meters 444.72feet AREASOURCESHORTSIDE: 67.77meters 222.34feet INITIALVERTICALDIMENSION: 1.50meters 4.92feet RURALORURBAN: URBAN POPULATION: 54157 INITIALPROBEDISTANCE= 5000.meters 16404.feet ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ***********************BUILDINGDOWNWASHPARAMETERS********************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ BUILDINGDOWNWASHNOTUSEDFORNONŞPOINTSOURCES ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **************************FLOWSECTORANALYSIS*************************** 25meterreceptorspacing:1.metersŞ5000.meters ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MAXIMUMIMPACTRECEPTOR Zo SURFACE1ŞHRCONCRADIALDISTTEMPORAL SECTORROUGHNESS(ug/m3)(deg)(m)PERIOD ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1*1.0004.3412075.0WIN *=worstcasediagonal ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ **********************MAKEMETMETEOROLOGYPARAMETERS********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MIN/MAXTEMPERATURE:250.0/310.0(K) MINIMUMWINDSPEED: 0.5m/s ANEMOMETERHEIGHT:10.000meters SURFACECHARACTERISTICSINPUT:AERMETSEASONALTABLES DOMINANTSURFACEPROFILE:Urban DOMINANTCLIMATETYPE:AverageMoisture DOMINANTSEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWENRATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESSLENGTH: 1.000(meters) SURFACEFRICTIONVELOCITY(U*)NOTADUSTED METEOROLOGYCONDITIONSUSEDTOPREDICTOVERALLMAXIMUMIMPACT ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ YRMODYJDYHR ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1001101001 H0U*W*DT/DZZICNVZIMCHMŞOLENZ0BOWENALBEDOREFWS ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ Ş1.300.043Ş9.0000.020Ş999.21.6.01.0001.500.350.50 HTREFTAHT ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 10.0310.02.0 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ************************AERSCREENAUTOMATEDDISTANCES********************** OVERALLMAXIMUMCONCENTRATIONSBYDISTANCE ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DIST1ŞHRCONC DIST1ŞHRCONC (m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3) ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1.003.331 2525.000.3360EŞ01 25.003.828 2550.000.3315EŞ01 50.004.210 2575.000.3271EŞ01 75.004.341 2600.000.3228EŞ01 100.002.670 2625.000.3186EŞ01 125.001.980 2650.000.3145EŞ01 150.001.551 2675.000.3104EŞ01 175.001.260 2700.000.3065EŞ01 200.001.053 2725.000.3027EŞ01 225.000.8974 2750.000.2989EŞ01 250.000.7785 2775.000.2952EŞ01 275.000.6845 2800.000.2916EŞ01 300.000.6082 2825.000.2881EŞ01 325.000.5458 2850.000.2846EŞ01 350.000.4940 2875.000.2813EŞ01 375.000.4496 2900.000.2779EŞ01 400.000.4119 2925.000.2747EŞ01 425.000.3795 2950.000.2715EŞ01 450.000.3511 2975.000.2684EŞ01 475.000.3263 3000.000.2653EŞ01 500.000.3044 3025.000.2623EŞ01 525.000.2849 3050.000.2594EŞ01 550.000.2674 3075.000.2565EŞ01 575.000.2518 3100.000.2537EŞ01 600.000.2376 3125.000.2509EŞ01 625.000.2247 3150.000.2482EŞ01 650.000.2130 3175.000.2455EŞ01 675.000.2023 3200.000.2429EŞ01 700.000.1926 3225.000.2403EŞ01 725.000.1836 3250.000.2378EŞ01 750.000.1753 3275.000.2353EŞ01 775.000.1677 3300.000.2329EŞ01 800.000.1606 3325.000.2305EŞ01 825.000.1540 3350.000.2282EŞ01 850.000.1479 3375.000.2258EŞ01 875.000.1422 3400.000.2236EŞ01 900.000.1368 3425.000.2213EŞ01 925.000.1318 3450.000.2192EŞ01 950.000.1270 3475.000.2170EŞ01 975.000.1226 3500.000.2149EŞ01 1000.000.1185 3525.000.2128EŞ01 1025.000.1145 3550.000.2107EŞ01 1050.000.1108 3575.000.2087EŞ01 1075.000.1073 3600.000.2068EŞ01 1100.000.1040 3625.000.2048EŞ01 1125.000.1009 3650.000.2029EŞ01 1150.000.9792EŞ01 3675.000.2010EŞ01 1175.000.9510EŞ01 3700.000.1991EŞ01 1200.000.9242EŞ01 3725.000.1973EŞ01 1225.000.8986EŞ01 3750.000.1955EŞ01 1250.000.8742EŞ01 3775.000.1938EŞ01 1275.000.8570EŞ013800.000.1920EŞ01 1300.000.8344EŞ013825.000.1903EŞ01 1325.000.8129EŞ013850.000.1886EŞ01 1350.000.7923EŞ013875.000.1869EŞ01 1375.000.7726EŞ013900.000.1853EŞ01 1400.000.7538EŞ013925.000.1837EŞ01 1425.000.7357EŞ013950.000.1821EŞ01 1450.000.7184EŞ013975.000.1805EŞ01 1475.000.7017EŞ014000.000.1790EŞ01 1500.000.6857EŞ014025.000.1775EŞ01 1525.000.6704EŞ014050.000.1760EŞ01 1550.000.6556EŞ014075.000.1745EŞ01 1575.000.6414EŞ014100.000.1731EŞ01 1600.000.6277EŞ014125.000.1716EŞ01 1625.000.6145EŞ014150.000.1702EŞ01 1650.000.6017EŞ014175.000.1688EŞ01 1675.000.5895EŞ014200.000.1674EŞ01 1700.000.5776EŞ014225.000.1661EŞ01 1725.000.5662EŞ014250.000.1648EŞ01 1750.000.5551EŞ014275.000.1634EŞ01 1775.000.5444EŞ014300.000.1621EŞ01 1800.000.5341EŞ014325.000.1609EŞ01 1824.990.5241EŞ014350.000.1596EŞ01 1850.000.5144EŞ014375.000.1584EŞ01 1875.000.5050EŞ014400.000.1571EŞ01 1900.000.4960EŞ014425.000.1559EŞ01 1924.990.4871EŞ014450.000.1547EŞ01 1950.000.4786EŞ014475.000.1535EŞ01 1975.000.4703EŞ014500.000.1524EŞ01 2000.000.4623EŞ014525.000.1512EŞ01 2025.000.4545EŞ014550.000.1501EŞ01 2050.000.4469EŞ014575.000.1490EŞ01 2075.000.4396EŞ014600.000.1479EŞ01 2100.000.4324EŞ014625.000.1468EŞ01 2125.000.4255EŞ014650.000.1457EŞ01 2150.000.4187EŞ014675.000.1446EŞ01 2175.000.4121EŞ014700.000.1436EŞ01 2200.000.4057EŞ014725.000.1425EŞ01 2225.000.3995EŞ014750.000.1415EŞ01 2250.000.3934EŞ014775.000.1405EŞ01 2275.000.3875EŞ014800.000.1395EŞ01 2300.000.3818EŞ014825.000.1385EŞ01 2325.000.3761EŞ014850.000.1375EŞ01 2350.000.3707EŞ014875.000.1366EŞ01 2375.000.3653EŞ014900.000.1356EŞ01 2400.000.3601EŞ014925.000.1347EŞ01 2425.000.3551EŞ014950.000.1337EŞ01 2450.000.3501EŞ014975.000.1328EŞ01 2475.000.3453EŞ015000.000.1319EŞ01 2500.000.3406EŞ01 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **********************AERSCREENMAXIMUMIMPACTSUMMARY********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 3Şhour,8Şhour,and24Şhourscaled concentrationsareequaltothe1Şhourconcentrationasreferencedin SCREENINGPROCEDURESFORESTIMATINGTHEAIRQUALITY IMPACTOFSTATIONARYSOURCES,REVISED(Section4.5.4) ReportnumberEPAŞ454/RŞ92Ş019 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm underScreeningGuidance MAXIMUMSCALEDSCALEDSCALEDSCALED 1ŞHOUR3ŞHOUR8ŞHOUR24ŞHOURANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3) ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ FLATTERRAIN 4.436 4.436 4.436 4.436 N/A DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 72.00meters IMPACTATTHE AMBIENTBOUNDARY3.331 3.331 3.331 3.331 N/A DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 1.00meters 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A.Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ 2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. x Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: x Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy-making process. x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests. x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ& Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171. Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022 Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022 James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company Case No. CIVDS1711810 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022 In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al. Case No. 2020-03891 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022 In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. 20-CA-5502 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022 In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al. Case No. 19SL-CC03191 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022 In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022 In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022 In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-L-56 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022 In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX Case No. A2004464 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. BCV-19-103087 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al. Case No. 2020-L-000550 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central Case No. 2:20-cv-1633 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022 In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation Case No.16-219-Ca-008796 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation Case No. 16-cv-5760 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 007599 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 003426 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Jan Holeman vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 000675 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-SCCV-091232 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 007730 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021 In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF Case No. 4:20-cv-03120 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021 In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF Case No. DV 19-1056 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021 In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc. Case No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021 Trial October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case No. CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No. 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action No. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015 In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case No. CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case No. cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition July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hawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Attn. Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 12 December 2024 RE: Arcadia Town Center Dear Mr. Arreola, I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Arcadia Town Center project, which I understand would add a five-story, 440,938 square-foot mixed-use building on 2.27 acres located on the corner of Huntington Dr. and N Santa Anita Ave. in Arcadia, CA. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (City of Arcadia 2024). My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.8 hours from 06:47 to 09:35 hours on 6 December 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. Conditions were sunny with 3 MPH northeast wind and temperatures of 52-63° F. The site contains unoccupied office and commercial buildings and a parking lot, with multiple ornamental trees and shrubs (Photos 1-3). 2 Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Noriko saw Cooper’s hawk and peregrine falcon (Photos 3 and 4), Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 5 and 12), house finch and red-crowned parrot (Photos 6 and 7), American crow and black phoebe (Photos 8 and 9), acorn woodpecker (Photo 10), Allen’s hummingbird (Photo 11), western bluebird and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 13 and 14), northern rough-winged swallow and California gull (Photos 15 and 16), mourning dove and band- tailed pigeon (Photos 17 and 18), northern mockingbird (Photos 19 and 20), eastern fox squirrel (Photo 21), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including six species with special status (Table 1). Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. 3 Photos 3 and 4. Cooper’s hawk (left), and peregrine falcon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photo 5. Anna’s hummingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 4 Photos 6 and 7. House finch (left) and red-crowned parrot (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 8 and 9. American crow with a piece of bread (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 5 Photo 10. Acorn woodpeckers just off of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 11 and 12. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Anna’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 6 Photos 13 and 14. Western bluebird just off of the project site (left), and yellow- rumped warbler on the project site (right), 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 15 and 16. Northern rough-winged swallow (left), and California gull (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 7 Photos 17 and 18. Mourning dove (left) and band-tailed pigeon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 19 and 20. Northern mockingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 8 Photo 21. Eastern fox squirrel just off the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.8 hours of survey on 6 December 2024. Common name Species name Status1 Notes Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flew over Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Flew over Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Territorial; chased NRWS and ALHU Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Perched and flew over California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL 3 flew over Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Chased BTPI on site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just off site Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Collected acorns Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just off site Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Flew over, perched nearby Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis Many Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Perched, foraged American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many Common raven Corvus corax Flew over Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Foraged, perched on site 9 Common name Species name Status1 Notes Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged on site Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Just off site Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Perched European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Flock flew over Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Perched House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Perched, socialized Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Just off site 1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5). The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model fit to her survey predicts 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected during that morning, or twice the number of species she actually detected (Figure 1). Unknown are the identities of those species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 38 other south-coast sites she and I have surveyed in California. Noriko’s rate of detections of species at the project site tracked the 95% confidence interval estimated from other surveys in California’s south coast region (Figure 1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 6 December 2024 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence. At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to 10 accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ܴ෠ =ଵ ଵ ௔ൗା௕×(ு௢௨௥௦)೎ , where ܴ෠ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on Noriko’s visual- scan surveys on 31 August and 1 September 2024. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 12.1 species over my first 2.8 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (2.8 hours to match the 2.8 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 21.2% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research si te. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 25 species Noriko detected after her 2.8 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 21.2% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Minutes into survey 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Model prediction r2 = 0.98, loss = 21.9 95% CI of 38 visual- scan surveys 2019-2024 Actual count of speciesCu m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o f w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s d e t e c t e d 11 would likely detect 25 0.212ൗ = 118 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 118 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. Because my prediction of 118 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed to inventory the project site for wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. Figure 2. Mean (95% CI) predicted wildlife species richness, ܴ෠ , as a nonlinear function of hour-long survey increments across 46 visual-scan survey stations across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 2015ࣣ2019. Note that the location of the study is largely irrelevant to the utility of the graph to the interpretation of survey outcomes at the project site. It is the pattern in the data that is relevant, because the pattern is typical of the pattern seen elsewhere. EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL SETTING The IS/MND fails to complete the first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources, which is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site. This first analytical step should also characterize the wildlife community that uses that portion of the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the project’s building. This appropriated airspace is habitat that would be lost to many species of birds, where avian habitat is defined by a species’ use of its environment (Hall et al. 1997), typically based on measurement (Smallwood 0204060801000 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative number of surveys (hours) (9 5 % C I ) 12 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is habitat to many species. It is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat not just to volant wildlife that fly through it, but to any and every animal that breaths air. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is part of the existing environmental setting, and it needs to be characterized as such in CEQA review. The IS/MND makes no mention of the aerosphere, let alone which species of birds might use it. To achieve the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should identify which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, and the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. However, the IS/MND provides neither the results of a field survey to detect species of wildlife nor of a desktop review to identify occurrence records of special-status species in the project area. Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys No surveys for birds were completed at the project site. Surveys are needed to characterize bird flights during both day and night, and the bird flights need to be further attributed by species, heights above ground, flight directions, and specific flight behaviors. The lack of surveys leaves the City of Arcadia blind to any potential project impacts to birds, because without a survey there is no sound basis for characterizing the existing environmental setting. Going forward with the project without completing appropriate avian surveys would be indefensible, and doing so could result in high costs to birds and to the building’s owner if windows require retrofits or window glass needs to be marked for visibility post-construction (see below, under Bird-Window Collisions). The IS/MND reports that the site supports 26 trees, but only three of which are protected by City Code. However, the IS/MND fails to report the importance of the site’s trees to birds. The trees on site serve to expand the vertical structural available to birds on the adjoining County Park and golf course, the combination of which composes a considerable open space within an expansive urbanized landscape. The trees on the project site effectively add open space to birds. Of Noriko Smallwood’s 130 observations of birds in flight during her survey, 38 were headed to or from trees on the project site. House finches, yellow-rumped warblers and red-crowned parrots flew to and from the palm trees located in the middle of the site. An Allen’s hummingbird and an Anna’s hummingbird flew back and forth to other trees in the middle of the site. All of these and more observations should have been made by wildlife biologists sent to the project site by the City of Arcadia. 13 Noriko saw 17 species flying through the airspace of the project site, and all these flying birds were within the height domain of the proposed building. Of the flying birds, 44% were within 30 feet of the ground, and 93% were within 60 feet of the ground. Three of the birds circled over the site (including the peregrine falcon), while 38 were headed west, 30 east, 35 north, and 21 south. Unknown, however, are the numbers of birds, their heights above ground, behaviors, and their bearings in other seasons or at night. These details matter because they can affect collision rates with the building’s windows, and whether the building can be designed to minimize collisions. Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. The IS/MND includes no desktop review to assess avian species’ occurrence likelihoods in or near the airspace that would be appropriated by the proposed project. The lack of a desktop review for avian flight paths and for special-status species likely to occur at the project site leaves the City of Arcadia uninformed of and unprepared for potential project impacts to birds. It also fails to publicly disclose potential impacts to birds. In my assessment based on database review, 77 special-status species of birds are known to occur near enough to the project site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Members of these 77 species can fly within the aerosphere of the project site and would be vulnerable to collision with the building or with loss of energy caused by the need to circumnavigate the building. Of these 77 special-status species, 6 (8%) have been documented on or just next to the project site, 45 (58%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), 11 (14%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 14 (18%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Most (80.5%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the site’s airspace carries considerable potential for supporting the travels of many special-status species of birds based on proximity of recorded occurrences. 14 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko. Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Very close Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Nearby San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus CFP Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close 15 Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just offsite Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP, CCE Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP Nearby Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just offsite American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP On site Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Very close Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Very close Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Very close 16 Common name Species name Status1 Data base records, Site visits Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Very close Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M Nearby Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC In range Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). Because the project would consist of a mid-rise building with many windows, avian use of the local aerosphere should be of principal concern. Of the available records of tracked birds, 2,585 birds of 117 species have been recorded flying into the Los Angeles Metropolitan area from 18 countries of the Americas, from as far away as Argentina, 17 Bahamas, and Canada (https://explorer.audubon.org/explore/locations/ MYSwLgngvAMg9gZwAQEEB2BzApgGywgbgCcsMQ40oBhFA4OAVzTCOgFUBlWnAQ zCgDMAFgB0ABgCsAiQHYCOClAC0ARhUAOEQCYhE3UA/connections?locationAddr ess=Los+Angeles%2C+California&y=2403411.3245877805&x=2517121.9601057805&zo om=7&legend=expand&layersPanel=expand). According to BirdCast, which detects flying birds via radar, nearly 794,000 birds were in flight over Los Angeles County during the night of 28 April 2024. I am unable to locate the major pathways of these flights, but Terrill et al. (2021) found up to 13,500 birds per morning1 flying low through Bear Divide. Headed to and from Bear Divide, these birds would have been similarly channeled by terrain in and around the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. More than 11 million birds flew across Los Angeles County through the 2024 spring migration by the time of this writing (https://dashboard.birdcast.info/region/US-CA- 037). Bird flights across Los Angeles averaged 107,539 flights per night in spring 2024. Most of these flights ranged in height from 100 feet to 10,000 feet above ground. I am unaware of the distribution of flight heights of birds crossing the City of Arcadia, but at a nearby study site (Coachella Valley), McCrary et al. (1982) detected 12.9% of nocturnally migrating birds below 100 m altitude, which corresponds with the heights of the proposed building of either option. Assuming this percentage also applies to birds flying across the aerosphere overlying the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area including Arcadia, then migratory flights documented by BirdCast would average 13,873 birds per night to be flying in the dark and within the height domain of the proposed building. That 13,500 birds per night were documented flying through the Bear Divide during peak migration likely attests to considerable uncertainty in the BirdCast data. Such uncertainty should be treated in a manner that is consistent with the precautionary principle in risk assessment. The BirdCast data might be missing many of the migratory birds that fly low due to ground clutter.2 Ground clutter in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area comes in the forms of buildings and trees. In summary, the basis exists for concern that a large number of birds might routinely fly through the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the proposed building. Potential collision impacts from this project are addressed below, under the heading Bird-Window Collisions. Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway, which includes the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. At least 77 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, many of the special- status species in Table 2 have been document ed as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Surveys by qualified behavioral ecologists are needed to characterize bird flight activity in the project area. A desktop review is also needed to identify the special-status species 1 Morning flights are regarded as continuation of nocturnal flights into daylight hours. 2 Ground clutter generates solid radar echoes that hide the echoes of individual birds. 18 of birds most at risk of encountering the building while flying through the area. The analysis should provide guidance to the orientation and design of the building. Also, it should provide guidance to mitigation measures. Based on Noriko Smallwood’s brief survey of the site for vertebrate wildlife, and based on my cursory desktop review for the potential of special-status species of wildlife to occur at the site, there is at least a fair argument to be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community of the project site. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting is an essential foundation for analysis of potential project impacts, but the IS/MND provides no foundation for an impacts analysis. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how the proposed project would affect members of each potentially occurring special- status species and of each species of bird likely to attempt to fly through the airspace of the project. In the following, I analyze impacts likely to result from the project but which are not addressed in the IS/MND. INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the IS/MND includes no analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The project would insert a midrise building into the airspace that has been used by birds on migration, dispersal, home range patrol and foraging over millions of years. This building would obviously interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Noriko Smallwood observed and photographed birds flying through the airspace of the project site. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to volant wildlife and how those impacts to movement can be mitigated. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS The project would add a 5-story mixed-use building, which would expose the birds of Arcadia to many windows composing the building’s facades. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 19 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend 20 to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants (Van Doren et al. 2021) as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo- Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. Project Impact Prediction By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m 2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project. 21 The IS/MND does not disclose the extent of glass windows on the proposed new building. I therefore measured the extents of windows depicted in the IS/MND’s schematics of the building, though in doing so I omitted measurement of the glass railings. I adjusted my measured extent of exterior glass for the exterior glass that was either not visible or only obliquely visible on façades of interior spaces such as around the courtyard and within projections of the building My adjustment was 50%, which was conservative. With this adjustment, I estimate the project would include 2,966 m2 of exterior glass windows. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimates of glass in either project, I predict annual bird deaths of 217 (95% CI: 129௅305). The vast majority of bird-window collision deaths would be of birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of bird-window collisions that might be caused by the project. TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 22ȸ25), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. 22 Photo 22. A white-tailed antelope squirrel runs across the road just in the Coachella Valley, 26 May 2022. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo 23. A coyote uses the crosswalk to cross a road on 2 February 2023. Not all drivers stop, nor do all animals use the crosswalk. Too often, animals are injured or killed when they attempt to cross roads. Photos 24 and 25. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle on a California road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.) The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study 23 found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but al so skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts 1,302,015 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 554 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. However, compared to the study area of Mendelsohn et al. (2009), fewer animals would be killed in the urbanized part of Arcadia that surrounds the project site, so an adjustment is warranted. Assuming that the number of wild animals encountered by project-generated traffic would be only 30% of the number of animals encountered by traffic in the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, the annual death toll to wildlife resulting from project- generated traffic would be 166. Even this assumed lower mortality would qualify as a 24 significant impact, and based on my review of the available documents, it would not be mitigated. Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS’MND’s analysis of potential project contributions to cumulative impacts is flawed. According to the IS/MND (p. 3-114), “All reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. … all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the Development Code and AMC. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations and implementation of the mitigation program would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts.” However, according to the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.” The IS/MND cites no specific requirements that would substantially lessen cumulative impacts to wildlife in the area. The CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) futher state, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND provides no explanation of how implementing particular requirements of the City’s General Plan would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife. To measure the impacts of habitat loss and cumulative impacts to wildlife caused by development projects that had to comply with existing policies and regulations, Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time 25 of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects to wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well. The project would insert a glass-covered midrise building into the airspace that has been used by volant wildlife for millions of years to travel across the Los Angeles Basin. The project would further fragment aerial habitat of volant wildlife, and this would contribute cumulatively to other similar impacts caused by other midrise and high-rise buildings in the area. The project would also cause a predicted 217 (95% CI: 129௅305) bird-window collision fatalities. Additionally, the project would generate a predicted annual VMT of 1,302,015, which would contribute 166 to 554 wildlife-automobile collision fatalities to the cumulative annual mortality already underway in Arcadia and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. A cumulative impacts analysis needs to be completed. MITIGATION MEASURES The IS/MND summarizes three measures to mitigate potential project impacts to wildlife, but these measures are incomplete and inadequate. Below my comments on these measures are my recommendations for mitigation that should be considered in an EIR. RR BIO-1: If vegetation clearing occurs during the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. ... If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities shall be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest is abandoned. Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey unlikely to achieve much of any conservation 26 benefit to birds, and the IS/MND – like all other CEQA review documents I have read – cites no evidence of efficacy. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season, whereas preconstruction surveys take place only once and not necessarily at the optimal time for detecting nesting by birds. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey. One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas, as examples (and not suggesting these particular species occur at the project site), killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities. Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests they might salvage are only the nests of the year. Preconstruction surveys can do nothing to mitigate the loss of productive capacity that ensues construction. All subsequent years of productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey. Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable. RR BIO-2: …the Project Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain permits from the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for the removal and planting of Protected trees and street trees in the public right-of-way associated with the Project. … The obtaining of a necessary permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure, as it does not necessarily avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts. RR BIO-3: The Project Applicant/Property Owner shall submit the Project’s landscape plans, which will include the proposed locations and species of replacement street trees, to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for review. Street tree species will consist of those set forth in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan. This measure defers its own formulation to an unspecified later date that arrives after the public has had the opportunity to participate with the environmental review of the 27 project. It fails to suggest that any of the landscaping would be intended to benefit wildlife. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce 28 collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. The City of Arcadia should also follow the examples of other major cities and formulate its own mitigation guidelines for analysis of potential impacts and for mitigating those impacts. Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with the building’s windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the building. Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges. Thank you for your consideration, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 29 LITERATURE CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745. Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Arcadia. 2024. Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Psomas. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 30 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82. Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. 31 Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 McCrary, M. D., R. L. McKernan, R. E. Landry, W. D. Wagner, and R. W. Schreiber. 1982. Nocturnal avian migration assessment of the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study Area, Spring 1982. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. 32 Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14. Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density inÀuences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implicat ions for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. 33 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037. Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360. Terrill, R. S., C. A. Dean, J. Garrett, D. W. Maxwell, L. Hill, A. Farnsworth, A. M. Dokter, M. W. Tingley. 2021. A novel locality for the observation of thousands of passerine birds during spring migration in Los Angeles County, California. Western Birds 52:322̽339. doi 10.21199/WB52.4.4 Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D. Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021. Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118 ͓ʹͶǦͲͲʹǤ ͳͺǡ ʹͲʹͶ ͳͻ͵ͻǡͳͷͲ ǡͻͶ͸ͳʹ SUBJECT: Arcadia Town Center Project City of Arcadia, CA Review and Comment on Noise Study Ǥǡ ǡ ǣ Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, November 2024 (IS / MND) Appendix G Noise Calculations (Appendix G) ȋȌǦ ǦǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ͵Ǥͳ͵Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǡͳͻ͸͸Ǥ ͷ͹ ǡ ǤǤ Ǧ ȋȌǡǡǤ ǡ Ǥ WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 2 Adverse Effects of Noise1 ǡǡǡǤ Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.ǡ ǦǤǡ ȋȌ ȋȌ Ǥ Speech Interference.Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǡͳͷͳͺ ǤͶͷͷͲͳǡ ͵ͲǤ ǯǤǡ Ǥ Sleep Disturbance.ǡ ǡǡǤǤǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡǡǡ Ǥǡ ǡǡǤ Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects.ǯ ǲǳǤ ǡǡǤ Ǥ Impaired Cognitive Performance.ǯ ȋȌ ǡǡǡǤ Ǥ 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise , eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf) WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 3 Baseline Noise is Not Properly Established ȀǤ Ȁ Ǥ ʹͲ ȏǤ ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐ ǡǡ ȋͶͳͲȌǤȋʹͺͲȌǤ ʹͲ Ǧ ʹͲǦ Ǥ Ȁǡǲ ǳȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐǤ Ǥ ǡʹͲǡ Ǥ The Project must conduct properly documented ambient measurements near sensitive receptors that capture the current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine the impact of construction and operational noise. Figure 1 Project Site and Noise Sensitive Receivers Potentially Significant Construction Noise Impacts Ȁǯ Ǥ̶̶ȏ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐǡ ʹͺͲȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ʹȐǤ Ǥ ȀʹͷȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐ ǡ͸Ͳ͸ͻ ͷ͸͸ͷǡ ͳǤ Residences Residences Park /Memorial WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 4 Table 1 Estimated Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Levels (Leq, dBA) 95 feet – Arcadia County Park1 10 feet – Elk Lodge1 280 feet – Santa Anita Residences 2 410 feet – Santa Clara Residences 2 Ground Cleaning / Demolition ͹ͺ98 6965 Excavation ͹͵93 6460 Foundation Construction ͹ʹ92 6359 Building Construction ͸ͻ89 6056 Paving and Site Cleanup ͸ͻ89 6056 ͳǤ ʹͷȀ ʹǤʹͲȗȋȀͻͷȌ ȀǤ ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͷȐǡͷ͸ͳͲǤ͵ȋȌǡ Ǥʹǡʹͷ ȀͷͷǤ ͷͻǡȋȌǤ ʹͷ Ǥ Ȁǡ ȀʹʹȀ Ǥʹͷ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ Ȁ ǲ ǳȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͲȐǤȀ ǲǳǤǦȀͷͶ ͸͸ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐǤǡ Ǥͳǡ ͸ͷǡͳͳ ǤͳͲǦ Ǥ Ȁ ǤͳͲͳͷ 2 https://library.municode.com/ca/arcadia/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTIVPUWEMOPO_CH6NORE_PT1G EPR_4610.3NOLI WILSON IHRIG Arcadia Town Center Project Review and Comment on Noise Report Page 5 ǡǡǡ . The Project must properly evaluate construction noise impacts, including the noise increase over ambient levels at sensitive receptor locations. If the increase is significant the Project must properly evaluate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Operational Analysis Incomplete ȀǤ ȏǤ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Conclusion ǤȀ ǡǦǤ ǡ ȀǦǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com December 18, 2024 Hayley Uno Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject: Comments on the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (SCH No. 2024110749) Dear Ms. Uno, We have reviewed the November 2024 Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Arcadia (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 440,938-square-feet (“SF”) of residential space, including 181 dwelling units and 378 parking spaces on the 2.27-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. Emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that the project may have on the environment. Air Quality Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).1 CalEEMod uses default values tailored to site-specific details such as land use type, meteorological data, lot size, project type, and typical equipment associated with that type. If project-specific details are available, users can modify these defaults, but CEQA requires substantial evidence to justify such changes. Once the inputs are finalized, the model calculates the 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. 2 project's construction and operational emissions and generates "output files." These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate where default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the values selected. Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files in Appendix A of the IS/MND reveals that the “Arcadia Town Center v2” includes land use inputs but omits all other qualitative outputs regarding the Project’s construction-related and operational emission (pp. 38, 39). Note: Only sections 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2 are included for reader clarity. Without access to specific emissions values, we are unable to verify the potential significance or accuracy of the Project’s model. Furthermore, the “Arcadia Town Center v2” model does not include the “User Changes to Default” table. (Appendix A, pp. 54) Without access to the “User Changes to Default Data” table, we are unable to verify whether changes were made to the model’s default values. CEQA requires public disclosure of environmental impacts to 3 ensure transparency with regards to potential environmental impacts of land use developments.2 An EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s complete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND determines that the Project would result in a negligible health risk impact without conducting a construction health risk analysis (“HRA”). CEQA requires all proposed projects to connect their emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.3 As the IS/MND does not establish a connection between the Project’s construction-related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions and potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project violates CEQA’s requirement. Additionally, the IS/MND does not compare the Project's excess cancer risk to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 10 in one million.4 An assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors due to Project construction should be conducted to comply with the most relevant guidance. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We conducted an HRA using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model that estimates maximum potential concentrations of air contaminants affecting nearby sensitive receptors.5 If AERSCREEN indicates a potential air quality hazard, a detailed modeling analysis is required before Project approval. 6 To conduct a preliminary, screening-level construction HRA, it is necessary to have an estimate of the Project's annual particulate matter 10 ("PM10") exhaust emissions.7 However, as detailed in the section of this letter titled Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files, the Project's CalEEMod files exclude the projected values for construction-related emissions. In the absence of this requisite information, we created a model using the Project-specific details provided in the IS/MND and related documents to estimate PM10 emissions. 2 “Environmental Review Guidelines.” San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, September 2024, available at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/ceqa/DRAFT-SDAPCD-CEQA- Guidelines.pdf#:~:text=It%20is%20intended%20to%20require%20public%20disclosure,under%20what%20circumst ances%20to%20approve%20such%20projects.&text=In%20accordance%20with%20Section%2015063%20of%20th e,have%20a%20significant%20effect%20on%20the%20environment. 3 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 4 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 5 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 6 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263. 7 “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” CARB, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health. 4 Our analysis included 173,760-SF of “Apartments Mid Rise,” 151,200-SF of “Enclosed Parking with Elevator,” 4,000-SF of “Strip Mall,” 1-acre of “City Park,” 5,000-SF of “User Defined Commercial,” and 5,000-SF of “General Office Building,” consistent with the Project’s original model. Additionally, as the Project’s construction duration was not properly justified or disclosed, we developed a proportionately altered construction schedule to match the total construction duration of 29 months (IS/MND, p. 2-11).8 All other values were left as default.9 Following Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) recommendations, we began residential exposure at the third trimester of life. Our CalEEMod emissions indicate that construction will produce approximately 380 pounds of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) over the 730-day period. 10 The AERSCREEN model simulates maximum concentrations from emission sources using an average emission rate. We calculated this average DPM emission rate to account for variations in equipment usage and truck trips during construction using the following equation: Emission Rate ቀ grams secondቁ = 380 lbs 730 days × 453.6 grams lbs × 1 day 24 hours × 1 hour 3,600 seconds =૙.૙૙૚૝૝ ܏/ܛ We estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00144 grams per second (“g/s”). Construction was simulated as a 2.27-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 136- by 68-meters. A release height of 3 meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of the city of Arcadia was obtained from U.S. 2023 Census data.11 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.12 According to the AERSCREEN output files the maximally exposed individual receptor would be located 75 meters from the Project site. However, the IS/MD states that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 280 feet, or 85 meters, from the Project site (p. 3-10). The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is 2.670 ђg/m3 DPM at around 100 meters downwind.13 Multiplying this single-hour 8 See Attachment A for the proportionately altered construction phases’ calculations. 9 See Attachment B for SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files. 10 See Attachment C for health risk calculations. 11 “Arcadia” U.S. Census Bureau, 2023, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602462?q=arcadia. 12 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 13 Note: AERSCREEN output files come in increments of 25 meters, so our emissions calculations are slightly underestimated. 5 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2670 ђg/m3 for Project construction at the nearest sensitive receptor.14 The excess cancer risk to the nearest sensitive receptor was calculated using applicable HRA methodologies as prescribed by OEHHA, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation. 15 Guidance from OEHHA and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) suggests utilizing a standard point estimate approach, with high-point estimate breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) to accurately assess risk, especially for susceptible populations like children. The residential exposure parameters considered in our screening-level HRA include daily breathing rates, exposure duration, ASFs, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency for different age groups (see table below). Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)16 Age Sensitivity Factor 17 Exposure Duration (years) Fraction of Time at Home 18 Exposure Frequency (days/year)19 Exposure Time (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24 Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24 Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24 Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24 The procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose per age group for the inhalation pathway. Contaminate dose is then multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. The following dose algorithm was used to assess exposure assumptions: 14 See Attachment D for AERSCREEN output files. 15 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 16 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 18 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 6 Dose୅୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟ୥ୣ ୥୰୭୳୮ = Cୟ୧୰ × EF × ൤ BR BW൨ × A × CF where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair сĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚŝŶĂŝƌ;ʅŐͬŵϯͿ EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1) CF = conversion factor (1x10-ϲ͕ʅŐƚŽŵŐ͕>ƚŽŵϯͿ We used the following equation to calculate the overall cancer risk per appropriate age group: Cancer Risk ୅୍ୖ = Dose୅୍ୖ ×CPF ×ASF ×FAH ×ED AT where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 730-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.75 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below. The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction Age Group Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06 Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05 Construction 2 8.04E-05 The excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant stage of life at the nearest sensitive receptor, over the course of Project construction are approximately 3.63 and 76.7 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over just the course of the Project construction is approximately 7 80.4 in one million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. This results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the IS/MND. Our analysis represents a conservative screening-level HRA, which prioritizes public health. It is used to show the potential correlation between Project emissions and adverse health risks. The U.S. EPA recommends the use of a screening-level analysis as the first phase of a tiered approach to conducting exposure assumptions, as outlined in their Exposure Assessment Guidelines. 20 Screening-level analyses require further evaluation with more developed modeling. Our initial HRA demonstrates that Project construction could lead to significant health risks. An EIR should be prepared to include a comprehensive HRA that properly evaluates impacts from construction. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project will produce a net annual GHG emissions of 2,181-metric-tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 3-50, Table 17). The IS/MND indicates that the GHG emission values are included in Appendix A. However, as previously addressed, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files do not provide the emissions estimates or include any relevant inputs beyond the land uses. We are therefore unable to verify the legitimacy of the estimates presented in the table above and, as such, the Project’s GHG emissions could be underestimated. Until an EIR is prepared to include complete CalEEMod output files we cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and the IS/MND’s GHG analysis should not be relied upon for Project significance. Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions As the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact to individuals in the community surrounding the Project site, the IS/MND must include all feasible mitigation to address the Project’s potential air quality and health risks. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2): 20 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992,available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263. 8 “When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.” The IS/MND should evaluate the following mitigation measures to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction (see list below). The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report provides the following mitigation measures:21 x Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. x Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. x Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. x Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions. x Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. x Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts due to traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. x Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). If construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and 21 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 – 4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 9 remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible. The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”22 The proposed mitigation measures would effectively reduce Project-related DPM emissions by integrating lower-emitting design features into the Project, thereby minimizing emissions during construction. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures and updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses. This will ensure that necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 22 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗ĂůDŽĚKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗Z^ZEKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗DĂƚƚ,ĂŐĞŵĂŶŶs ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ&͗WĂƵůZŽƐĞŶĨĞůĚs Phase Default Phase Length Construction Duration % Construction Duration Revised Phase Length Demolition 20 381 0.0525 891 47 Site Preparation 3 381 0.0079 891 7 Grading 6 381 0.0157 891 14 Construction 220 381 0.5774 891 514 Paving 10 381 0.0262 891 23 Architectural Coating 10 381 0.0262 891 23 Total Default Construction Duration Revised Construction Duration Start Date 1/1/2026 1/1/2026 End Date 1/17/2027 6/10/2028 Total Days 381 891 Construction Schedule Calculations ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 1 / 57 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 2 / 57 3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated 3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated 3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 3 / 57 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 4 / 57 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 5 / 57 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 6 / 57 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 7 / 57 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Arcadia Town Center Construction Start Date 1/1/2026 Operational Year 2028 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)0.50 Precipitation (days)24.4 Location 34.140403578150526, -118.03194606892856 County Los Angeles-South Coast City Arcadia Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 4922 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Apartments Mid Rise 181 Dwelling Unit 2.27 173,760 2,000 — 536 — Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 8 / 57 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 378 Space 0.00 151,200 0.00 — — — City Park 1.00 Acre 0.00 0.00 21,825 21,825 — — User Defined Recreational 5.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 5,000 1,000 1,000 — — Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000 800 — — — General Office Building 5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000 1,000 — — — 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 1.62 1.33 10.4 16.5 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 0.30 0.24 1.89 3.01 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 9 / 57 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) —————————————————— 2026 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 2027 2.25 1.88 11.9 24.4 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,262 6,262 0.26 0.31 11.9 6,373 2028 0.79 0.66 5.58 9.02 0.01 0.20 0.52 0.54 0.19 0.12 0.23 — 1,440 1,440 0.05 0.02 1.48 1,447 Daily - Winter (Max) —————————————————— 2026 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 2027 2.24 1.86 12.1 22.6 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,126 6,126 0.18 0.31 0.31 6,223 2028 2.15 1.78 11.5 21.9 0.03 0.30 3.00 3.29 0.27 0.72 0.99 — 6,049 6,049 0.17 0.31 0.28 6,145 Average Daily —————————————————— 2026 1.62 1.30 10.4 15.9 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 2027 1.60 1.33 8.68 16.5 0.02 0.24 2.11 2.34 0.22 0.51 0.72 — 4,402 4,402 0.13 0.22 3.68 4,474 2028 0.42 0.35 2.31 4.43 0.01 0.06 0.53 0.59 0.06 0.13 0.18 — 1,130 1,130 0.03 0.05 0.83 1,148 Annual—————————————————— 2026 0.30 0.24 1.89 2.90 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 2027 0.29 0.24 1.58 3.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.38 0.43 0.04 0.09 0.13 — 729 729 0.02 0.04 0.61 741 2028 0.08 0.06 0.42 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 187 187 0.01 0.01 0.14 190 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 10 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit. 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Area 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 11 / 57 Mobile 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 Area 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average Daily —————————————————— Mobile 3.75 3.39 2.75 28.2 0.07 0.04 7.03 7.07 0.04 1.79 1.83 — 7,411 7,411 0.36 0.31 9.14 7,522 Area 9.14 8.69 0.37 18.3 0.02 0.90 — 0.90 0.88 — 0.88 116 261 377 0.35 < 0.005 — 387 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 Water———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Waste———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Refrig.————————————————1.281.28 Total 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 Annual—————————————————— Mobile 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245 Area1.671.590.073.33<0.0050.16— 0.160.16— 0.1619.243.262.40.06<0.005— 64.1 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 440 440 0.03 < 0.005 — 442 Water———————————2.5214.016.50.260.01—24.9 Waste———————————12.70.0012.71.270.00—44.6 Refrig.————————————————0.210.21 Total 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 12 / 57 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.21 0.18 1.67 1.88 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 321 321 0.01 < 0.005 — 322 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.04 0.03 0.30 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.2 53.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 Demoliti on ——————0.000.00—0.000.00——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 13 / 57 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.0 21.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.47 3.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 14 / 57 2,725—0.020.112,7162,716—0.39—0.390.42—0.420.0310.89.841.131.34Off-Roa d Equipm Dust From Material Movement ——————1.591.59—0.170.17——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.3 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.030.03—<0.005<0.005——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.62 8.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.65 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.010.01—<0.005<0.005——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 15 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust From Material Movement ——————7.107.10—3.433.43——————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 16 / 57 0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust From Material Movement ——————7.107.10—3.433.43——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.07 0.05 0.49 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.5 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.270.27—0.130.13——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.050.05—0.020.02——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 17 / 57 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 137 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.97 0.43 32.8 12.9 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,252 27,252 1.51 4.35 61.1 28,649 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.93 0.41 34.1 13.0 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,264 27,264 1.51 4.35 1.59 28,601 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.00 5.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.32 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,045 1,045 0.06 0.17 1.01 1,098 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 173 173 0.01 0.03 0.17 182 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 18 / 57 2,208—0.020.092,2012,201—0.33—0.330.36—0.360.0211.810.11.181.41Off-Roa d Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.41 1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.74 0.62 5.32 6.19 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,159 1,159 0.05 0.01 — 1,163 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.14 0.11 0.97 1.13 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 192 192 0.01 < 0.005 — 192 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.83 0.73 0.77 12.8 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,694 2,694 0.11 0.09 9.11 2,734 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.60 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,447 1,447 0.06 0.21 3.91 1,514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 19 / 57 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.83 0.73 0.87 11.0 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,553 2,553 0.12 0.09 0.24 2,585 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.67 0.79 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,448 1,448 0.06 0.21 0.10 1,511 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.43 0.38 0.50 6.04 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.32 0.32 — 1,364 1,364 0.06 0.05 2.08 1,382 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.88 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 762 762 0.03 0.11 0.89 796 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.34 229 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 126 126 0.01 0.02 0.15 132 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 20 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.97 0.81 6.93 8.36 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.18 0.15 1.26 1.53 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.80 0.71 0.69 11.9 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,642 2,642 0.11 0.09 8.23 2,681 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.53 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,419 1,419 0.06 0.20 3.70 1,483 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.79 0.69 0.86 10.1 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,505 2,505 0.04 0.09 0.21 2,534 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.59 0.74 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,420 1,420 0.06 0.20 0.10 1,480 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 21 / 57 Worker 0.57 0.49 0.61 7.59 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,815 1,815 0.03 0.07 2.53 1,839 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.14 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.01 0.08 0.08 — 1,014 1,014 0.04 0.14 1.14 1,058 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 301 301 < 0.005 0.01 0.42 304 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 168 168 0.01 0.02 0.19 175 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.29 1.08 9.23 11.7 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.21 0.18 1.52 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 22 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.77 0.67 0.77 9.53 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,460 2,460 0.03 0.09 0.19 2,489 Vendor 0.09 0.03 1.52 0.71 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,387 1,387 0.05 0.20 0.09 1,447 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.13 0.11 0.13 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 410 410 0.01 0.02 0.53 416 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 228 228 0.01 0.03 0.25 238 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 67.9 67.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 68.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 23 / 57 Off-Roa Equipment 0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.52 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.4 78.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.6 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 Paving0.000.00———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 24 / 57 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 196 196 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 188 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite—————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 25 / 57 134—< 0.0050.01134134—0.01—0.010.02—0.02< 0.0051.120.810.110.13Off-Roa d Equipm Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.41 8.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.44 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.15 0.14 0.14 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.01 0.02 1.48 526 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 26 / 57 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.21 5.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 3.30 2.99 2.15 25.8 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,574 6,574 0.30 0.25 18.2 6,675 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 15.5 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 27 / 57 1,2523.420.050.061,2331,233—0.300.290.011.161.150.010.014.800.400.540.60Strip Mall General Office Building 0.16 0.15 0.11 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 339 339 0.02 0.01 0.94 344 Total 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 3.27 2.96 2.35 23.7 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,302 6,302 0.31 0.27 0.47 6,389 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.8 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 0.59 0.54 0.44 4.41 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,182 1,182 0.06 0.05 0.09 1,198 General Office Building 0.16 0.15 0.12 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 325 325 0.02 0.01 0.02 329 Total 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.56 0.51 0.41 4.22 0.01 0.01 1.05 1.06 0.01 0.27 0.27 — 1,003 1,003 0.05 0.04 1.24 1,018 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 28 / 57 City Park < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 0.22 184 General Office Building 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 41.8 Total 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————9679670.060.01—971 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————8138130.050.01—817 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 29 / 57 57.5—< 0.005<0.00557.357.3————————————Strip Mall General Office Building ————————————1301300.01<0.005—130 Total————————————1,9681,9680.120.01—1,975 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————9679670.060.01—971 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————8138130.050.01—817 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ————————————57.357.3<0.005<0.005—57.5 General Office Building ————————————1301300.01<0.005—130 Total————————————1,9681,9680.120.01—1,975 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————1601600.01<0.005—161 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ————————————1351350.01<0.005—135 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 30 / 57 City Park ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 User Defined Recreational ————————————0.