2022 04 26 PC
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 1 of 5 APRIL 26, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022, AT 5:00 P.M.
****************************
SPECIAL NOTICE
Teleconferencing and Telephonic Accessibility In Effect
Pursuant to Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-08-21 executed by the Governor of
California, and subsequently Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, 2021), enacted in response
to the state of emergency relating to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending or waiving specified
provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.), members
of the public, Planning Commission, the City Attorney, City Staff, and City
Consultants may participate in this meeting by teleconference.
Members of the public may listen to this meeting by tuning-in live via
http://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/live.
Members of the public wanting to address the Planning Commission, either for
a specific agenda item or matters not on the agenda, are requested to follow the
instructions listed below:
Written public comments – can be provided in-person during the meeting or
emailed to the Planning Commission Secretary, Tania Flores, at
TFlores@LaQuintaCA.Gov, preferably before 3:00 p.m. on the day of the
meeting, and will be distributed to the Planning Commission and incorporated into
the agenda packet and public record of the meeting, but will not be read during the
meeting unless, upon the request of the Chairperson, a brief summary of any public
comment is asked to be read, to the extent that the Commission Secretary can
accommodate such request.
Planning Commission agendas and
staff reports are now available on the
City’s web page: www.LaQuintaCA.Gov
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 2 of 5 APRIL 26, 2022
The email subject line should clearly state “Written Comments” and should include
the following:
1) Full Name 4) Public Comment or Agenda Item Number
2) City of Residence 5) Subject
3) Phone Number 6) Written Comments
***** TELECONFERENCE PROCEDURES *****
Verbal Public Comment via Teleconference – members of the public may
attend and participate in the meeting by teleconference via Zoom and use
the “raise your hand” feature when public comments are prompted by the
Chairperson; the City will facilitate the ability for a member of the public to be
audible to the Planning Commission and general public and allow him/her/they to
speak on the item(s) requested. Please note – members of the public must unmute
themselves when prompted upon being recognized by the Chairperson, in order to
become audible to the Planning Commission and the public. Only one person may
speak at a time and only after being recognized by the Chairperson.
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82853067939
Meeting ID: 828 5306 7939
Or by phone: (253) 215 – 8782
Email communications for public comments related to items on the agenda, or for
general public comment, should be submitted to the City at the email address listed
above prior to the commencement of the meeting. To accommodate the public,
every effort will be made to review emails received by the City during the course of
the meeting. The Chairperson will endeavor to take a brief pause before action is
taken on any agenda item to allow the Commission Secretary to review emails and
share any public comments received during the meeting. All emails received by the
City, at the email address above, until the adjournment of the meeting, will be
included within the public record relating to the meeting.
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL NOTICE FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1:
In accordance with State law and City rules of procedure for conducting public
meetings, the Chair of the Planning Commission will preside over the continued
public hearing for Public Hearing Item No. 1 relating to the proposed Coral Mountain
Resort. Subject to any decisions issued by the Chair at the meeting, all members of
the public are welcome to speak during this continued public hearing on April 26,
2022; provided, however, that members of the public who previously spoke or
previously submitted written comments, or both, during the public hearing for this
item on March 22 and/or April 12, 2022, are requested to refrain from providing
duplicate comments. All verbal and written comments submitted prior to or during
the public hearing for this item on April 12, 2022, are in the administrative record
and are already available for the Commission to review.
****************************
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 3 of 5 APRIL 26, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Caldwell, Currie, Hassett, McCune, Proctor, Tyerman
and Chairperson Nieto
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any
matter not listed on the agenda by providing written public comments either
in-person or via email as indicated above; or provide verbal public comments
either in-person or via teleconference by joining the meeting virtually at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82853067939 and use the “raise your hand”
feature when prompted by the Chairperson or Commission Secretary. Members of
the public attending the meeting in-person are requested to complete a “Request
to Speak” form and submit to the Commission Secretary. Please limit your
comments to three (3) minutes (or approximately 350 words). The Planning
Commission values your comments; however, in accordance with State law, no
action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an
emergency item authorized by the Brown Act [Government Code § 54954.2(b)].
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion.
PAGE
1. ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR SILVERROCK WAY AND
AHMANSON LANE; CEQA: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
CEQA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15061(b)(3) COMMON
SENSE RULE; LOCATION: SILVERROCK WAY AND AHMANSON
LANE, WITHIN SILVERROCK SPECIFIC PLAN
6
BUSINESS SESSION - NONE
STUDY SESSION – NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
For all Public Hearings on the agenda, any person may provide public comments in
support or opposition of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 4 of 5 APRIL 26, 2022
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL NOTICE FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1:
In accordance with State law and City rules of procedure for conducting public
meetings, the Chair of the Planning Commission will preside over the continued
public hearing for Public Hearing Item No. 1 relating to the proposed Coral Mountain
Resort. Subject to any decisions issued by the Chair at the meeting, all members of
the public are welcome to speak during this continued public hearing on April 26,
2022; provided, however, that members of the public who previously spoke or
previously submitted written comments, or both, during the public hearing for this
item on March 22 and/or April 12, 2022, are requested to refrain from providing
duplicate comments. All verbal and written comments submitted prior to or during
the public hearing for this item on April 12, 2022, are in the administrative record
and are already available for the Commission to review.
A person may submit written comments either in-person or via email at
TFlores@LaQuintaCA.Gov; or provide verbal comments during the public hearing
either in-person or via teleconference by joining the meeting virtually at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82853067939 and use the “raise your hand”
feature when prompted by the Chairperson. Members of the public attending the
meeting in-person are requested to complete a “Request to Speak” form and
submit it to the Commission Secretary prior to consideration of the item. Please
limit your comments to three (3) minutes (or approximately 350 words).
PAGE
1. CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12, 2022: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2019-0010, AND APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003
(AMENDMENT V TO ANDALUSIA SPECIFIC PLAN), GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2019-0002, ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2020-0002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2021-0002 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2021-0001; CEQA: CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310);
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60 AND
EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET
15
REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – NONE
STAFF ITEMS - NONE
COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS – NONE
ADJOURNMENT
****************************
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 5 of 5 APRIL 26, 2022
The next regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission will be held on
May 10, 2022, commencing at 5:00 p.m. with the Call to Order, at the City Hall
Council Chamber, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby declare that the foregoing
Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2022, was
posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chamber at 78495
Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78630
Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51321 Avenida Bermudas, on
April 22, 2022.
DATED: April 22, 2022
TANIA FLORES, Planning Commission Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the Planning Division of the Design and
Development Department at (760) 777-7023, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the
meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Commission,
arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Planning Division of the
Design and Development Department at (760) 777-7023. A one (1) week notice is
required.
If background material is to be presented to the Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that ten (10) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution. It is
requested that this takes place prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any
item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Design and
Development Department’s counter at City Hall located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1
City of La Quinta
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 26, 2022
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR SILVERROCK WAY AND
AHMANSON LANE; CEQA: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 15061(b)(3) COMMON SENSE RULE; LOCATION: SILVERROCK
WAY AND AHMANSON LANE, WITHIN SILVERROCK SPECIFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution declaring intention to hold a public hearing on May 24, 2022,
to consider a street name change for SilverRock Way and Ahmanson Lane to
Talus Way and Painted Peak Lane, respectively, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval and find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Rule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•Street Name Change 2022-0002 (SNC2022-0002) is proposed by
SilverRock Development Company, LLC to change the street names
SilverRock Way to Talus Way and Ahmanson Lane to Painted Peak Lane
(Attachment 1).
•This process is regulated by La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) Chapter
14.08 Street Name Changes (Attachment 2). Planning Commission must
first adopt a resolution of intent to consider a street name change at a
future public hearing, within 30 days of resolution adoption.
•If the resolution of intention is adopted, notices will be published in the
Desert Sun and posted along the affected streets prior to the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, which would be scheduled for
May 24, 2022.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
SilverRock Way and Ahmanson Lane are two streets that run through the
SilverRock Development. SilverRock Way begins at Avenue 52 and runs south
6
and east and connects to Jefferson Street. Ahmanson Lane connects to
SilverRock Way and runs south, leading to the current golf clubhouse.
The proposed street name change applies to the entirety of both streets and is
being proposed as part of a rebranding for the development (Attachment 3).
LQMC permits any individual to initiate a street name change, with at least 67%
of the owners abutting the street having signed letters of support for this
request. The owners abutting these streets include the applicant and the City
of La Quinta. The Planning Commission must adopt a resolution of intention,
setting a public hearing date to review the request no less than 30 days from
the date of the adoption of the resolution for a public hearing, which would be
scheduled for May 24, 2022. Following the Planning Commission’s public
hearing, the recommendation is then forwarded to Council for final action. The
resolution of intention will be published in The Desert Sun and notice posted
along the subject streets in accordance with LQMC Sections 14.08.060 and
14.08.070.
AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW
Public Agency Review
The applications were distributed to City staff, including the Riverside County
Fire Department. All comments have been addressed and/or added as
conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Design and Development Department has determined that the proposed
project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
provisions of Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the common
sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the project in question may have
a significant effect on the environment, therefore the project is not subject to
CEQA.
Prepared by: Carlos Flores, Senior Planner
Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director
Attachments: 1.Street Name Change Exhibit
2. La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 14.08
3. Street Name Change Justification
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2022 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 24, 2022 TO
CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR
SILVERROCK WAY AND AHMANSON LANE
CASE NUMBERS: STREET NAME CHANGE 2022-0002
APPLICANT: SILVERROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on April 26, 2022, consider the request of SilverRock
Development Company, LLC, to set a date of May 24, 2022, for a public
hearing to review a street name change for SilverRock Way to Talus Way
and for Ahmanson Lane to Painted Peak Lane, for the entirety of those two
streets;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings
of the Planning Commission in this case; and
SECTION 2. That the above project be determined by the Planning
Commission to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
requirements under the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense
Rule; and
SECTION 3. That it does hereby approve the Resolution of Intent to hold a
public hearing on the proposed street name change on May 24, 2022, at
5:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, located at 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on April 26, 2022, by the
following vote:
8
Planning Commission Resolution 2022 -
Street Name Change 2022-0002
SilverRock Way & Ahmanson Lane
Adopted:
Page 2 of 2
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
STEPHEN T. NIETO, Chairperson
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________
DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AYES:
NOES:
9
ATTACHMENT 2
Title 14 - STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
Chapter 14.08 STREET NAME CHANGES
La Quinta, California, Municipal Code Created: 2022-03-25 11:00:47 [EST]
(Supp. No. 2, Update 3)
Page 1 of 2
Chapter 14.08 STREET NAME CHANGES
14.08.010 Petition for initiation of street name change.
Any person may initiate a street name change for any reason consistent with law, by complying with the provisions
of this chapter.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.020 Initiation of petition.