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ————————————9.489.48<0.005<0.005—9.52 General Office Building ————————————21.521.5<0.005<0.005—21.6 Total————————————3263260.02<0.005—327 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 31 / 57 40.7—< 0.005<0.00540.640.6—<0.005—< 0.005<0.005—<0.005< 0.0050.030.03<0.005< 0.005General Office Building Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 General Office Building < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.7 Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 107 107 0.01 < 0.005 — 107 Enclose d Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 32 / 57 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 General Office Building < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.74 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 — 115 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Consum er Product s 4.034.03———————————————— Landsca pe Equipm ent 2.22 2.08 0.16 17.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.2 Total 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 33 / 57 ————————————————4.034.03Consum er Product s Total 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Annual—————————————————— Hearths 0.66 0.59 0.05 1.15 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 36.7 56.0 0.06 < 0.005 — 57.6 Consum er Product s 0.740.74———————————————— Landsca pe Equipm ent 0.28 0.26 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.46 6.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.49 Total 1.67 1.59 0.07 3.33 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 43.2 62.4 0.06 < 0.005 — 64.1 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————12.967.280.11.330.03—123 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 34 / 57 5.28—< 0.005<0.0055.265.260.00———————————City Park User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.240.24<0.005<0.005—0.24 Strip Mall ———————————0.573.033.590.06<0.005—5.47 General Office Building ———————————1.708.9310.60.18<0.005—16.3 Total———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————12.967.280.11.330.03—123 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.005.265.26<0.005<0.005—5.28 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.240.24<0.005<0.005—0.24 Strip Mall ———————————0.573.033.590.06<0.005—5.47 General Office Building ———————————1.708.9310.60.18<0.005—16.3 Total———————————15.284.799.91.560.04—150 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————2.1411.113.30.220.01—20.3 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 35 / 57 Enclose Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.000.870.87<0.005<0.005—0.87 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.040.04<0.005<0.005—0.04 Strip Mall ———————————0.090.500.600.01<0.005—0.91 General Office Building ———————————0.281.481.760.03<0.005—2.69 Total———————————2.5214.016.50.260.01—24.9 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————72.20.0072.27.210.00—252 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.050.000.05<0.0050.00—0.16 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 36 / 57 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————2.260.002.260.230.00—7.92 General Office Building ———————————2.510.002.510.250.00—8.77 Total———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————72.20.0072.27.210.00—252 Enclose d Parking with Elevator ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 City Park ———————————0.050.000.05<0.0050.00—0.16 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————2.260.002.260.230.00—7.92 General Office Building ———————————2.510.002.510.250.00—8.77 Total———————————77.00.0077.07.690.00—269 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————11.90.0011.91.190.00—41.8 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 37 / 57 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Enclose d Parking with Elevator City Park ———————————0.010.000.01<0.0050.00—0.03 User Defined Recreational ———————————0.000.000.000.000.00—0.00 Strip Mall ———————————0.370.000.370.040.00—1.31 General Office Building ———————————0.410.000.410.040.00—1.45 Total———————————12.70.0012.71.270.00—44.6 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————1.241.24 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————0.020.02 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 38 / 57 0.010.01————————————————General Office Building Total————————————————1.281.28 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————1.241.24 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————0.020.02 General Office Building ————————————————0.010.01 Total————————————————1.281.28 Annual—————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————0.210.21 City Park ————————————————0.000.00 Strip Mall ————————————————<0.005<0.005 General Office Building ————————————————<0.005<0.005 Total————————————————0.210.21 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 39 / 57 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 40 / 57 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati on TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 41 / 57 Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total—————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Total—————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 42 / 57 Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— Annual—————————————————— Avoided—————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal—————————————————— ——————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 3/6/2026 5.00 47.0 — Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 43 / 57 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2026 3/17/2026 5.00 7.00 — Grading Grading 3/18/2026 4/6/2026 5.00 14.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 4/7/2026 3/24/2028 5.00 514 — Paving Paving 3/27/2028 4/26/2028 5.00 23.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/27/2028 5/29/2028 5.00 23.0 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 44 / 57 0.5610.08.001.00AverageDieselPaving Cement and Mortar Mixers Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT SitePreparation———— Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 401 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT Building Construction ———— Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 45 / 57 Building Construction Worker 199 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 46.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT Paving———— Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 39.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of Debris) Acres Paved (acres) Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 46 / 57 Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Site Preparation — — 10.5 0.00 — Grading — 44,870 6.00 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Apartments Mid Rise — 0% Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100% City Park 0.00 0% User Defined Recreational 0.00 0% Strip Mall 0.00 0% General Office Building 0.00 0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 47 / 57 Apartments Mid Rise 985 889 740 341,650 8,659 7,815 6,510 3,004,398 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.78 1.96 2.19 420 7.15 18.0 20.1 3,848 User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall 177 168 81.7 59,249 1,625 1,542 749 543,218 General Office Building 48.7 11.1 3.50 13,455 447 101 32.1 123,365 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 9 Gas Fireplaces 154 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 18 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 9 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 9 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 48 / 57 Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) ————— 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 663,516 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,010,339 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 558,144 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 User Defined Recreational 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Strip Mall 39,285 532 0.0330 0.0040 23,948 General Office Building 89,101 532 0.0330 0.0040 126,732 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 6,746,558 34,282 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 680,192 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 49 / 57 User Defined Recreational 0.00 31,166 Strip Mall 296,290 11,220 General Office Building 888,669 14,025 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 134 — Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 — City Park 0.09 — User Defined Recreational 0.00 — Strip Mall 4.20 — General Office Building 4.65 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 City Park Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 City Park Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 50 / 57 18.04.004.00<0.0052,088R-410AStrip Mall Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Strip Mall Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators and freezers R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 General Office Building Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00 General Office Building Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 51 / 57 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 9.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth Wildfire 16.9 annual hectares burned Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 52 / 57 Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5),Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score TemperatureandExtremeHeat300N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A SeaLevelRise100N/A Wildfire100N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 000N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score TemperatureandExtremeHeat3113 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A SeaLevelRise1112 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 53 / 57 Wildfire1112 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 84.6 AQ-PM 70.7 AQ-DPM 57.7 Drinking Water 73.7 Lead Risk Housing 54.4 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 70.1 Traffic 80.3 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 74.9 Groundwater 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 54 / 57 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 59.8 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 70.4 Sensitive Population — Asthma 6.04 Cardio-vascular 7.47 Low Birth Weights 7.29 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 42.7 Housing 10.2 Linguistic 80.2 Poverty 27.9 Unemployment 45.8 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 84.3320929 Employed 68.92082638 Median HI 57.88528166 Education — Bachelor's or higher 80.67496471 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 84.88387014 Transportation — Auto Access 70.20402926 Active commuting 5.915565251 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 55 / 57 Social — 2-parent households 35.26241499 Voting 21.00603105 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 87.47593995 Park access 34.12036443 Retail density 39.49698447 Supermarket access 46.73424868 Tree canopy 66.75221352 Housing — Homeownership 46.75991274 Housing habitability 43.07712049 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 33.1707943 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 70.48633389 Uncrowded housing 63.4800462 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 52.11086873 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 94.2 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 97.0 Cognitively Disabled 87.2 Physically Disabled 80.2 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 56 / 57 Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.0 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 97.1 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 84.9 Elderly 16.5 English Speaking 18.2 Foreign-born 95.7 Outdoor Workers 60.7 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 34.1 Traffic Density 80.4 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 23.2 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 20.4 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024 57 / 57 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 65.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Consistent with IS/MND's model. Construction: Construction Phases Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND. Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.06 Total DPM (lbs) 380 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.328767123 Total DPM (g) 90729.86301 Construction Duration (days) 365 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438513 Total DPM (lbs) 120 Release Height (meters) 3 Total DPM (g) 54432 Total Acreage 2.27 Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Horizontal (meters) 135.55 End Date 1/1/2027 Min Horizontal (meters) 67.77 Construction Days 365 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Arcadia Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Population 54,157 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Start Date 1/1/2026 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 1/1/2028 Total DPM (lbs) 80 Total Construction Days 730 Total DPM (g) 36288 Total Years of Construction 2.00 Start Date 1/1/2027 Total Years of Operation 28.00 End Date 1/1/2028 Construction Days 365 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Construction Duration (days) 180 Total DPM (lbs) 9.863013699 Total DPM (g) 4473.863014 Start Date 1/1/2028 End Date 6/29/2028 Construction Days 180 2028 2027 Construction 2026 Total ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ Age Group Duration (years)Concentration (ug/m3)Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06 Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05 Construction 2 8.04E-05 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction AERSCREEN21112/AERMOD21112 12/16/24 14:10:10 TITLE:ArcadiaTownCenter,Construction ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ******************************AREAPARAMETERS**************************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ SOURCEEMISSIONRATE: 0.144EŞ02g/s 0.114EŞ01lb/hr AREAEMISSIONRATE: 0.157EŞ06g/(sŞm2) 0.124EŞ05lb/(hrŞm2) AREAHEIGHT: 3.00meters 9.84feet AREASOURCELONGSIDE: 135.55meters 444.72feet AREASOURCESHORTSIDE: 67.77meters 222.34feet INITIALVERTICALDIMENSION: 1.50meters 4.92feet RURALORURBAN: URBAN POPULATION: 54157 INITIALPROBEDISTANCE= 5000.meters 16404.feet ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ***********************BUILDINGDOWNWASHPARAMETERS********************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ BUILDINGDOWNWASHNOTUSEDFORNONŞPOINTSOURCES ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **************************FLOWSECTORANALYSIS*************************** 25meterreceptorspacing:1.metersŞ5000.meters ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MAXIMUMIMPACTRECEPTOR Zo SURFACE1ŞHRCONCRADIALDISTTEMPORAL SECTORROUGHNESS(ug/m3)(deg)(m)PERIOD ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1*1.0004.3412075.0WIN *=worstcasediagonal ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ **********************MAKEMETMETEOROLOGYPARAMETERS********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MIN/MAXTEMPERATURE:250.0/310.0(K) MINIMUMWINDSPEED: 0.5m/s ANEMOMETERHEIGHT:10.000meters SURFACECHARACTERISTICSINPUT:AERMETSEASONALTABLES DOMINANTSURFACEPROFILE:Urban DOMINANTCLIMATETYPE:AverageMoisture DOMINANTSEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWENRATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESSLENGTH: 1.000(meters) SURFACEFRICTIONVELOCITY(U*)NOTADUSTED METEOROLOGYCONDITIONSUSEDTOPREDICTOVERALLMAXIMUMIMPACT ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ YRMODYJDYHR ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1001101001 H0U*W*DT/DZZICNVZIMCHMŞOLENZ0BOWENALBEDOREFWS ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ Ş1.300.043Ş9.0000.020Ş999.21.6.01.0001.500.350.50 HTREFTAHT ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 10.0310.02.0 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ************************AERSCREENAUTOMATEDDISTANCES********************** OVERALLMAXIMUMCONCENTRATIONSBYDISTANCE ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DIST1ŞHRCONC DIST1ŞHRCONC (m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3) ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1.003.331 2525.000.3360EŞ01 25.003.828 2550.000.3315EŞ01 50.004.210 2575.000.3271EŞ01 75.004.341 2600.000.3228EŞ01 100.002.670 2625.000.3186EŞ01 125.001.980 2650.000.3145EŞ01 150.001.551 2675.000.3104EŞ01 175.001.260 2700.000.3065EŞ01 200.001.053 2725.000.3027EŞ01 225.000.8974 2750.000.2989EŞ01 250.000.7785 2775.000.2952EŞ01 275.000.6845 2800.000.2916EŞ01 300.000.6082 2825.000.2881EŞ01 325.000.5458 2850.000.2846EŞ01 350.000.4940 2875.000.2813EŞ01 375.000.4496 2900.000.2779EŞ01 400.000.4119 2925.000.2747EŞ01 425.000.3795 2950.000.2715EŞ01 450.000.3511 2975.000.2684EŞ01 475.000.3263 3000.000.2653EŞ01 500.000.3044 3025.000.2623EŞ01 525.000.2849 3050.000.2594EŞ01 550.000.2674 3075.000.2565EŞ01 575.000.2518 3100.000.2537EŞ01 600.000.2376 3125.000.2509EŞ01 625.000.2247 3150.000.2482EŞ01 650.000.2130 3175.000.2455EŞ01 675.000.2023 3200.000.2429EŞ01 700.000.1926 3225.000.2403EŞ01 725.000.1836 3250.000.2378EŞ01 750.000.1753 3275.000.2353EŞ01 775.000.1677 3300.000.2329EŞ01 800.000.1606 3325.000.2305EŞ01 825.000.1540 3350.000.2282EŞ01 850.000.1479 3375.000.2258EŞ01 875.000.1422 3400.000.2236EŞ01 900.000.1368 3425.000.2213EŞ01 925.000.1318 3450.000.2192EŞ01 950.000.1270 3475.000.2170EŞ01 975.000.1226 3500.000.2149EŞ01 1000.000.1185 3525.000.2128EŞ01 1025.000.1145 3550.000.2107EŞ01 1050.000.1108 3575.000.2087EŞ01 1075.000.1073 3600.000.2068EŞ01 1100.000.1040 