A proposed change of street name may be initiated by filing with the planning commission an application in the
form prescribed by the city manager and signed by the owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the lineal frontage
abutting the street to be affected.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.030 Application fee.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council, in order
to defray the costs of publishing, posting and processing, as hereinafter prescribed.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.040 Manager's examination.
The city manager shall examine the application and determine the sufficiency of same as to the percentage
requirement of Section 14.08.020.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.050 Adoption of resolution of intention.
Upon determination of the sufficiency of the petition, the commission shall adopt a resolution of intention to
change name and set a date for public hearing not less than thirty (30) days from the date of adoption of the
resolution.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.060 Publication.
The city manager shall provide for at least one (1) publication of the resolution of intention in a newspaper of
general circulation within the city at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
11
Created: 2022-03-25 11:00:47 [EST]
(Supp. No. 2, Update 3)
Page 2 of 2
14.08.070 Posting.
The city manager shall provide for posting copies of the resolution of intention in at least three (3) public places
along the street proposed to be affected. The posting shall be completed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing
date.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.080 Commission hearing.
At the time set for hearing, or at any time to which the hearing may be continued, the commission shall hear and
consider proposals to adjust, alter or change the name(s) of the street(s) mentioned in the resolution, and
objections to the proposals.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.090 Commission recommendation.
At or after the conclusion of the hearing, the commission may make any recommendation to the city council which
the commission deems appropriate. In its deliberations the commission shall consider any applicable specific plans
in effect.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.100 Council action.
The city council may, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34091.1, take such action as it deems
appropriate upon the recommendation of the commission, and failure to take action within sixty (60) days after
submission of the commission's recommendation shall be deemed denial of the application.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
14.08.110 Commission recommendation without petition and hearing.
Notwithstanding any other parts of this code, the commission may, for any reason it deems in the public interest
and necessity, recommend to the city council that a street name be changed. The recommendation may be made
without complying with the requirements of Sections 14.08.020 through 14.08.080. The recommendation shall be
in the form of a resolution of the commission directed to the city council. Thereafter the city council shall take such
action as it deems appropriate.
(Ord. 10 § 1, 1982)
12
SilverRock Development Company, LLC
343 4th Avenue | San Diego, CA 92101 | 760.634.6543
November 30, 2021
Carlos Flores
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Talus Way
Dear Carlos:
SilverRock Development Company requests that the street “SilverRock Way” of Parcel Map No. 37207 be
renamed as “Talus Way.”
The change is to reflect the rebranding of the SilverRock development to Talus.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kaleena Klimeck
Kaleena Klimeck
Assistant Project Manager – The Robert Green Company, Inc.
Cc: Robert Green, RGC
Josh Frantz, RGC
Amy Yu, City of La Quinta
Rich Vaughn, MBI
ATTACHMENT 3
13
SilverRock Development Company, LLC
343 4th Avenue | San Diego, CA 92101 | 760.634.6543
November 30, 2021
Carlos Flores
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Painted Peak Lane
Dear Carlos:
SilverRock Development Company requests that the street “Ahmanson Lane” of Parcel Map No. 37207 be
renamed as “Painted Peak Lane.”
The name speaks to the genius loci of the site; it conveys both geological and atmospheric aspects of the street
as it describes the impressive quality of light that washes the prominent mountain range and the effect it
imposes on the area. Additionally, Talus’ iconography is of the painted peaks. Thus, the street name change
will also reinforce the community’s branding.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kaleena Klimeck
Kaleena Klimeck
Assistant Project Manager – The Robert Green Company, Inc.
Cc: Robert Green, RGC
Josh Frantz, RGC
Amy Yu, City of La Quinta
Rich Vaughn, MBI
14
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1
City of La Quinta
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 26, 2022
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010, AND APPROVE
SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003 (AMENDMENT V TO ANDALUSIA SPECIFIC PLAN),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002, ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2020-0002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 2021-0002 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2021-0001; CEQA:
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
#2021020310); LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, NORTH OF AVENUE 60 AND
EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending that the Council certify the Coral Mountain
Resort EIR (SCH #2021020310) and direct staff to prepare CEQA Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Council consideration; and
Adopt a resolution recommending that the Council approve SP2019-0003,
GPA2019-0002, ZC2019-0004, SP2020-0002, TTM2019-0005, DA2021-0002
and SDP2021-0001 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Commission (Commission) held continued public hearings on
this item on March 22 and April 12, 2022.
The March 22nd public hearing presented all the facts and analysis relating to
the applications.
The April 12th public hearing addressed additional information requested by
the Commission.
ANALYSIS
The detailed analysis of the project, contained in the March 22, 2022, staff
report, is not repeated herein, but is rather incorporated in its entirety by this
reference and can be found at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/637842401
009370000. The supplemental analysis provided in the April 12, 2022, is hereby
incorporated by reference, and can be found at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46518/637861348
238811480. The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report documents can
be accessed at www.laquintaca.gov/cmresort. Public comments received up
through the April 12th hearing are provided in the link above. Comments received
since the public hearing, from April 13 to April 21, are provided in Attachment
2. Any comments received after April 21 will be provided to the Commission prior
to the April 26th hearing.
The previous analyses provided in the March 22nd and April 12th staff reports
present comprehensive information regarding the project. In addition, the City
has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which analyzes the impacts
of the project, and cumulative impacts relating to the area surrounding the
project site and the City as a whole. These analyses, taken together, do not
change the staff recommendation for the project.
As described in previous staff presentations, the applications are hierarchical in
nature. If the westerly 386 acres is not removed from the Andalusia Specific
Plan, the balance of the applications are moot; if the General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change are not approved, the balance of the applications are moot;
and if the Specific Plan is not approved, the TTM and SDP are moot. Therefore,
the Commission may wish to address the applications in their hierarchical order.
Whether the Commission wishes to address the EIR either first or last is at its
discretion, however, since it applies to and impacts all applications, it may wish
to consider that recommendation last.
The Commission must determine if the findings for approval (Attachment 1) can
be made:
1. To recommend certification of the EIR, and direct staff to prepare CEQA
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Resolution,
including the findings for approval, can be found on page 31 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000.
2. To recommend the removal of the westerly 386 acres from the existing
Andalusia Specific Plan (SP 2019-0003, Amendment V to Specific Plan
2003-067). The Resolution can be found on page 2100 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000.
3. To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002)
and Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), amending the land use and zoning
designations on 386 acres. The Resolution can be found on page 2100 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000.
4. To recommend approval, subject to conditions of approval, of the Coral
Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002). Specific Plan Conditions of
Approval can be found in the Draft Resolution as Exhibit G on page 2380 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000.
5. To recommend approval, subject to conditions of approval, of the Tentative
Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005). Tentative Tract Map Conditions of Approval
can be found in the Draft Resolution as Exhibit H on page 2381 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000
6. To recommend approval of the Development Agreement (DA 2021-0002).
The Draft Development Agreement can be found in the Draft Resolution as
Exhibit F on page 2327 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000
7. To recommend approval, subject to conditions of approval, of the Site
Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001) for the wave basin. The Site
Development Permit Conditions of Approval can be found in the Draft
Resolution as Exhibit I on page 2408 at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/6378
42401009370000.
The Conditions of Approval for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan (2020-0002),
TTM, and SDP are attached to Draft Resolution 2022-009 as Exhibits G, H, and
I, respectively at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46395/637842401
009370000. Finally, the Commission will note that the adoption dates of the
Resolution, currently shown as March 22, 2022, will be changed to the date
when the Commission takes action.
ALTERNATIVES
Should the Commission be unable to make the necessary findings for approval,
it can:
1. Continue the public hearing and provide staff with direction regarding the
need for further information.
2. Continue the public hearing and provide staff with direction on findings for
denial for any or all the applications.
Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director
Attachments: 1. Coral Mountain Resort Findings of Fact.
2. Written Public Comments received from April 13, 2022, to
April 21, 2022.
3. Planning Commission hearing materials of March 22, 2022,
available at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument
/46395/637842401009370000
4. Planning Commission hearing materials of April 12, 2022,
available at:
https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument
/46518/637861348238811480
5. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report documents
provided under separate cover and available at:
www.laquintaca.gov/cmresort
ATTACHMENT 1
FINDINGS
Specific Plan Amendment 2019-0003
(Amendment V to Specific Plan 2003-037, Andalusia)
1.The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, insofar as the land area remaining in the Specific Plan will continue
to develop with the land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use Map,
and consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan.
2.Approval of the Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, as
development already occurs within this Specific Plan, and its build out will
be consistent with that development.
3.Specific Plan 2003-037 is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties
which are also Low Density Residential.
4.Specific Plan 2003-037 is suitable and appropriate for the subject
property, as development has occurred there, and will continue to build
out as originally intended.
General Plan Amendment 2019-0002
1.The amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives and
policies of the General Plan which are not being amended, as follows (and as
supplemented by Exhibit A):
Goal LU-1 Land use compatibility throughout the City.
Policy LU-1.2 All land use decisions shall be consistent with all applicable
General Plan policies and programs and shall uphold the rights and needs of
property owners as well as those of the general public.
Consistency: The General Plan Amendment is proposed to support the
development of a master planned community, similar to other master
planned communities in the City. Other such communities include Tourist
Commercial components, including PGA West and SilverRock. The
community will be private, will be surrounded by a perimeter wall, and
proposes land uses that, as analyzed in the project Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), will not be visible or discernable from outside its boundaries.
The application for the General Plan Amendment has been made in
compliance with the City’s procedures and requirements, by a private
landowner. The General Plan Amendment, due to the nature of the private
resort community described above, will not negatively affect the general
public.
Goal LU-2 High quality design that complements and enhances the City.
Consistency: The Specific Plan (SP2020-0002) proposed in conjunction with
the General Plan Amendment includes comprehensive development
standards, guidelines and graphics illustrating a high quality of design.
Notwithstanding the proposed Specific Plan (SP2020-0002), should the
General Plan Amendment be approved and development under the Specific
Plan not proceed, the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements include high
quality development standards and guidelines designed to preserve the
quality of development in all parts of the City.
Goal LU-3 Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place.
Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in a master
planned, free-standing community, consistent with the development which
already exists in the area. The project as proposed will include perimeter
landscaping, a gated entry, and resort commercial development in the center
of the site, shielded from neighboring development. The project’s perimeter
and gate will provide identifying characteristics distinguishing it from its
neighbors, as has occurred in master planned communities throughout the
City. Any development resulting from the General Plan Amendment will be
reviewed by both police and fire department staff to assure public safety.
Should the proposed project not proceed, the General Plan land use
designations would still likely result in a self-contained community, perimeter
walls and gated access.
Goal LU-4 Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods.
Policy LU-4.1 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing
neighborhoods and infrastructure.
Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in residential
densities of up to 4 units per acre, consistent with the land use designations
applied to surrounding development. The project proposed for the site would
result in a residential density of 2.6 units per acre, which is consistent with
the developed projects in the area, including Centre Pointe, Trilogy, PGA
West and Andalusia.
The amount of Open Space land resulting from the General Plan Amendment
will be less than that provided in surrounding developments, insofar as all
three surrounding country clubs include golf courses. From the public realm,
however, this difference will not be discernible, as the interior of the project
will not be visible from public streets.
The proposed addition of Tourist Commercial lands to the property will
represent a change from the land uses in Andalusia and Trilogy, as well as
the smaller subdivisions occurring in the area. However, the inclusion of
Tourist Commercial land in master planned communities in the City is not
unusual, and is included at Centre Pointe, PGA West, SilverRock, Legacy
Villas, and Travertine Specific Plans. Its location at the south-central portion
of the site provides for a buffer from existing surrounding neighborhoods,
and would be fully shielded from public view, or views from surrounding
existing neighborhoods. As analyzed in the project EIR, the impacts
associated with this land use are less than significant from the perspective
of CEQA.
The General Commercial land use designation currently exists at the corner
of Madison Street and Avenue 58, and its reduction by 1± acre will not
change the anticipated land uses or character of this portion of the site.
Goal LU-5 A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the
City.
Policy LU-5.2 Consider changes in market demand in residential product type
to meet the needs of current and future residents.
Consistency: The General Plan Amendment will not, in and of itself, result in
any particular type of housing. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) proposed in
conjunction with it, however, includes a broad range of attached and
detached residential products which will broaden and add to the City’s
housing inventory. The General Plan Amendment will not substantially
change, as shown in Table 1, the amount of Low Density Residential land
provided in the City for development. The range of housing proposed in the
Specific Plan (2020-0002) is consistent with market trends seen in the City
in recent years, including clustered, smaller lot development, which is also
typical of golf course communities in the City.
Goal LU-6 A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad
range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region.
Policy LU—6.1 Commercial land use designations shall allow a full range of
retail, office, resort and institutional businesses in the City.
Policy LU-6.3 Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as
a key component of the City’s economic base.
Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment maintains the General
Commercial land use at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. This
has long been considered in the General Plan as an appropriate location for
neighborhood shopping, which would include a range of services and goods,
based on the lack of commercial opportunities in this part of the City. As a
result, this land use designation has been in place since annexation of the
property, and its continuation, and eventual implementation, maintains the
vision for the property.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will also expand the City’s economic
base by adding to its hotel room inventory, and provide new and different
housing opportunities. The proposed project includes a Development
Agreement which addresses the City’s lack of property tax revenue in this
area of the City, by requiring the payment of mitigation fees to offset the
loss. This has been consistently applied to lands in this part of the City over
the past decades, in order to assure that projects contribute to the costs for
public safety and do not represent a financial drain on the City.
2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because the
community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will be
surrounded by homes, perimeter improvements and streets.
3. The Land Use designations are suitable and appropriate for the subject
property, as it continues the pattern of master planned communities
envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta.
4. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because changes in
the market and in consumer interest in golf courses has changed, and
alternative forms of recreation will expand the options for current and future
City residents.
Zone Change 2019-0004
1. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the General Plan, as described above and contained in Exhibit A.
2. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because the
community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will be
surrounded by homes, perimeter improvements and streets.
3. The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties as it
continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the
General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta.
4. The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property because
the property is essentially flat, and development will not occur on Coral
Mountain or protected areas.
5. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because changes in the
market and in consumer interest in golf courses has changed, and alternative
forms of recreation will expand the options for current and future City
residents.
Specific Plan 2020-0002
1. Consistency with General Plan. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is consistent
with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, as follows.
Policy LU-2.1 Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific
Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses.
Policy LU 2.2 Specific Plans shall be required for projects proposing the
integration of recreation, tourist commercial and residential uses; and for all
projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the
Zoning Ordinance.
Consistency: The Specific Plan (2020-0002) implements the policies of the
General Plan relating to site-specific development standards and high quality
development, and provides flexibility for the development of specialized land
uses to the site.
2. Approval of the Specific Plan (2020-0002) will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare
because it will create an entirely self-contained and master planned
community that will continue the pattern of master planned resort
communities envisioned in this part of La Quinta.
3. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is compatible with zoning on adjacent
properties as it continues the pattern of master planned communities
envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta.
4. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is suitable and appropriate for the subject
property because the property is essentially flat, and development will not
occur on Coral Mountain or protected areas.
Tentative Tract Map 2019-0005
1. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as
amended, and implements the Low Density Residential, General Commercial,
Open Space and Tourist Commercial land use designations allowed on the
site.
2. The design and improvement of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with
the La Quinta General Plan with the implementation of recommended
conditions of approval to ensure comprehensive improvements and
coordinated development.
3. The design of the Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR found that impacts to the
environment could be reduced to less than significant levels, with the
exception of aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions. The City has
determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts to these
resources, as identified in the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
4. The design of the Tentative Tract Map and type of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems, insofar as the project will be
required to comply with all laws, standards and requirements associated with
sanitary sewer collection, water quality and other public health issues.
5. The design and improvements required for the Tentative Tract Map will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All roadway
improvements, easements, if any and surrounding improvements will be
completed to City standards.
Development Agreement 2021-0002
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Coral
Mountain Resort Specific Plan.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and
the regulations prescribed in the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan, and
implements the Specific Plan’s design features.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public
convenience, general welfare and good land use practices because it will
create a revenue stream to assure that public safety costs incurred by the
City for the project will be paid for by the project.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare, as it provides for the long term ordered development of
a master planned community.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property or the preservation of property values insofar as it
will ensure that development occurring on the site will generate revenues
and assure high quality development.
6. The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the city by
paying mitigation fees for services it requires, and additional Transient
Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues.
Site Development Permit 2021-0001
1. Consistency with General Plan
The proposed wave basin project is consistent with the General Plan, as
amended, and the following goals, policies and programs below:
Goal LU-6 A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad
range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region.
Policy LU—6.1 Commercial land use designations shall allow a full range of
retail, office, resort and institutional businesses in the City.
Policy LU-6.3 Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as
a key component of the City’s economic base.
Consistency: The wave basin provides a new recreational and economic
opportunity for the City as changing economic and market trends continue
to occur.
Goal ED-1 A balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal
stability to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents
and the region.
Policy ED‐1.1: The Land Use Element shall maintain a balance of land use
designations to address economic needs, meet market demand, and assure
a wide range of development opportunities.
Program ED-1.1.b: Development proposal review for commercial
development shall include consideration of the proposal’s compatibility with
surrounding existing uses, its efficient and revenue-generating use of the
land, and its compatibility with the City’s Economic Development Plan
Consistency: The wave basin project will contribute to a balanced and varied
economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City, broaden
recreational opportunities for current and future residents and considers the
proposal’s compatibility with surrounding existing uses, as this is the first
development in a master planned community.
2. The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the
development standards of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan and the City’s
Zoning Code, where it applies, in terms of site plan design, landscaping
and architecture. The Site Development Permit has been conditioned to
ensure compliance with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan development
standards.
3. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR found that impacts to the environment could
be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of aesthetics
and greenhouse gas emissions. The City has determined that the benefits of
the project outweigh the impacts to these resources, as identified in the
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent in design with the Coral
Mountain Specific Plan. The architectural design of the project is consistent
with the modern style of the project as a whole, and provides functional
design for the limited buildings proposed for the site.
5. The site design of the project, including architectural style, features,
materials, and color palette, and other site design elements are compatible
with surrounding development and with the quality of design established in
the Coral Mountain Specific Plan and seen elsewhere in the City.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and
plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics,
including drought tolerant desert landscaping, established in the Coral
Mountain Specific Plan.
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Land Use
• Goal LU‐1: Land use compatibility throughout the City.
• Goal LU‐2: High quality design that complements and enhances the City.
• Policy LU‐2.1: Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific
Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses.
• Goal LU‐5: A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the
City.
• Policy LU‐5.2: Consider changes in market demand in residential product type
to meet the needs of current and future residents.
• Goal LU‐6: A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range
of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region.
• Policy LU‐6.2: Maintain commercial development standards in the Zoning
Ordinance including setbacks, height, pad elevations and other design and
performance standards that assure a high quality of development.
• Policy LU‐6.3: Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as a
key component of the City’s economic base.
Consistency: The site components (neighborhood commercial, low density
residential, resort residential, resort hotel, resort amenities, recreational
amenities, and open space) are compatible with surrounding residential, open
space, and neighborhood commercial uses and designations. Lands to the north
of the project and south of Avenue are designated Low Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential. Development of these lands would be governed by
the City’s zoning standards, and would consist of attached or detached single
family residential developments (two to four units per acre for Low Density
Residential), and medium density neighborhoods (four to eight units per acre).
This development is expected to be consistent with and similar to the uses
proposed within the project because the project proposes a maximum of 496
low density residential housing units on approximately 232.3 acres, as well as a
maximum of 104 resort residential units, on approximately 40.5 acres, which
would be similar to the density and intensity of development allowed under the
General Plan. The project is separated from adjacent uses by surrounding arterial
streets and physical topographic barriers, such as Coral Mountain. Off‐site
development includes the connection to an existing Imperial Irrigation District
(IID) substation to provide electricity to the project site. The off‐site
improvements would not impact land use of the off‐ site areas.
The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan includes detailed design guidelines in
Section 4 of the SP to guide high‐quality development throughout the Specific
Plan area. The project includes both neighborhood commercial and tourist
commercial land uses which will generate revenue and create employment
opportunities. The proposed project would increase services associated with
tourism and neighborhood commercial uses.
The project proposes housing of varying types and sizes with access to resort
and recreational amenities, thus enhancing housing choices for potential buyers.
Planning Areas II and III will offer a broad range of housing options on the site.
Planning Area II, designated as Low Density Residential, anticipates detached or
attached residential dwelling units with densities ranging from 0.8‐4 dwelling
units per acre. Planning Area III proposes the development of resort residential
dwelling units with densities ranging from 2.5‐2.8 dwelling units per acre.
Consistent with Policy LU‐5.2, Goal LU‐6, and Policy LU‐6.3, the implementation
of the Tourist Commercial land use designation and the associated development
of a recreational facility and hotel will promote the continued growth of the
tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational,
commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property. Additionally,
the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods
and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy.
Circulation
• Goal CIR‐1: A transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and
economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the
current demands and projected needs of the City.
• Policy CIR‐1.12: As a means of reducing vehicular traffic on major roadways
and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City, the city
shall pursue development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions
between adjacent or nearby land uses.