3625.000.2048EŞ01 1125.000.1009 3650.000.2029EŞ01 1150.000.9792EŞ01 3675.000.2010EŞ01 1175.000.9510EŞ01 3700.000.1991EŞ01 1200.000.9242EŞ01 3725.000.1973EŞ01 1225.000.8986EŞ01 3750.000.1955EŞ01 1250.000.8742EŞ01 3775.000.1938EŞ01 1275.000.8570EŞ013800.000.1920EŞ01 1300.000.8344EŞ013825.000.1903EŞ01 1325.000.8129EŞ013850.000.1886EŞ01 1350.000.7923EŞ013875.000.1869EŞ01 1375.000.7726EŞ013900.000.1853EŞ01 1400.000.7538EŞ013925.000.1837EŞ01 1425.000.7357EŞ013950.000.1821EŞ01 1450.000.7184EŞ013975.000.1805EŞ01 1475.000.7017EŞ014000.000.1790EŞ01 1500.000.6857EŞ014025.000.1775EŞ01 1525.000.6704EŞ014050.000.1760EŞ01 1550.000.6556EŞ014075.000.1745EŞ01 1575.000.6414EŞ014100.000.1731EŞ01 1600.000.6277EŞ014125.000.1716EŞ01 1625.000.6145EŞ014150.000.1702EŞ01 1650.000.6017EŞ014175.000.1688EŞ01 1675.000.5895EŞ014200.000.1674EŞ01 1700.000.5776EŞ014225.000.1661EŞ01 1725.000.5662EŞ014250.000.1648EŞ01 1750.000.5551EŞ014275.000.1634EŞ01 1775.000.5444EŞ014300.000.1621EŞ01 1800.000.5341EŞ014325.000.1609EŞ01 1824.990.5241EŞ014350.000.1596EŞ01 1850.000.5144EŞ014375.000.1584EŞ01 1875.000.5050EŞ014400.000.1571EŞ01 1900.000.4960EŞ014425.000.1559EŞ01 1924.990.4871EŞ014450.000.1547EŞ01 1950.000.4786EŞ014475.000.1535EŞ01 1975.000.4703EŞ014500.000.1524EŞ01 2000.000.4623EŞ014525.000.1512EŞ01 2025.000.4545EŞ014550.000.1501EŞ01 2050.000.4469EŞ014575.000.1490EŞ01 2075.000.4396EŞ014600.000.1479EŞ01 2100.000.4324EŞ014625.000.1468EŞ01 2125.000.4255EŞ014650.000.1457EŞ01 2150.000.4187EŞ014675.000.1446EŞ01 2175.000.4121EŞ014700.000.1436EŞ01 2200.000.4057EŞ014725.000.1425EŞ01 2225.000.3995EŞ014750.000.1415EŞ01 2250.000.3934EŞ014775.000.1405EŞ01 2275.000.3875EŞ014800.000.1395EŞ01 2300.000.3818EŞ014825.000.1385EŞ01 2325.000.3761EŞ014850.000.1375EŞ01 2350.000.3707EŞ014875.000.1366EŞ01 2375.000.3653EŞ014900.000.1356EŞ01 2400.000.3601EŞ014925.000.1347EŞ01 2425.000.3551EŞ014950.000.1337EŞ01 2450.000.3501EŞ014975.000.1328EŞ01 2475.000.3453EŞ015000.000.1319EŞ01 2500.000.3406EŞ01 ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **********************AERSCREENMAXIMUMIMPACTSUMMARY********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 3Şhour,8Şhour,and24Şhourscaled concentrationsareequaltothe1Şhourconcentrationasreferencedin SCREENINGPROCEDURESFORESTIMATINGTHEAIRQUALITY IMPACTOFSTATIONARYSOURCES,REVISED(Section4.5.4) ReportnumberEPAŞ454/RŞ92Ş019 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm underScreeningGuidance MAXIMUMSCALEDSCALEDSCALEDSCALED 1ŞHOUR3ŞHOUR8ŞHOUR24ŞHOURANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3) ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ FLATTERRAIN 4.436 4.436 4.436 4.436 N/A DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 72.00meters IMPACTATTHE AMBIENTBOUNDARY3.331 3.331 3.331 3.331 N/A DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 1.00meters 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A.Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ 2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. x Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: x Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy-making process. x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests. x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ& Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171. Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022 Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022 James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company Case No. CIVDS1711810 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022 In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al. Case No. 2020-03891 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022 In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. 20-CA-5502 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022 In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al. Case No. 19SL-CC03191 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022 In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022 In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022 In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-L-56 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022 In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX Case No. A2004464 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. BCV-19-103087 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al. Case No. 2020-L-000550 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central Case No. 2:20-cv-1633 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022 In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation Case No.16-219-Ca-008796 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation Case No. 16-cv-5760 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 007599 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 003426 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Jan Holeman vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 000675 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-SCCV-091232 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 007730 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021 In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF Case No. 4:20-cv-03120 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021 In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF Case No. DV 19-1056 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021 In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc. Case No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021 Trial October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case No. CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No. 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action No. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015 In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case No. CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case No. cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition July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esponse to Comments Memorandum Arcadia Town Center Project SCH No. 2024110749 Submitted to City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 Contact: Edwin Arreola T: (626) 821-4334 Prepared by Psomas 150 South Arroyo Parkway, Suite 102 Pasadena, California 9110591105 T: (626) 351-2000 January 2025 Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Conclusion of the CEQA Process ......................................................... 1-1 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments .............................................................................. 2-1 Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx ii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 1-1 Introduction and Summary SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Pursuant to Section 15072 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the Arcadia Town Center Project (Project) was distributed on November 19, 2024, by the City of Arcadia (City) to the public, applicable responsible and trustee agencies, and other appropriate agencies and organizations. The Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was available for public review and comment for a 30-day period from Thursday, November 21, 2024, through Friday, December 20, 2024. Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, prior to approving a project, the lead agency must consider a proposed IS/MND together with any comments received on that document during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency for the Project. Written comments on the Arcadia Town Center Project IS/MND were received from a total of two parties during the 30-day public review period that closed on December 20, 2024. Although CEQA does not require written responses to comments on an IS/MND, the City‒as the lead agency‒has evaluated all comments received as well as prepared written responses. The City’s responses to any significant environmental issues raised in comments on the IS/MND are provided in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, of this document. When comments did not address the completeness or adequacy of the CEQA documentation or raise significant environmental issues, the receipt of the comment is noted, and no further response is provided. 1.1 CONCLUSION OF THE CEQA PROCESS The City has reviewed all comments received to determine whether any significant environmental issues have been raised. Based on substantial evidence and in light of the whole record, including the evaluation in the IS/MND together with the comments received, the City has determined no significant new environmental issues have been raised that have not been adequately addressed in the IS/MND and/or this Responses to Comments Memorandum. All potential impacts associated with the Project were identified and found to be less than significant with the incorporation of identified mitigation measures, where applicable. Accordingly, the Arcadia Town Center Project would not result in any significant impacts, and an IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.). The City of Arcadia’s Planning Commission will consider the IS/MND together with the comments received during the public review process and this Response to Comments Memorandum. The Planning Commission, as the decision-making body of the lead agency for this Project, will adopt the proposed IS/MND and approve the Project only if they find, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and that the IS/MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-1 Responses to Comments SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS As described in Section 1.0, written comments on the Arcadia Town Center Project IS/MND were received from the two parties by December 20, 2024 (the close of the public review period), as follows: Agencies x California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 – December 19, 2024 Individuals and Organizations x Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) – December 20, 2024 Each comment letter has been numbered and then divided into sequential numbered comments (e.g., Letter 1, comments 1.1, 1.2, and so forth). The numbered comment letter is immediately followed with correspondingly numbered responses. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-2 Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-3 Responses to Comments Insert Caltrans letter (3 pages) Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-4 Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-5 Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter 1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 December 19, 2024 Response 1.1: This comment is acknowledged. The summary of the Project provided in the comment letter is accurate. No further response is required. Response 1.2: This comment related to Caltrans’ mission and reminder that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the required metric for the CEQA analysis of transportation impacts is acknowledged. The IS/MND analyzes transportation impacts consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 743 and Section 15064.3 et. seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, on pages 3-95 through 3-100 of the IS/MND, which summarizes the Traffic Impact Study for the Arcadia Town Center Project (Traffic Study), dated September 2024 and provided as Appendix H to the document. The Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 1.3: This comment providing Caltrans’ suggestions for additional features supporting multi-modal transportation and reduction in VMT beyond the current scope and/or footprint of the Project is acknowledged. As demonstrated in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project and summarized in the IS/MND, in accordance with both City and State guidelines, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT and conflict with circulation system programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, and no mitigation is required (see pages 3-96 through 3-98 of the IS/MND). Regarding the statement that “the IS/MND does not provide information on nearby bike lane connectivity”, the Project does not propose features that extend from the Project site to connect to bike lanes and therefore this information is beyond the scope of the proposed Project and this IS/MND. Also, note that the relevant threshold from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines asks if a project would “conflict with (emphasis added) a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities”. Accordingly, the Traffic Study and IS/MND address the proposed features of the Project against applicable planning directives. The IS/MND analyzes the Project as designed; the Project’s features that support bicyclist and pedestrian activity and accessibility are analyzed to determine whether they conflict with any applicable circulation system directives (see pages 3-97 and 3-98 of the IS/MND). As noted previously, the IS/MND concluded the Project would have less than significant impacts. The cited lack of information on bike lane connectivity does not, therefore, represent an inadequacy of the CEQA documentation. As stated on page 2-9, of the IS/MND, in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, it is noted the City’s Development Code requires that long-term bicycle parking includes one of the following: yy Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; y Lockable bike rooms with permanently anchored racks; or y Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-6 Responses to Comments Therefore, the Project would include “secure bicycle parking”. Caltrans’ other suggested additions to the Project design related to bicycling are acknowledged. Regarding the statements that “additional measures are necessary to mitigate VMT impacts” notwithstanding the Project’s “advantageous” location in a Transit Priority Area [TPA] and “we recommend that strategies…should also be explored” after acknowledging “the IS/MND identifies the project as consistent with regional VMT goals”, the Traffic Study prepared as part of the IS/MND concluded the Project–as designed and described in the IS/MND–would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT pursuant to Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and no mitigation is required. To reiterate, the Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with the City’s adopted VMT guidelines, which were in turn prepared and adopted in accordance with SB 743. This comment does not substantiate the assertion that (1) there is a significant VMT impact and (2) mitigation measures for this impact are required. Specifically, Caltrans identification of additional VMT-reducing features that could conceivably be included in the Project is not equivalent to identifying an undisclosed significant transportation impact that requires additional mitigation. In summary, this comment does not provide evidence of significant and/or undisclosed transportation impacts nor the need for additional mitigation measures. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 1.4: This comment relates to transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways. The City of Arcadia would ensure the contractor acquires all necessary permits, as required by Caltrans, including a Caltrans transportation permit, if applicable. Additionally, short-term and long-term emergency access is fully addressed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the IS/MND, beginning on page 3- 99. As presented beginning on pages 1-5 and 3-99 of the IS/MND, mitigation measure (MM) TRANS-1 requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which would ensure “clear and continuous emergency access routes during construction”. The comment related to the commenter’s contact information is acknowledged. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-7 Responses to Comments Insert Lozeau Drury letter (16 pages from main body of letter only, remaining 156 pages comprising Exhibits A through D will be included in Appendix A to this document) Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-8 Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter 2 Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) December 19, 2024 Response 2.1: This comment states the letter is submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and provides a brief summary of the Project and is acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 2.2: This comment states there is a fair argument the Project may result in significant impacts related to biological resources, noise, air quality, and indoor air quality. The commenter requests that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze and mitigate these impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commenter is referred to the entirety of the IS/MND and its appendices, which provides a full analysis of the Project including a detailed description of the Project’s elements and an evaluation of both construction and operation activity on- and off-site, as applicable. Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist Form, of the IS/MND evaluates impacts associated with 20 environmental resources and includes analysis of mandatory findings of significance, consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (2024). The IS/MND also identifies multiple mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems, which are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The Project’s IS/MND was prepared consistent with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.) The IS/MND adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with Project implementation. Specifically, in accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the environmental analysis and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND relied upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, and other substantial evidence to support the determination that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is not required for the Project because (1) all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and (2) the commenter does not provide any substantial evidence supporting the numerous and varied assertions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the IS/MND analysis presented in the remainder of the comment letter and attached exhibits. Section 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that substantial evidence “means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached”. The commenter’s assertions are based on evidence that is inaccurate and/or irrelevant, which results in unreasonable inferences from the information utilized. As such, the commenter has not provided substantial evidence for the record and as such does meet the fair argument standard pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to legally assert that the Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The comment stating that SAFER’s review of the IS/MND was assisted by Shawn Smallwood, Phd.; Wilson Ihrig; Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprises (SWAPE); and Francis Offermann, PE, CIH (of Indoor Environmental Engineering [IEE]) is acknowledged. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-9 Responses to Comments No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 2.3: This comment provides a summary of the Project and is acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review. No further response is required. Response 2.4: This comment provides a discussion of CEQA case law decisions related to legal standard for negative declarations and is acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. No further response is required. Response 2.5: This comment states that generally the IS/MND’s methodology for and analysis of impacts to biological resources is insufficient and not supported by substantial evidence. The comment states the IS/MND failed to accurately characterize the wildlife community on the Project site, including the presence of “at least six special-status species”. A predicted number of vertebrate species and special status species present on site as well as annual bird deaths from window collisions and vertebrate wildlife fatalities from vehicle collisions are purported; however, there are no methodologies provided for these calculations, so the validity of these claims is not verifiable. It is noted that the calculation of predicted vehicle collisions is based on the IS/MND estimating over 1.3 million annual employee VMTs; however, this is categorically inaccurate, not least because this Project would be predominantly residential. It is also noted that the commentary of Dr. Smallwood is limited to and focused on vertebrate wildlife and does not address the many other issues relevant to the topic of biological resources. The comment asserts the Project would result in significant impacts to biological resources due to interference with aerial (i.e., not ground level) wildlife movement, bird-window collision mortality, traffic mortality, and cumulative impacts. The analysis of mortality of vertebrate wildlife due to bird-window and traffic collisions is not specified nor required by the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Code to be considered the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Similarly, wildlife movement through airspace is irrelevant to the analysis of biological resources pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Code. The comment states the IS/MND’s mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce significant biological resources impacts, specifically citing “Mitigation Measure RR BIO-3” and characterizing this as the deferred development of landscape plans. In no location in the IS/MND are regulatory requirements or RRs written as or referred to as “Mitigation Measure RR” nor in any way could it be implied these are mitigation measures. As stated repeatedly in the IS/MND, there would be no significant impacts to biological resources and no mitigation measures are required. The abbreviation “RR” stands for regulatory requirements, which is both defined on page 1-1 of the IS/MND and is the text of the sub-header immediately preceding the list of applicable RRs in every topical analysis section of the IS/MND. As stated on page 1-1, “RRs are based on local, State, and/or federal regulations or laws that are required independent of CEQA review [emphasis added], yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts”. Because the referenced requirement of the Project is not a mitigation measure, the remainder of the comment regarding the sufficiency of said requirement is immaterial, and further response is not necessary. These opinions of biological resources impacts are interesting in that development of this same project on a greenfield site or even an urban location with half the density of Arcadia would have vastly greater potential for significant biological resources impacts under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the California Fish and Game Code, and possibly other regulations. An urban infill redevelopment project on a site that is completely developed, almost devoid of pervious surfaces, Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-10 Responses to Comments with only sparse and ornamental vegetation, and adjoining two of the main thoroughfares through the City of Arcadia is a setting that inherently serves to minimize biological resources impacts. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND includes a full analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources, including wildlife species and wildlife movement, and concludes there would be less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required (see pages 3-28 through 3-31 of the IS/MND). Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the IS/MND addresses cumulative impacts under Threshold 3.21(b) and concludes there would be less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required (see page 3-114 of the IS/MND). The IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential biological resources impacts from construction and operation of the Project based on established best practices for such analyses. This includes, but is not limited to, accepted definitions of special-status species and wildlife corridors in the context of CEQA assessment; use of the checklist questions provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; and consideration of the purpose and intent of environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As part of an academic exercise, an expansive array of definitions, methodologies, and impacts can be asserted as fact and evidence without the functional and legal parameters provided by the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, and relevant case law, which are necessary to facilitate a consistent, equitable, reasonable, and meaningful analysis of any of the 20 environmental topics addressed pursuant to CEQA. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 2.6: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse noise and vibration impacts. It is noted that, apart from this statement, no supplementary comments regarding the vibration analysis in the IS/MND are provided. The comment states the IS/MND relies on an inadequately established noise baseline; that construction noise impacts will be significant; and that the operational noise analysis is incomplete. The comment states “she [Ms. Toncheva] found that the MND’s ambient noise measurements were taken at the Project boundaries rather than at sensitive receptors…”; and “Moreover, the noise measurements close to the Santa Clara residences were dominated by HVAC noise directly next to the Project site”. This is correct. As discussed on page 3-71 of the IS/MND, 20-minute measurements were taken along each of the Project site boundaries (north, south, east, west). Ambient noise levels are primarily influenced by vehicle traffic on the eastern and southern Project site boundaries, the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) unit at the Mercedes Benz dealership on the western site boundary, and pressure washer use and the HVAC unit at the dealership on the northern site boundary. Given that Santa Clara Street is generally to the west of the Project site, albeit hundreds of feet away, and is equally proximate to the dealership building, it makes sense the ambient noise environment is also dominated by the HVAC unit, though this was not stated in Table 20 of the IS/MND; Table 20 explicitly states the location is “Western Project Boundary”. Regardless, this is not germane to the determination of on-site ambient noise levels. CEQA requires a disclosure of potential project-related impacts on the environment due to the change in existing conditions at the site of a proposed action. Therefore, the Project site itself is the appropriate location to measure baseline noise levels and is the industry standard practice. Off-site noise levels are then calculated based on the distance from noise source to off-site receptor, which is the industry standard practice. Short-term, on-site measurements were selected because they provide the magnitude of noise under existing conditions experienced at the Project site and this methodology is the industry standard practice for most projects. Long- Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-11 Responses to Comments term measurements (24-hour) would be useful for projects that have substantial effects on a 24- hour basis or to assess how existing ambient noise levels would affect the Project site. Since CEQA does not require analyses of potential impacts from the environment onto a project, 24- hour noise measurements were not necessary for this Project to prepare a legally adequate analysis of noise pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Regarding statements regarding ambient measurements not capturing noise level fluctuations over the day, adjustment of noise with distance from the source, and that measurements must be near sensitive receptors to capture baseline levels during quiet periods of day and night, it is a fact that ambient noise levels vary depending on the time of day, location of the measurement, and day of the year. It is neither feasible nor necessary to capture noise levels over extended periods to adequately analyze noise impacts pursuant to CEQA. Regarding sensitive receptor proximity, it is a statement of fact that “no sensitive receptors occur near the Project construction site…” (page 3-78 of the IS/MND). The nearest noise-sensitive receptors–which in this case are residences–are located at least 280 feet to the southeast and 345 feet to the northwest (Excelsior School). Therefore, since the noise-sensitive receptors are hundreds of feet away, they would not be considered located “near”, even without considering the presence of intervening structures and roadways with related traffic activity typical of a dense urban environment that act to attenuate and generate noise, respectively. As stated on page 3- 78, “The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity”. The estimated construction noise levels at the nearest residential locations (280 feet and 410 feet) purported by the commenter are fundamentally inaccurate and inapplicable for several reasons. First, while the commenter’s methodology to calculate these noise levels is appropriately based on the inverse square law1–same as the IS/MND– the calculations are not based on the source noise level on the Project site. These calculations use the noise level calculated for receptors at the edge of Arcadia County Park at a distance of 95 feet per Table 25 in the IS/MND. This is a non-linear noise propagation that does not follow the inverse square law arithmetically. Further, in Table 25, the maximum noise level of 98 dBA Leq (equivalent noise level in A-weight decibels) at the Elks Lodge at 10 feet from the noise source attenuates to 78 dBA Leq at 95 feet, or a 20 dBA Leq reduction. In this context, construction noise levels of 69 dBA Leq at 280 feet and 65 dBA Leq at 410 feet are clearly illogical. The commenter also neglects to mention their calculations are derived from the estimated maximum construction noise levels. Both maximum and average noise levels are presented in Table 25 and discussed in the IS/MND analysis. In reality, the construction noise levels will vary between these ranges that in themselves are worst-case levels. Most notably because noise attenuation under the inverse square law is based on free field conditions, a free field is a region where the acoustic waves can propagate free from obstructions that would otherwise interfere with the sound path. The Project site environment is not a free field in any direction, even more so in the areas between the site and the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Also, these noise levels are the worst-case scenario in that they represent the outdoor conditions at the given distance. As such, the experienced noise levels would be lower than estimated at any location and even lower within any structures, including commercial structures and homes. The commenter states the MND fails to establish construction noise criteria. The comments correctly state that the IS/MND references the “noise limits of the City of Arcadia Noise Ordinance” 1The inverse square law controls the propagation of noise waves in a free field wherein the doubling of distance from a noise source reduces the resulting noise level by six decibels. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-12 Responses to Comments and then asserts the “adjustment to noise limits for impulsive sounds…§5610.3(b)” was omitted. The commenter asserts their predicted noise levels at the Santa Anita residences would exceed the “Ordinance limit”. It is assumed this refers to Section 4610.3 “Noise Limits” of the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC). The City, as lead agency, determines which significance thresholds are used in CEQA analyses. The City has adopted ordinances or standards within its municipal code and uses these as the basis for noise impact analyses, where applicable. Sections 4261 through 4265 of the AMC relate to construction activity and Section 4610 through 4630.2 of the AMC relate to operation and maintenance of land uses. All applicable sections of the AMC pertaining to noise are presented in the IS/MND. Section 4310.3(b) is not presented because it is not applicable; operation of the proposed land uses would not involve generation of impulsive sounds as defined in Section 4610.1(f) of the AMC. Similarly, exceedance of the noise limits specified in Section 4310 due to construction-generated noise levels is not applicable. The commenter states the IS/MND lacks a significance threshold for generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. However, on page 3-79 of the IS/MND the applicable standards for assessing construction noise are clearly stated. For reasons discussed above, the commenter’s predicted construction noise levels, and by extension conflating these levels to a finding regarding a substantial noise level increase – are wholly inaccurate and illogical. As there are no significant construction noise impacts, no mitigation is required. It is noted most municipalities in California do not have numeric construction noise level limits nor a definition of “substantial” ambient noise level increase and those that do recognize that construction activity will generate higher noise levels than would be acceptable from operation of permanent land uses. Just as operation of a lawn mower, leaf blower, or a circular saw would generate noise levels above the ambient noise level, the Project’s construction activities would likewise increase noise levels above the ambient. The City is aware that construction tools and activities generate noise. As such, the City is focused on limiting noise from these activities to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. For the purpose of providing a construction noise analysis per CEQA, the comparison of construction noise against ambient noise levels is not useful because it will almost always be higher than the ambient. This approach would lead to all projects large and small that involve construction vehicles or power tools in developed areas to have to prepare an EIR. As such, comparison of project construction noise levels solely to ambient noise levels does not provide a useful analysis of potential noise nuisance associated with construction activities. The commenter states the IS/MND “claims, without evidence, that the Project will have no operational noise impact, and goes on to assert the HVAC system was inadequately addressed and the proposed parking garage’s entrance and ventilation system must be addressed as potential noise sources. On the contrary, page 3-79 of the IS/MND states the Project would have a less than significant impact related to noise generated by on-site sources. Under CEQA, no impact and a less than significant impact are distinct findings. Regarding on-site stationary source noise, the analysis clearly provides actionable performance standards in Sections 4310.3(c) and 4630.2 of the AMC. The IS/MND properly used the City’s codified noise limit as the basis for the stationary source impact finding. As such, the conclusion that on-site stationary noise sources, including those not expressly discussed such as parking garage-related sounds, would be less than significant is based on substantial evidence and this analysis is therefore complete. Section 3.13, Noise, of the IS/MND includes a full analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to noise and vibration during construction and operation both on- and off-sit, as applicable and concludes there would be less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation MM NOI- 1, related to vibration. No significant impacts related to noise are identified and no mitigation is Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-13 Responses to Comments required (see pages 3-70 through 3-85 of the IS/MND). The IS/MND thoroughly and logically reviewed and discussed the potential noise impacts from construction and operation of the Project based on established best practices for such analyses in the context of CEQA assessment. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 2.7: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts. The comment states the IS/MND relies on inadequate air quality and GHG emissions analyses, the Project may result in significant air pollutant health risks not adequately addressed in the IS/MND, and the IS/MND does not include all feasible air quality mitigation measures. Though not disclosed in commenter’s remarks, the close of the comments from SWAPE, provided in Exhibit C to commenter’s letter, provides perhaps the most relevant observation regarding the comments provided on the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses [emphasis added]: “Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.” It is noted this disclaimer is consistently provided in SWAPE’s comment letters. The commenter is correct in that CalEEMod provides default model inputs that are used across the industry and that it could be changed if more accurate or project-specific information is available. The default model inputs were developed based on a set of information that may or may not be representative of any given project. As such, the SCAQMD allows users to modify these computer model inputs if there is better available data that is more representative of any given project. Accordingly, the air quality and GHG emissions modeling prepared for the Project were based on detailed, Project-specific information derived through a specialized data needs form and extensive coordination with the Applicant. CalEEMod inputs were changed where appropriate and warranted, as is typical to ensure an accurate result and is industry standard practice. Commenter states that “SWAPE found that the MND and its air quality technical reports in Appendix A [of the IS/MND] failed to provide complete CalEEMod output files. Its files included land use input but omitted all other qualitative [sic] outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions, and they also omitted details on changes to the model’s default values. Upon review of the Appendix A files, pursuant to this comment, Psomas discovered that there were some sections of the .PDF output by CalEEMod that did not populate with the modeled data used in the IS/MND for the proposed conditions; however, all data was populated in the output Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-14 Responses to Comments files for the existing conditions. Other than a software glitch, Psomas cannot define why these values did not populate in the output file and it had never been observed prior to or since this event. Specifically, the following sections of the CalEEMod .PDF output for the proposed conditions were not populated: x Section 2-Emissions Summary x Section 3-Construction Emissions Details x Section 4-Operations Emissions Details x Section 5-Activity Data x Section 8-User Changes to Default Data Nevertheless, all relevant inputs and all quantitative outputs were provided in the body of the IS/MND. Specifically, the quantitative “outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions” (e.g., Sections 2 through 4) were provided in Table 8, Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, on page 3-23 of the IS/MND; Table 9, Existing Daily Operational Emissions, on page 3-24; Table 10, Peak Daily Net Operational Emissions, on page 3-25; Table 13, Energy Use During Construction, on page 3-38; Table 14, Energy Use During Operations, on page 3-38; Table 15, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Construction, on page 3-49; Table 16, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Use, on page 3-50; Table 17, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Operation, on page 3-50; and Table 18, Estimated Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 3-51. Project-specific inputs, including gross and net values where applicable, are provided throughout Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, and in the text of Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.6, Energy; Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, among others. Commenter states “without access to this data, SWAPE was unable to verify the potential significance and accuracy of the MND air quality modeling”. “SWAPE concluded that “[a]n EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s complete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines”. The implication that, absent the commenter’s verification, the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses are necessarily inaccurate is without merit implicitly and unsubstantiated, as discussed further below. The sole reason an EIR is required under CEQA is when a project will have a significant, adverse environmental impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. Ergo, disclosure of the “complete CalEEMod output files” is irrelevant to the determination of appropriate CEQA documentation. Additionally, provision of the CalEEMod outputs is not required under CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines–it is assumed this is what is meant by “CEQA’s formal guidelines”–it is simply the industry standard practice. As noted, Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations, of the IS/MND dated November 2024 contained the output files for (1) the existing land uses and operations on the site, and (2) the proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality and GHG emissions. The output file for the proposed conditions was downloaded from CalEEMod on August 4, 2023. The corresponding .JSON2 output file that was created in August 2023; and used to quantify the emissions presented in the IS/MND; was uploaded into CalEEMod on January 6, 2025, to generate the resulting .PDF output files. This .PDF has been included as Appendix B of this Response to Comments Memorandum. 2 CalEEMod files are output in both .PDF and .JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) formats; the .JSON file is what is used during preparation of technical analyses of air quality and GHG emissions, as well as energy. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-15 Responses to Comments It is noted that the Project’s emissions were originally quantified with CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13 and the current software is CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29; as such, several updates to CalEEMod have been made since preparation of the air quality and GHG emissions analysis. Therefore, the resulting output values include a small number of changes to the values originally presented in the IS/MND; however, the differences are nominal in magnitude and do not represent a new or more significant impact related to air quality or GHG emissions than disclosed in the IS/MND. Additionally, the changes in values are solely the result of periodic updates to the software and are not related to the accuracy of the analysis or veracity of the resulting conclusions in the IS/MND. Presented beginning on the next page are side-by-side comparisons of the values presented in the air quality and GHG emissions sections of the IS/MND and the values generated in the current CalEEMod run presented in Appendix B. As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 8, the mass (regional) construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) are slightly lower, with values ranging from one to five pounds per days (lbs/day) less emissions. All other values are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all maximum daily construction emissions would be well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants. As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 10, the peak daily net operational emissions are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all net daily operational emissions would be well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants. As shown in the comparisons of IS/MND Tables 15, 17, and 18, the construction GHG emissions are slightly higher for construction year 2024 and slightly lower for years 2025 and 2026. On balance, the total construction GHG emissions are 36 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) higher. When amortized, consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, the annual construction GHG emissions are 2 MTCO2e/yr higher. The total and net operational GHG emissions are identical. Therefore, as shown in the comparison of Table 18, the net total annual GHG emissions are 2 MTCO2e/yr higher, or approximately 0.1 percent. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, this value would remain below the draft SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold (e.g., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all land use types). Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-16 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE 1 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13) Yeara Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2024 3 27 23 <1 5 2 2025 2 13 22 <1 3 1 2026 23 20 35 <1 3 1 Maximum 23 27 36 <1 5 2 SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable. Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29) Yeara Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2024 2 22 23 <1 5 2 2025 2 13 22 <1 2 1 2026 22 19 33 <1 3 1 Maximum 22 22 33 <1 5 2 SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable. Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-17 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 2 PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2 Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3 Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1 Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. * Some totals do not add due to rounding. Source: CalEEMod model data sheets are included in Appendix A. PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2 Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3 Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1 Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-18 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13) Year Emissions (MTCO2e) 2024 631 2025 642 2026 301 Total 1,574 Annual GHG Emissions* 52 MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent * Combined total amortized over 30 years Notes: x Totals may not add due to rounding x Detailed calculations in Appendix A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29) Year Emissions (MTCO2e) 2024 705 2025 619 2026 286 Total 1,610 Annual GHG Emissions* 54 MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent * Combined total amortized over 30 years Notes: x Totals may not add due to rounding x Detailed calculations in Appendix A. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-19 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13) Source Emissions (MTCO2e/yr.) Mobile 1,519 Energy 528 Water 51 Waste 63 Refrigerants 2 Stationary 18 Total 2,181 MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: x Totals may not add due to rounding x Detailed calculations in Appendix A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29) Source Emissions (MTCO2e/yr.) Mobile 1,519 Energy 528 Water 51 Waste 63 Refrigerants 2 Stationary 18 Total 2,181 MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: x Totals may not add due to rounding x Detailed calculations in Appendix A. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-20 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 5 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13) Source Emissions MTCO2e/yr Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 52 Operations (from Table 17) 2,181 Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504 Total 1,729 MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29) Source Emissions MTCO2e/yr Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 54 Operations (from Table 17) 2,181 Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504 Total 1,731 MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-21 Responses to Comments Similar to the remarks provided above, the commenter states that because the “CalEEMod output files did not provide the emission estimates or any relevant inputs aside from land uses”, commenter is “unable to verify the legitimacy of the GHG emissions estimates” and, as a result, the GHG emissions estimates “could be under estimated”. Commenter states that they cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and as such the IS/MND’s analysis should not be relied upon. However, as discussed, all assertions made by SWAPE regarding the adjustments made to the default CalEEMod inputs are unsupported. Accordingly, the commenter’s assertion that the IS/MND’s GHG emissions analysis and conclusions cannot be relied upon without their full review is also incorrect and unsupported. As established above, the IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential for GHG emissions from the Project’s construction and operation based on established best practices for such analyses. Commenter states the Project violates CEQA by not connecting the construction-related emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors through preparation of a health risk “analysis” [sic] (HRA). The comment continues with description of commenter’s preparation of an HRA using their own CalEEMod results, which as discussed are incorrect and unsupported. Please refer to the analysis in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, under Threshold 3.3(c) (page 3-27) that states that there would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the total construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 40-year exposure period. This fact, combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM, the relatively large distance between the Project site and the nearest sensitive land uses, and additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction equipment as required by federal and State regulations, construction emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. In summary, there is no evidence to support any of commenter’s assertions regarding the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses as the evidence provided is unsubstantiated or inaccurate. Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the IS/MND include a full analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions, respectively, and concluded there would be less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required (see pages 3-9 through 3-28 and pages 3-46 through 3-52 of the IS/MND). No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Response 2.8: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse indoor air quality impacts, specifically cancer risk related to formaldehyde emissions from building materials. There is no evidence to support the assertion that operation of the Project would expose people to a significant health risk related to indoor air quality from formaldehyde in building materials. Even if the assertions regarding the health risk of future residents and visitors to the Project had merit, this does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment nor an exacerbation of an existing impact and as such is not relevant to the CEQA process. Accordingly, the Project’s indoor air quality is not a legitimate environmental impact that is appropriate to address in the IS/MND nor does the Project exacerbate an existing impact. Therefore, these assertions are irrelevant to the CEQA process; and commenter’s assertions this represents a new significant environmental impact and must be addressed in an EIR, are unsupported by the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as well as case law (Baird v. County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464; California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District [S213478, December 17, 2015]). No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Arcadia Town Center Project Response to Comments Memorandum P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-22 Responses to Comments Response 2.9: The remaining portions of the comment letter are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Exhibits A through D of this comment letter can be found in Appendix A to this Response to Comments Memorandum. Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Architectural Plans and TTM 21-02 (83325)