• Goal CIR‐2: A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit,
alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Policy CIR‐2.2: Encourage reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by increasing or
encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies, and
implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal
transportation infrastructure and programs to deliver improved mobility and
reduce GHG emissions.
• Policy CIR‐2.3: Develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient
pedestrian and bicycle routes and multi‐use paths and places of employment,
recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas with potential for
increased pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart/NEV modes of travel.
Consistency: The project proposes a private circulation system to provide safe
and efficient passage for pedestrians and motorists throughout the site. The
project proposes a multi‐modal circulation system, aiming to decrease
automobile dependency by providing transportation facilities for a variety of
user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric
vehicles. The project proposes a private circulation system that will safely
accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians with shared low‐ speed, low‐volume
internal streets. The multi‐modal transportation system will consist of off‐street
bicycle and pedestrian paths/routes, sidewalks in higher traffic areas,
enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crosswalks, pedestrian and multi‐use paths and
streets, traffic calming methods, short street segments with frequent caution
zones and stopping points, golf cart and other alternative forms of personal
transportation.
Livable Community
• Goal SC‐1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its
residents.
Consistency: The project includes elements to address the goal of the Livable
Community Element, which is intended to assist the City in developing a more
united community through resource conservation, built environment
enhancement, promotion of alternative forms of transportation, and
improvement of community health. The project and Specific Plan are consistent
with this goal by promoting a high‐quality mix of uses that will contribute to the
built environment, promote walkability in the resort center of the project, and
provide opportunities for active recreation.
Economic Development
• Goal ED‐1: A balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability
to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the
region.
• Policy ED‐1.1: The Land Use Element shall maintain a balance of land use
designations to address economic needs, meet market demand, and assure a
wide range of development opportunities.
• Goal ED‐2: The continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in the
City.
Consistency: The project proposes a resort with up to 150 hotel keys, a water‐
based active recreation amenity, and resort residences that will expand tourism
opportunities and promote fiscal stability. Additionally, the residential use will
incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region,
thus enhancing the economy. The project promotes the continued growth of the
tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational,
commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property.
Parks, Recreation and Trails
• Goal PR‐1: A comprehensive system of parks, and recreational facilities and
services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors.
• Policy PR‐1.4: The design and construction of parks and recreational facilities
shall comply with all the development standards that apply to privately
constructed facilities.
• Policy PR‐1.6: Encourage patterns of development that promote safe pedestrian
and bicycle access to schools, public parks, and recreational areas.
Consistency: The project designates areas set aside for recreational open space
uses, as well as a water‐ based active recreational amenity that will provide
recreational opportunities currently not available in the City. Additional open
space will be scattered throughout PA II. Planning Area IV proposes
approximately 23.6 acres of land zoned for Parks and Recreation (PR). This
Planning Area will include active and passive recreational activities such as
hiking trails, biking routes, and a ropes course/zipline.
Housing
• Goal H‐1: Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the
City’s existing and projected population.
• Policy H‐1.1: Identify adequate sites to accommodate a range of product types,
densities, and prices to address the housing needs of all household types,
lifestyles, and income levels.
• Goal H‐4: Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods
and individual properties.
• Goal H‐6: Provide a regulatory framework that facilitates and encourages energy
and water conservation through sustainable site planning, project design, and
green technologies and building materials.
Consistency: The project proposes the development of up to 600 attached and
detached dwelling units with densities ranging from 0.8‐4 dwelling units per
acre, thus contributing to the City’s market rate housing stock. The project will
complement the surrounding residential communities. Development of resort,
neighborhood commercial, recreational open space, and residential uses will add
value and amenities to neighboring communities and the City. The project
promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant
materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with
all City and water district regulations and building codes for water conservation,
energy efficiency, and building standards. The project will also comply with all
applicable green building requirements.
Water Resources
• Goal WR‐1: The efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources.
• Policy WR‐1.1: Support the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in its efforts
to supply adequate domestic water to residents and businesses.
• Policy WR‐1.3: Support CVWD in its efforts to expand tertiary treated (i.e.,
reclaimed) water distribution.
Consistency: The project promotes water conservation through the use of
drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The
project will comply with all City and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
regulations and building codes for water conservation. Additionally, recycled
water will be used for common area irrigation for landscaping. The Wave Basin
provides a recreational amenity to support the proposed resort and residential
uses, and does so with substantially less water demand than required for
alternatives amenities, such as an 18‐hole golf course.
Open Space and Conservation
• Goals OS‐1: Preservation, conservation and management of the City’s open
space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental, and
economic purposes.
• Policy OS‐1.1: Identify and map lands suitable for preservation as passive and
active open space.
• Policy OS‐1.2: Continue to develop a comprehensive multi‐purpose trails
network to link open space areas.
Consistency: The project includes significant open space amenities, including
the protection of Coral Mountain through an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The
project incorporates connections to the public sidewalk and public trail system
for convenient walking, jogging, and biking activities. Planning Area IV proposes
approximately 23.6 acres of Open Space Recreation land uses, in which low‐
impact active and passive activities, such as hiking, biking and ropes courses
are permitted. PA IV will be retained largely as natural desert land. The
perimeter pedestrian improvements will connect to the surrounding community.
However, the project will not connect to existing trails or open space areas,
outside of the project boundary, because there are no existing public trails in the
immediate vicinity of the project.
Noise
• Goal N‐1: A healthful noise environment which complements the City’s
residential and resort character.
• Policy N‐1.1: Noise standards in the City shall be consistent with the Community
Noise and Land Use Compatibility scale described in the Noise Element.
• Policy N‐1.2: New residential development located adjacent to any roadway
identified in Table IV‐4 (in the Noise Element of the GP) as having a buildout
noise level in excess of 65 dBA shall continue to be required to submit a noise
impact analysis in conjunction with the first Planning Department application,
which demonstrates compliance with the City’s noise standards.
• Policy N‐1.3: New non‐residential development located adjacent to existing
residential development, sensitive receptors or residentially designated land,
shall be required to submit a noise impact analysis in conjunction with the first
Planning Department application, which demonstrates that it will not
significantly impact the adjacent residential development or residential land.
• Policy N‐1.5: All noise impact analysis will include, at a minimum, short‐term
construction noise and noise generated by the daily operation of the project at
build out.
Consistency: The project establishes residential, resort residential, resort,
recreational, and neighborhood commercial uses with compatible noise levels in
an existing residential area. These uses maintain and enhance the City’s
residential and resort character and will be subject to the City’s noise ordinance.
Noise levels on Avenue 58 and Madison Street are not excessive due to the low
traffic volumes, and the project will be buffered by a perimeter community wall.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:29 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Public Comment: Opposition to Coral Mountain Development
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:54 AM
To: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment: Opposition to Coral Mountain Development
I’m forwarding this since it appears you did not receive it from the sender.
m m m m V Kathleen Fitzpatrick | Councilmember
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
E: kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy French
Date: March 28, 2022 at 3:37:35 PM PDT
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>, Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>, Robert
Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>, John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>, Steve Sanchez
<ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment: Opposition to Coral Mountain Development
Reply‐To: Nancy French
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution
when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hello my name is Nancy French.
, La Quinta
I would like to formally oppose the Coral Mountain Resort private surf park development.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
I respectfully ask: What problem does this project solve? Do we not have enough drought, short term
rentals, traffic or light pollution?
Encouraging residents to curtail their water use, and we comply, while this park would unnaturally hoard
enough water to sustain more than 30,000 residents - almost a tenth of the population of the entire
Coachella Valley - sets a very poor example and breeds mistrust in your constituants.
I also ask: Where are the throngs of people begging for a surf park, bodega and more retail shops here?
The Kelly Slater park in the Central Valley was built in a defunct water park in the middle of farm land, a
location that makes more sense and has less impact on it's neighbors. My sister who lives up there
relayed that the locals refer to it as an elitist rip off that stays empty most of the time due to the $10
thousand dollar pricetag to join. There are also big traffic hassles when the Ranch hosts tournaments and
concerts, which seem to be one of it's major money makers.
I feel that this type of tourist attraction is not in line with the lifestyle that we moved here for. If we wanted
surf culture, we would live near the beach. In all our time here, even with visiting grandchildren, we have
never heard - "You know what we feel like doing today in the desert? Surfing!"
Unlike residential developments that were considered controversial when they were proposed in the past
- this is a business relying on a trend. We've seen so many local businesses and attractions close down
these past 2+ years. Right now there are four wave pools proposed within an hour drive of one another,
with locations at Wet ’n’ Wild Palm Springs (Palm Springs Surf Club), Desert Willow Golf Resort (DSRT
SURF), Thermal Beach Club and this one. - what happens when this huge endeavor fails and leaves a
gaping eyesore in the town? A titanic monument to bad city planning reminding you that you should have
listened to your residents. This type of attraction is more suited for a coastal community where the surf
culture already exists and where salt water could be used instead of wasting our precious resource.
To infer - as the developer did at the beginning of his presentation tonight - that NOT allowing this
"leisure" attraction puts the community at financial risk or risk of becoming irrelevant - is ridiculous and
fear based.
According to the IBA World Tour website and surfhungry.com the “Surf Ranch Experience” costs about
$10,000, although you can pick the deal that works for you. Premium tier guests pay more for the
experience, and there is a booking fee in addition. Sources say that every wave costs around $450 on
average. The Valley population may be getting gradually younger, but we are close enough to the ocean
that we do not need a fake version of it in our back yard. This amusement park will not be assessible to
low-income kids who've never seen the beach.
A wave basin's main audience is young, rich, straight men - and as a single woman here, I can attest to
the fact that there are not a lot of those around here, so if your market research has found them, I'd love
to know their exact location - thanks.
Most importantly this park's footprint, construction, water usage, earthquake risk and light pollution
interferes with the wildlife that is vital to the local ecosystem and which is an actual attraction already
enjoyed by a majority of it's citizens, tourists and those of us who work to preserve and encourage these
animals to be part of our neighborhood. The "wellness" activities the developer touts as "amenities" for an
exclusive membership are already being enjoyed in our beautiful town within the natural landscape.
According to an article on surfer.com and Wired magazine: the Surf Ranch in Lemoore is filled with 15
million gallons of UV-and-chlorine-treated water — 250,000 of which can evaporate from the lagoon on
an extremely hot day"
the article goes on to say "even if surf parks continue to find increasingly creative ways to mitigate their
environmental impact, you cannot build anything without at least some degree of impact."
We love the desert, we love La Quinta and we don't need a surf park. Please do not approve the rezoning
application.
Thank you for you time and compassion.
Nancy French
1
Tania Flores
From:Bruce Francis
Sent:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:10 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Coral Mountain Wave Park
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
To: La Quinta City Council Members
Inasmuch as we are currently experiencing the worst drought of the last 1200 years, I am incredulous that a vote for
approval of the subject Wave Park is even being considered. Now we are told that it will take 20-23 years to complete the
project. Who among us would purchase a home knowing that there is a construction project in the neighborhood that will
take 20-23 years to complete? I believe that the answer would be: "None of us."
The neighborhoods closest to the Coral Mountain proposed Wave Park house approximately 6000 residents, some part
time, many full time. A major, if not most important, reason for moving to the southern reaches of La Quinta was the
quiet, tranquil nature of the area. Now we are told that we pretty much don't matter. The interests of a very small number
of people, very few of whom will be residents, seem to be far more important than those of us who make La Quinta our
home. Oh, yes, ...."and be sure to stay current on your property taxes" seems to be the theme. If the project is approved,
the message will be loud and clear: "The interests of visitors and the tax dollars they might create are far more important
than your constituents and the tax dollars they DO create."
Do yourself and the people you represent a favor and vote a resounding "NO" when the time comes to approve or
disapprove the Wave Park.
Sincerely,
Bruce Francis
Year round resident of Trilogy at La Quinta
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:53 PM
To:Tania Flores
Cc:Consulting Planner; Danny Castro
Subject:FW: April 13, 2022 Meeting Of California Colorado River Board - Forecasts Are Dire-SWP
ALLOCATIONS ARE SLASHED / UNCERTAINTY ABOUNDS
Attachments:04-13-2022 COLORADO CALIFORNIA RIVER BOARD.pdf
Cheri Flores | Planning Manager
Design & Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. (760)777-7067
CLFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov
www.LaQuintaCA.gov
From: Rcragu12
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez
<ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>;
John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: April 13, 2022 Meeting Of California Colorado River Board ‐ Forecasts Are Dire‐SWP ALLOCATIONS ARE SLASHED
/ UNCERTAINTY ABOUNDS
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
It has never been more important to replenish the Coachella Valley Aquifer and Water Bank any and all possible water to
provide resilience for an uncertain but extremely likely dry future.
Please consider the wisdom of committing this precious and rapidly diminishing water resource to Elite Surf Parks,
Disney Lagoons and wall to wall carpeted with grass golf courses.
Thank you for considering these issues.
Randy Roberts
See Attached:
2
Mr. Juricich reported that the five‐year projections for Lake Mead show a Level 1
shortage condition for the next five years, with the increased
probability of reaching a Level II shortage in
2024 and a Level III shortage in 2025 and 2026
Chairman Nelson(Director CVWD) added that
there is a great level of concern from the Upper
Basin and Lower Basin principals about the
declining water supply conditions in reservoir
system. Board member Peterson inquired about 4 Lake Powell’s operations at or below the
minimum power pool of 3,490 feet. Mr. Harris explained that at elevation 3,490 feet Reclamation would
have to shift its primary movement of water from Powell downstream onto the river outlet works. He
stated he didn’t believe Reclamation could release a full 7.48 MAF release but could probably release close
to 7 MAF. He added that there are no low head turbines at Glen Canyon Dam in contrast to Hoover Dam
and it is anticipated that energy production capability will be impacted, adding that power can’t be
generated twenty feet below 3,490 feet. Mr. Peterson noted that a similar situation occurred at Lake
Shasta reservoir and the outlets had to be reconfigured to remove cold water. Mr. Harris responded that
reconfiguration of the outlets in Lake Powell is not an option. He added that Reclamation has looked at the
feasibility of constructing additional turbines on the river outlet works but it would be a costly multi‐year
effort. Responding to Chairman Nelson about the discharge flow allowed on the river outlet works, Mr.
Harris stated that the valves can release 15,000 cubic feet per second
Mr. Peterson reported that the target diversion for the Desert Water Agency and
Coachella Valley Water district is 15,000 AF. Vice Chairman Pettijohn, representing the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), reported that LADWP finished the March 1st snow
course survey, which showed that every course lost snow water content. He added that the snow content
is 63% of the April 1st normal, noting that it has been dry since December. Mr. Pettijohn stated that it has
been so dry over the last few years that it is hard to know what the runoff forecast will be and LADWP is
not predicting any supplies from the LA Aqueduct at this time. He stated that the SWP allocation will
likely go down from 15% and it is possible that the city of LA and some other SWP exclusive areas will
operate under a health and safety allocation from the State to manage through the water year. He
added that LADWP is in a difficult situation, one
that they have not found themselves in before
and that it is shifting water across its system
accordingly. He stated that 5,000 AF has been shifted through the shift program that MWD
implemented. He added that MWD has 2.6 MAF in storage and can’t get the water to LADWP.
Regular Meeting
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
10:00 a.m.
At the discretion of the Board, all items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for
action, may be deliberated upon and may be subject to action by the Board. Items may not necessarily
be taken up in the order shown.
1. Call to Order
2. Opportunity for the Public to Address the Board1 (Limited to 5 minutes)
3. Administration
a. Consideration and approval of March 9, 2022, Board meeting Minutes (Action)
b. Consideration and approval of Board Resolution Posthumously Honoring Mr. Henry
(Hank) Kuiper, Colorado River Board Member (Action)
4. Colorado River Basin and Local Water Supply and Operations Reports
5. Colorado River Basin Programs Staff Reports
6. Executive Session2
7. Other Business
8. Future Agenda Items/Announcements
Next Scheduled Board Meeting: May 11, 2022
10:00 a.m., Pacific
Sheraton Ontario Airport Hotel, Orchid Room
429 North Vineyard Avenue
Ontario, CA 91764
1 In accordance with California Government Code, Section 54954.3(a).
2 An Executive Session may be held by the Board pursuant to provisions of Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of
Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and Sections 12516 and 12519 of the Water Code to
discuss matters concerning interstate claims to the use of Colorado River System waters in judicial proceedings,
administrative proceedings, and/or negotiations with representatives from the other Basin states or federal
government.
Minutes of Meeting
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Wednesday, March 9, 2022
A meeting of the Colorado River Board of California (Board) was held virtually on Wednesday,
March 9, 2022, using the Zoom Webinar meeting platform, pursuant to Governor Newsom’s
Executive Order N-1-22 issued on January 5, 2022.
Board Members and Alternates Present:
David De Jesus (MWD Alternate)
Castulo Estrada (CVWD Alternate)
Dana B. Fisher, Jr. (PVID)
John B. Hamby (IID)
James Hanks (IID Alternate)
Jeanine Jones (DWR Designee)
Jim Madaffer (SDCWA)
Board Members and Alternates Absent:
Christopher Hayes (DFW Designee)
Henry Kuiper (Public Member)
Others Present:
Steve Abbott
Justina Arce
Jim Barrett
Bert Bell
Robert Cheng
Gary Croucher
Dennis Davis
Dan Denham
JR Echard
Melissa Baum-Haley
Chris Harris
Bill Hasencamp
Michael Hughes
Ned Hyduke
Peter Nelson, Chairman (CVWD)
Glen D. Peterson (MWD)
David R. Pettijohn, Vice Chairman (LADWP)
Jack Seiler (PVID Alternate)
David Vigil (DFW Alternate)
Delon Kwan (LADWP Alternate)
Mark Watton (SDCWA Alternate)
Rich Juricich
Laura Lamdin
Tom Levy
Henry Martinez
Dylan Mohamed
Pedro Nava
Jessica Neuwerth
Jessica Rangel
Shana Rapoport
David Rheinheimer
Kelly Rodgers
Shanti Rosset
Tom Ryan
Roberta Saligumba
Alexi Schnell Sara Tucker
Tina Shields Margaret Vick
Darren Simon Cherie Watte
AJ Slagan Jay Weiner
Gary Tavetian Jerry Zimmerman
Angela Tomayko
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Nelson announced the presence of a quorum and called the meeting to order
at 10:00 a.m.
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD
Chairman Nelson invited members of the audience to address the Board on items on the
agenda or matters related to the Board. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson moved to the next item
on the agenda.
ADMINISTRATION
Chairman Nelson asked for a motion to approve the February 9, 2022, meeting minutes.
Mr. Peterson moved that the minutes be approved, seconded by Mr. Madaffer. By roll-call vote,
the minutes were unanimously approved.
Consideration of Application for Water Subcontract from the Lower Colorado Water Supply
Project (Action)
Mr. Juricich summarized a proposed Board Resolution 2022-1 that recommends a
subcontract for Lower Colorado Water Supply Project (Project) water in Imperial County,
California be offered to the applicant and directs the executive director to forward the
application to Reclamation. Ms. Laurie Marie Estes is requesting a new contract for 1.0 acre-feet
of future use. If the Board recommends approval, a new subcontract would be developed by
Reclamation for the owner at a future point in time. The Board approved and adopted Resolution
2022-1 during its meeting on March 9, 2022.
Chairman Nelson asked for a motion to approve the resolution on the application for the
2
Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project. Mr. Pettijohn moved that the resolution be
approved, seconded by Mr. Madaffer. By roll-call vote, the resolution was unanimously
approved.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER REPORTS
Colorado River Basin Report
Mr. Juricich reported that as of March 7th, the water level at Lake Powell was 3,526.01
feet with 5.99 million-acre feet (MAF) of storage, or 25% of capacity. The water level at Lake
Mead was 1,066.03 feet with 8.89 MAF of storage, or 34% of capacity. The total system storage
was 21.37 MAF, or 45% of capacity, which is 5.45 MAF less than system storage at this time last
year.
Mr. Juricich reported that as of March 2nd, for Water Year-2022 (WY-2022), the observed
February inflow to Lake Powell was 0.22 MAF, or 59% of normal. The March inflow forecast to
Lake Powell is 0.30 MAF, or 50% of normal. The forecasted unregulated inflow into Lake Powell
for WY-2022 is 6.58 MAF, or 69% of normal and the WY-2022 forecasted April to July inflow to
Lake Powell is 4.4 MAF, or 69% of normal. Mr. Juricich reported that overall precipitation
conditions in the Upper Colorado River Basin were 100% of normal and the current Basin
snowpack is 93% of normal.
Mr. Juricich reported on the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) March 1 st
Water Supply forecasts for the April to July runoff period. He stated that across the Upper Basin
the forecasts ranged from 45% to 75% in the Upper Gree n Basin, 70% to 100% in the Upper
Colorado Basin and 69% of normal for Lake Powell River Basin. He noted precipitation conditions
in the Upper Green River Basin have been dry for the last few months.
Mr. Juricich reported on the February 24-Month Study projections for reservoir elevations
for Lakes Powell and Mead. For Lake Powell, the most probable release from Glen Canyon Dam
for 2022 and 2023 is 7.48 MAF and 7.72 MAF, noting however, that 7.0 MAF release may be more
likely. Mr. Juricich reported that Lake Mead’s elevation at the end of the calendar year is
projected to be close to 1,050 feet.
Mr. Juricich reported that Reclamation released an updated version of the five-year
projections for reservoir system conditions for Lakes Powell and Mead. He note d that in 2023,
about half of the traces are in the Lower Elevation Balancing Tier. Mr. Juricich explained that
3
Reclamation has switched the methodology for developing the five-year projections from the
Colorado River System Simulation (CRSS) to the Colorado River Midterm Model System (CRMMS),
noting that Board staff will present an overview of the methodology change at a future meeting.
He reported that Reclamation performed analysis that showed that CRMMS more accurately
reflected the near-term conditions over the next five years or so. Mr. Juricich stated that CRSS
will still be used for long-term projections for planning purposes.
Chairman Nelson asked for more information about the tier determination of the mid -
elevation release tier. Mr. Harris explained that if the August 24-Month Study report for January
1st projection for Powell’s elevation is below 3,525 feet, Reclamation will compare the contents
between Lakes Powell and Mead and set the annual release from Glen Canyon Dam. He added
that the release would be no less than 7.0 MAF and no greater than 9 MAF.
Mr. Juricich reported that the five-year projections for Lake Mead show a Level 1 shortage
condition for the next five years, with the increased probability of reaching a Level II shortage in
2024 and a Level III shortage in 2025 and 2026.
Mr. Harris reported on the status of Upper Basin States and the Department of Interior
(DOI) Water Year-2022 DROA operations. He explained that the parties are trying to better
understand how the remainder of the water year finishes out with respect to April to July runoff.
He noted that they are also working on understanding the role side inflows between Glen Canyon
Dam and Lake Mead will play. Mr. Harris explained that the Upper Basin States and DOI are also
trying to figure out the level of drought operations will need to be implemented. He stated that
it is very likely that there will be drought operations pursuant to the 2019 Upper Basin Drought
Contingency Plan (UB DCP) and Drought Operations Agreement (DROA). He stated that the Upper
Basin States and the Upper Colorado River Commission are trying to determine the size, and
volume of water that will need to be released from Flaming Gorge reservoir. He stated that there
will be a shift in the timing of annual releases out of Glen Canyon Dam for the remainder of 2022
in order to withhold 350,000 AF of water from January to April when inflow to the reservoir is
low. He noted that Reclamation is not changing the volume of the annual release but rather, the
timing.
Mr. Harris reported that the seven Basin States are working to develop additional
measures that can be implemented in 2023, in conjunction with the 500-plus plan to protect the
critical elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead. He added that they want to avoid taking a
precipitous action in one reservoir that may damage another reservoir. Chairman Nelson added
that there is a great level of concern from the Upper Basin and Lower Basin principals about the
declining water supply conditions in reservoir system. Board member Peterson inquired about
4
Lake Powell’s operations at or below the minimum power pool of 3,490 feet. Mr. Harris explained
that at elevation 3,490 feet Reclamation would have to shift its primary movement of water from
Powell downstream onto the river outlet works. He stated he didn’t believe Reclamation could
release a full 7.48 MAF release but could probably release close to 7 MAF. He added that there
are no low head turbines at Glen Canyon Dam in contrast to Hoover Dam and it is anticipated
that energy production capability will be impacted, adding that power can’t be generated twenty
feet below 3,490 feet. Mr. Peterson noted that a similar situation occurred at Lake Shasta
reservoir and the outlets had to be reconfigured to remove cold water. Mr. Harris responded that
reconfiguration of the outlets in Lake Powell is not an option. He added that Reclamation has
looked at the feasibility of constructing additional turbines on the river outlet works but it would
be a costly multi-year effort. Responding to Chairman Nelson about the discharge flow allowed
on the river outlet works, Mr. Harris stated that the valves can release 15,000 cubic feet per
second.
Mr. Juricich reported that through February 25th, the Brock and Senator Wash regulating
reservoirs captured 15,382 AF and 12,333 AF, respectively. He also reported that the excess
deliveries to Mexico were 553 AF, compared to 6,160 AF this time last year. Finally, the total
amount of saline drainage water bypassed to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico was 27,394
AF, through March 5, 2022.
State and Local Report
Ms. Jones, representing the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), reported
that precipitation conditions in December were over 150 percent of average at the end of month
and conditions have declined greatly since then. Ms. Jones reported that statewide reservoir
storage is at 72% of average. She added that snowpack is slightly above 50% of the April 1 st
average throughout the State. As of March 5th, statewide precipitation conditions were 80% of
average. She added that precipitation conditions in Southern California have been drier than
Northern California. She stated that temperatures in WY-2022 were largely above average in
Southern California and inland Colorado River hydrologic regions.
Ms. Jones stated that the wet season for the state is coming to a close, adding that March
is usually the last wet month. She presented a graphic depicting experimental forecast of
atmospheric rivers making landfall, noting that there is a probability of precipitation coming to
the State within the next week. She stated that the climatological maximum period for
atmospheric river storms is at the end of December and early January. Ms. Jones stated t hat we
are at the end of the period where large storms provide significant amounts of precipitation. Ms.
5
Jones reported that April 1st is the date that is used to measure the maximum period of snowpack
accumulation.
Board member Peterson, representing The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) reported that as of March 1st, total reservoir storage is 70% of capacity. He
stated that the shutdown of the Colorado River aqueduct is complete and will ramp up to an 8 -
pump flow through May. He stated that MWD’s diversion target is 1.087,00 AF. He added that
on March 3rd, MWD converted 103,000 AF of flow to storage during the shutdown. Mr. Peterson
reported that the target diversion for the Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water
district is 15,000 AF.
Vice Chairman Pettijohn, representing the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP), reported that LADWP finished the March 1st snow course survey, which showed that
every course lost snow water content. He added that the snow co ntent is 63% of the April 1st
normal, noting that it has been dry since December. Mr. Pettijohn stated that it has been so dry
over the last few years that it is hard to know what the runoff forecast will be and LADWP is not
predicting any supplies from the LA Aqueduct at this time. He stated that the SWP allocation will
likely go down from 15% and it is possible that the city of LA and some other SWP exclusive areas
will operate under a health and safety allocation from the State to manage through the wate r
year. He added that LADWP is in a difficult situation, one that they have not found themselves in
before and that it is shifting water across its system accordingly. He stated that 5,000 AF has been
shifted through the shift program that MWD implemented. He added that MWD has 2.6 MAF in
storage and can’t get the water to LADWP.
STATUS OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROGRAMS
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Implementation
Mr. Juricich discussed activities of the Salinity Control Forum Work Group hybrid in -
person / virtual meeting held on February 15-16 with in-person participation at the Arizona
Department of Water Resources offices in Phoenix. Key topics under discussion included updates
from Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Natural Resources Conservation Service on
program funding, research, and implementation.
Mr. Juricich reported that Reclamation provided an update on the status of the Paradox
Valley Unity (PVU) salinity control project, located in Montrose County, Colorado. PVU has not
operated since March 2019 in response to a significant seismic event. When fully operational,
6
the PVU removed about 100,000 tons of salt per year that would have otherwise entered the
Colorado River. Of special note for water users in the Basin, Reclamation reported it is developing
an Injection Test Plan for PVU that would restart operations subject to peer review and senior
Reclamation and Department of Interior approval. Mr. Juricich reported that Board staff worked
with the CRB agencies to draft a letter to Reclamation supporting a restart of the PVU facility and
has shared the letter with the States of Arizona and Nevada.
Mr. Juricich reported that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported the results of a
pump test conducted at the Pah Tempe Springs Geothermal area located in Washington County,
Utah. Pah Tempe Springs, also known as Dixie Hot Springs or La Verkin Springs, are located along
the Virgin River at the mouth of Timpoweap Canyon in Washington County, Utah. The springs are
recognized as a substantial localized source of dissolved solids (salt) discharging to the Virgin
River, which is a tributary to the Colorado River at Lake Mead. The purpose of the pump test is
to better understand the aquifer properties thus allowing USGS to model pumping requirements
to capture the brine presently discharging to the Virgin River.
Board Member Peterson asked if the Salinity Program was applying for federal stimulus
money. Mr. Harris responded that conversations on funding are occurring at the Work Group and
Forum and that it will likely require additional federal legislation. Chairman Nelson stated that
Paradox is the greatest opportunity for salt control in the basin. Mr. Harris responded that there
is also potential for salinity control at Pah Tempe Springs. Mr. Juricich reported that the Pah
Tempe Springs also has interest by a local agency in Washington County. Mr. Madaffer stated his
concern that some of the other basin states are not supporting the PVU project, and that
California should pull out all stops to get the PVU restarted.
Mr. Juricich also reported on a study by the USGS looking at potential for salinity impacts
in the Spanish Valley near Moab, Utah. The USGS and state of Utah are monitoring the area and
looking for additional partnerships.
Status of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program’s
(GCDAMP) Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) met virtually on February 9 and 10 .
Ms. Neuwerth reported that much of the meeting was an abridged version of the previous
month’s Annual Reporting Meeting.
7
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the AMWG is grappling with potential biological effects of
low reservoir elevations behind Glen Canyon Dam. As the reservoir declines, there is potential
for warmer water to flow through the intakes as well as entrainment of non-native fish. The Glen
Canyon/Grand Canyon area is one of the best spots in the entire Colorado River for native fish
and both the natives and some of the non-natives love the warm water. The AMWG is considering
options for mitigation.
Ms. Neuwerth reported that Reclamation is interested in using some of its infrastructure
funding to do a feasibility study on adding power generation to the bypass tubes at Glen Canyon
Dam. Installing hydropower is expensive and hydropower generation would reduce the capacity
of the bypass tubes. Utilizing the bypass tubes could reduce the risks from warmer water and
non-natives passing through Glen Canyon Dam as water released would be from low er levels in
the reservoir. Ms. Neuwerth reported that it will be at least a year before study results are
available.
Ms. Neuwerth reported on potential experiments for 2022. The program is currently in
the accounting period for a spring high-flow experiment (HFE). Currently, there is insufficient
sediment input to trigger a Spring HFE. The GCDAMP is also considering a “bug flows” experiment
which are low weekend steady flows to help the food base in Glen and Grand Canyons. There is
also the possibility for a fall HFE depending on the monsoon season .
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the Technical Work Group (TWG) will meet April 12 and 13 .
Status of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program (LCR MSCP) held its annual financial reporting meeting on February 17.
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the FY 21 budget for the LCR MSCP was $26.5 million and
actual expenditures were $23.1 million. The program has some lingering impacts from the
pandemic that caused delay in planting and habitat creation schedules . Research being done
through the program is declining as most of the critical research questions have been answered.
The LCR MSCP is currently focusing on building and maintaining habitats.
Ms. Neuwerth reported that the budget for the program is set at in 2003 dollars; thus,
inflation can have a big effect on program funding. Program funding is expected to increase a bit
because of inflation but Ms. Neuwerth believes will still be in the range of $26 million. The budget
8
will continue to decline over the years until the program ends. Mr. Harris added that a few years
ago the LCR MSCP budget was in excess of $30 million.
Ms. Neuwerth added that approximately three-quarters of the habitat needed for the
program has been established.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Salton Sea Management Program Annual Report
Mr. Juricich provided an update on the Salton Sea Management Program. Mr. Juricich
noted that the Salton Sea Management Annual Report was submitted to the State Water Board
by California Natural Resources Agency on February 25, 2022. Mr. Juricich also reported on the
2021-2022 Budget Act, which committed another $220 million to support the Salton Sea
Management Program in the upcoming fiscal years.
Washington D.C. Updates
Mr. Harris reported on the U.S. Department of Interior’s new staff members. Mr. Harris
noted that Mr. Michael Brain is the new Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation; Mr.
Gary Gold is the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science; and, Ms. Katherine
Pustay Currie is the new Deputy Infrastructure Coordinator. Mr. Harris also reported on the
federal appropriations. Mr. Harris mentioned that the federal government has extended its
Continuing Resolution (CR) until March 11th.
Mr. Harris reported on the published guidebook for states, tribes, and local government
to apply for funding for infrastructure projects as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),
passed in November 2021. Mr. Harris noted that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
Local Government Advisory Committee, whose members include mayors, council members and
city officials, urged the EPA to consider climate change and environmental justice when it funds
projects as part of the BIL.
Next Scheduled Board Meeting
Finally, Mr. Harris noted that the next meeting of the Colorado River Board would be held
on April 13, 2022, and would be held in-person, at the Sheraton Ontario Airport Hotel.
9
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to be brought before the Board, Chairman Nelson adjourned the
meeting at 11:13 a.m.
10
________________________________________
RESOLUTION OF THE
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
POSTHUMOUSLY HONORING
HENRY (HANK) KUIPER
WHEREAS, the water and power resources of the Colorado River are vital to the State of California and its
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado River Board of California represents and protects California’s water and power
interests within the Colorado River Basin, consistent with the Law of the River, through negotiations and
dialogue with the other Colorado River Basin states and the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the Board’s public members serve an essential function by providing a voice for the general
public in the critically important management of the resources of the Colorado River; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Henry (Hank) Kuiper served as one of the Board’s public members for seventeen years,
with a tenure stretching from his appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005 until his passing in
March 2022, adding to an active and distinguished career in public service; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Kuiper brought good cheer, positivity, and practicality to his service with the Board as the
Colorado River Basin navigated more than two decades of serious drought and its attendant challenges; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Kuiper's time with the Board, the Board engaged with stakeholders in California
and across the Basin to respond to unprecedented conditions that have required novel solutions,
collaboration, and quick action, including the 2007 Interim Operating Guidelines, a seminal document that
still directs operations and shortages on the Colorado River, and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans, which
further expanded water use reductions in response to low reservoir conditions; and
WHEREAS, in addition to Mr. Kuiper’s contributions to the Colorado River Basin, Mr. Kuiper's storied
career demonstrates his dedication to serving the community of the Imperial Valley, including a term as
Supervisor for the County of Imperial from 2001-2005; three terms on the El Centro City Council, serving
as mayor three times from 1985 to 1997; and membership on numerous other boards, committees,
commissions, and civic groups; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Colorado River Board of California recognizes and honors
the many invaluable contributions of Mr. Hank Kuiper during his years of service to Imperial County and to
the State of California and its water users; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Colorado River Board of California and its staff extend their
gratitude and condolences to Hank’s family and loved ones.
Unanimously adopted on the 13th day of April 2022.
Peter Nelson, Chairman
Upper Colorado Region Water Resources Group
River Basin Tea-Cup Diagrams
Lower Colorado River Teacup Diagram
NOAA National Weather Service Monthly Precipitation Map February and March 2022
3
4/7/2022
Monthly Departure From Normal Precipitation (inches)
March 2022
NOAA – National Weather Service
https://water.weather.gov/precip/
Percent of Average Precipitation (%)
10/05/2021 – 04/04/2022
Western Regional Climate Center
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/anomimage.pl?wrc6mPpct.png
4
2
5
4/7/2022
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx
Northern Sierra Precipitation: 8 Station Index
California Data Exchange Center
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_ESI.pdf
6
3
7
4/7/2022
San Joaquin Precipitation: 5 Station Index
California Data Exchange Center
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_FSI.pdf
Tulare Basin Precipitation: 6 Station Index
California Data Exchange Center
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_TSI.pdf
8
4
9
4/7/2022
Comparison of SWP Water Storage
2021 Storage 2022 Storage
(acre-feet) (acre-feet)
As of % of As of % of
Reservoir Capacity 1-Apr Cap. 1-Apr Cap.
Frenchman 55,475 36,480 66% 37,662 68%
Lake Davis 84,371 52,072 62% 49,408 59%
Antelope 22,564 13,935 62% 21,054 93%
Oroville 3,553,405 1,437,589 40% 1,680,915 47%
Del Valle 100%
San Luis 46%
Pyramid 97%
Castaic 58%
Silverwood 90%
Perris 79%
As of March 18, 2022, the Table A allocations for SWP contractors is 5%.
TOTAL North 3,715,815 1,540,076 41% 1,789,039 48%
39,914 32,161 81% 39,950
2,027,835 1,117,945 55% 923,312
169,901 166,923 98% 164,523
319,247 249,697 78% 184,390
74,970 67,135 90% 67,429
132,614 118,893 90% 104,236
TOTAL South 2,764,481 1,752,754 63% 1,483,840 54%
Reservoir Current
Conditions as of
04/04/2022
California Data Exchange Center
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/reportapp/javareports?name=rescond.pdf
10
5
1
Tania Flores
From:Teresa Thompson
Sent:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:11 PM
To:Consulting Planner
Cc:Tania Flores; Danny Castro
Subject:FW: Coral Mountain Resort Opposition
Teresa Thompson | Management Specialist
City Manager's Office
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
www.laquintaca.gov
www.laquintaca.gov/covid19
www.playinlaquinta.com
As always you can find a full list of resources and information by visiting www.laquintaca.gov
From: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:37 PM
To: Teresa Thompson <Tthompson@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: FW: Coral Mountain Resort Opposition
For standard reply no need to bcc… Council
From: Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:19 AM
To: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Coral Mountain Resort Opposition
____________________
Robert Radi, Ph.D., MBA
Council Member
City of La Quinta
Direct: 760.203.4959
2
Begin forwarded message:
From: rik horoky
Date: April 18, 2022 at 10:08:12 AM PDT
To: Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort Opposition
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement
and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Hello,
I am a policy analyst and climate impact researcher reaching out to voice my opposition to the Coral
Mountain Resort.
The community does not want the Coral Mountain Resort, and those that do do so under false
pretenses and misinformation. To allow this project to see completion demonstrates that the La Quinta
City Council is beholden to external economic interests and is not acting in congruence with the public
that you were elected to serve.
We’re in a drought and on the cusp of facing the most devastating impacts of climate change. How do
you justify this project from a community relations standpoint? A sustainability standpoint?
It’s clear that your team is not considering the implicit costs of this project ‐ economic development for
the sake of economic development does not create a net positive benefit.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 18, 2022 5:14 PM
To:Tania Flores
Cc:Cheri Flores; Danny Castro
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Tania,
For the PC comment file. I have responded to Mr. Jackoboice.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Thomas Jackoboice
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Barb Jackoboice
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
April 18, 2022
Dear Members of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission:
We are adamantly opposed to the Coral Mountain Wave Resort for the following reasons:
a. We purchased our home at after reviewing the citywide La Quinta Master Plan. We wanted to
be far removed from commercial activity and thought we had found the perfect location at Andalusia. Dark sky,
quiet nights, moderate traffic. If the property in question were to be developed we understood that it was
zoned the same as Andalusia and the surrounding neighborhoods. We would not have bought at Andalusia if we
knew there was going to be a resort across the street.
b. Visual blight. The resort will generate an aura of light and sound that will forever change the aesthetics of the
immediate area. It will make living at Andalusia less desirable and, we believe, will negatively impact the value of
our home.
c. Water usage. It’s time to recognize that decreases in potable and non‐potable water supplies are coming quickly
and that the water uses must be more prudently managed. A wave pool (as is another golf course) is frivolous
and capricious. How can government ask consumers to take water conservation seriously if a wave basin is
approved?
d. Hotel and Short Term Rentals. The vast number of rentals create a transient population. It does not fit in with or
compliment the surrounding communities.
2
e. Events. We should not be subjected to the traffic and disruption brought about by the proposed special events
at the wave park. The events will shatter the current calm of the surrounding single family occupied residences.
f. The Wave Park is an experiment. This proposal is untested. Why is the City of La Quinta willing to gamble on this
venture? Should the project fail, the property would be forever scarred and left for others to rehabilitate.
Risk can be eliminated by developing the property according to the current approved zoning minus the golf course.
For the above reasons we are opposed to the development and the requested commercial rezoning and urge the
planning commission and city council to say no to the Coral Mountain Resort.
Sincerely,
Barbara A Jackoboice
Thomas J. Jackoboice
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:23 AM
To:Consulting Planner
Cc:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760‐777‐7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Frank Shah
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:37 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: kftizpatrick@laquintaca.gov <kftizpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena
<jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
We ae in the worst draught ever. Please do not approve "The Wave" project for La Quinta.
Long time La Quinta resident,
Frank Shah
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:10 AM
To:Tania Flores; Consulting Planner
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760‐777‐7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: hirohata
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:35 PM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Ms Flores,
Thank you for the hard work you do for our city.
I have never ever written to city officials regarding any issue, but feel so strongly
about The Coral Mountain Resort, I am sending this.
The traffic in the valley has become over congested from over development.
There are enough venues, resorts, events, festivals‐‐‐ we don't need more. The valley is losing its natural beauty and
character from over development. We are becoming like another Orange county.
But the main issues I have against this project is WATER and POWER.
This project is wasteful and illogical. Why try to build an "ocean" in the desert?
The evaporation from our 10 foot home swimming pool, not to mention refilling it when we have to clean it, takes an
enormous amount of water. Also, when we run the pump for the swimming pool, it take a lot of electricity.
So multiply that times thousands and ten thousands to maintain a surfing resort that takes 12 football fields of water?
The Western US is in a mega drought. Farmers struggle with enough water to grow food.
2
The dams are so low on water they are having problems generating power.
Even if Coachella Valley has it's own water, it should protect it and have a large cushion
in case of problems. This goes for power as well. We are still dependent on the Colorado river, so we cannot say we are
even completely self sufficient.
We should not squander our precious resources, nor max them out, for external problems
will come from the outside to affect us, even if people argue the valley has enough resources for this project.
Living in the desert, water and power are essential, and problems with them could be
potentially life threatening.
I am completely opposed to this project and ask that you do not allow the re‐zoning, nor it's development.
Best Regards,
Joyce Gonzales
La Quinta resident for 10 years
1
Tania Flores
From:Dave Wiezel
Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:35 AM
To:Linda Evans; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez; Planning WebMail
Cc:
Subject:Letter From Full Time La Quinta Residents Regarding Coral Mountain Proposal
Attachments:cityltrwaterpark3.docx
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please read the attached letter regarding the Coral Mountain Proposal. Please ensure that all Planning
Commission members receive a copy. Thank you.
To: La Quinta City Council Members, La Quinta Planning Commissioners
From: Dave Wiezel, Bruce Tersiner; full time La Quinta residents for nine years
Re: Proposed Coral Mountain Project
As property owners in Andalusia, we have closely followed all City meetings regarding the
proposed Coral Mountain Project, attending either in person or on Zoom. The following
summarizes our thoughts for your consideration.
Not all ideas are good ideas.
Decision makers are tasked with evaluating ideas, filtering them through laws and rules,
experiences, and other professional opinions, but ultimately the judgment of the decision
makers comes into play.
An old adage is “trust your gut”. Another is “it doesn’t pass the smell test”.
Those old adages come into play with the proposal under consideration. It simply is not a good
idea.
While others will speak about specifics, such as water, lighting, noise, vacation rentals and
traffic, this is an appeal to your gut instinct.
Why is this a bad idea? Here are some red flags.
For one, there is overwhelming opposition by those most affected who have researched and
studied the proposal the most. That overwhelming opposition needs to be taken into account.
Various publications, ranging from our local Desert Sun to a newspaper in Vancouver, B. C. have
also expressed their outrage in editorials and articles at the unreasonableness of this proposed
development. Please note that the opposition is not to the parcel being developed, just not
being developed in this manner.
The proposal requires you to override the City’s General Plan and grant an exemption for this
one particular property. The General Plan in effect was developed through great effort,
requiring countless hours and dollars, and gained consensus. It has provided guidelines for
many years which have allowed La Quinta to develop responsibly. What public benefit accrues
as a result of granting this highly unusual exemption to a private developer? The possibility of
an insignificant net increase in tax revenues? Any reasonable financial analysis which includes
probability theory would deem this highly unlikely or of little net benefit for the risks assumed.
The proposal also requires you to grant an exemption for short term rentals which is currently
under review with overwhelming opposition from La Quinta citizens who wish to protect their
neighborhoods. Again, that overwhelming opposition needs to be taken into account when
considering this project.
There are significant macro concerns and risks regarding the viability of this project. La Quinta
does not need another “difficult” project that exists in limbo for years. Our understanding is
that the namesake of the project has withdrawn as an investor. Does he sense an impending
failure?
The word that comes to mind is “respect”. Please respect the City’s General Plan. There was a
great deal of thought and effort as well as funds expended to develop this Plan. It has provided
a very good guideline and guardrails for La Quinta to develop over the years it has been in
effect in a responsible manner. The General Plan always envisioned a quiet residential
neighborhood for this parcel, in keeping with all of the neighboring properties.
Please respect the thousands of La Quinta residents who live adjacent to the proposed project
who have made significant real estate investments with the understanding of what the future
development of this parcel would be. The General Plan provides for the development of the
parcel consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods which have been in place or
development for many years.
Because of these, and other concerns presented by others, we hope that you will trust your gut
and make the right decision to deny any further consideration of this bad idea. Do not continue
to try and put the square peg in the round hole. Do not approve the change in zoning requested
for this project. The parcel should be developed as originally envisioned and consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:48 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave Coral Mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Jim Bedrossian
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:18 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave Coral Mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Hello, I wanted to send an email and voice my opinion on the proposed wave park. It seems like an egregious waste of
water to create such a resort when we clearly are suffering from a water shortage both here in the desert and all over
the world. In particular there’s the Salton Sea right next to us which has been lacking water for decades now. If the
Salton Sea is not taken care of shortly it will have serious consequences
James Bedrossian
La Quinta CA 92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:07 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: margie bourke
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Please don’t decimate beautiful la Quinta.
Margie bourke
La Quinta, ca. 92053
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:44 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave (coral Mountain resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Deidre Braun
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave (coral Mountain resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear La Quinta Planning Commission - How can you possibly vote
for coral mountain when they are needing 18 million gallons of
water….CVWD has stated they have approved BUT they are
expecting residents to cut back on their water usage….this is wrong.
Vote Against Coral Mountain
Please forward my email to the planning commission and include in
the city records for this project.
Deidre Braun
La Quinta, CA. 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:00 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: sbb@silverstar.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:17 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
My name is Susie Bushong and my address: ‐ La Quinta, Ca
92253
Please, please forward my request to say NO to the proposed wave park at
Coral Mountain. This is an absurd project in this place and time. I
can't imagine how this could pass in this current environment.
My HOA is currently pulling all living and beautiful flowers from the
beds in my community to SAVE WATER and they should. How could anyone on
the Planning Commission in good faith approve the Wave Park project
given our drought situation that only promises to get more dire with
time?!!! JUST SAY NO PLEASE!!
Please forward my email to all members of the Planning Commission and
please include my strong opposition in the City Record regarding this
project.
PLEASE do the right thing for our community and the State of Ca. Does
money and developers rights always have to win??!!!!!
Thank you!
Susie Bushong
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:38 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Terri Butler
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:58 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Terri Butler
Subject: Opposition to the Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Dear La Quinta Council‐members,
My family and I oppose the proposed wave park. We own property in Trilogy and PGAwest.
The primary reason we oppose the project is due to the water that the project will use ‐ especially during the drought
period we are currently experiencing. Coachella Valley Water District has began to enforce restrictions on water
use. How possibly can we be moving forward with a waterpark?
Next, the impact of traffic and construction noise is worrisome. As is the traffic, wave mechanism noise and bright night
lights in our desert once the project is complete.
While we would enjoy restaurants and retail at this end of La Quinta ‐ I think the negative impact on our environment is
too high.
We ask the Council not to move forward with this project.
Thank you, Terri Butler and Waynette Morrison
Terri M. Butler
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:56 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Lisa Corbin
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
To: La Quinta Planning Commission (please forward asap)
From: Lisa Corbin, ., La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: Proposed Coral Mountain Resort
Dear Planning Commission members,
Before I moved to La Quinta five years ago, I worked as a journalist for the Associated Press for 38
years in New York, London and Hong Kong. I had vacationed in the desert for many years and
decided to save my best residence for last. I wanted a tranquil location that would be the
antithesis of the busy cities where I spent most of my life. But I didn’t just want a house in
the desert, I wanted solitude — so I spent two years searching for the perfect location and found
it at . Unlike the majority of other houses within the Trilogy development,
the back of my house looks out exclusively over the gorgeous Santa Rosa mountains — not
another house or structure in site. Not only is the location visually stunning but it’s dead quiet —
exactly what I wanted for my retirement years.
I remember in the early 1980s when my husband and I would bring our small children to our
timeshare in Palm Desert, we heard about a new waterpark that was going to be built. Waterpark
Associates was trying to get planning permission to build a 21‐acre waterpark in Palm Springs.
Local residents protested, saying the expected seasonal attendance of 200,000 people would
overrun the site, creating noise, traffic and pollution. Waterpark Associates made promises to
install sound barriers and to institute strict guidelines to limit traffic and pollution.
2
The project was approved and Waterpark Associates kept its word. The new Oasis Water Park,
which we visited multiple times every summer, was aesthetically pleasing and relatively quiet. But
after a few years, revenues were down and the park was sold to Knott’s Soak City, which
immediately invested $2 million into refurbishing the park. Tasteful attractions were replaced
with garish decorations in neon colors. Many of the new structures could be seen above and
beyond the landscaping that had been designed by Waterpark Associates to camouflage the park.
And the worst part was that as soon as you opened your car door in the parking lot 500 yards
away, you could hear the thump, thump, thump of the loudspeakers by the wave pool. Their
volume was pumped to the maximum level in order to compete with the wave noise.
A few years later, in 2014, the park was sold yet again — this time to CNL Lifestyle Properties,
which converted the park to Wet’n’Wild Palm Springs. The new owner made many more changes
to the park that made it bigger, louder and tackier. But all those changes did nothing to improve
attendance so, in 2018, the owners decided to demolish the park and today the property stands in
ugly abandon.
My point is this: Meriwether Companies and Big Sky Wave Development are making a lot of
promises. Some of them, such as the non‐existence of light pollution, are simply untrue. The night
the lighting test was done, I had a crystal‐clear view of the light from my patio — and that was
only from one light tower during a full moon!
But even if Meriwether and Big Sky keep some of their promises, what happens if the
development goes belly‐up a few years down the road? What will replace it and what
development rules will apply? I fear that after raping this gorgeous and historical land of all its
redeeming features, the companies will walk away and go back to their corporate headquarters,
leaving La Quinta residents a major eyesore that can never be restored to its original beauty.
Please don’t approve this project! Please don’t ruin my stunning view or my quiet atmosphere
that I worked so hard to find. There are many other ways to get tax revenue. La
Quinta doesn’t need a 17‐acre wave pool in the middle of a residential
area. It doesn’t need the traffic, noise or pollution. As a
planning commission, you should be focused on planning not just for the
immediate future but thinking ahead to what the property will look like,
and the affect it will have on the community, in 10 years, 20 years, 30
years and beyond. If the Palm Springs Planning Commission had done
that with the Oasis Waterpark in the 1980s, then maybe the city wouldn’t
have a 21‐acre eyesore now.
I respectfully request that this email be included in the city records for the Coral Mountain Resort
project. Thank you.
3
Yours sincerely,
Lisa D. Corbin
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:40 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: 58th and Madison Surf Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: David Crouse
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 3:25 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: 58th and Madison Surf Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
T o W h o m I t M a y C o n c e r n ,
I m a n a t i v e C a l i f o r n i a n b o r n a n d r
a i s e d i n S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a .
T h e G o l d e n S t a t e s h o u l d n o w b e T h e
B r o w n S t a t e a s l a c k o f w a t e r h a s b e
c o m e a n d w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e a n i s s
u e .
H o w c a n w e e n t e r t a i n s u c h r i d i c u l o u
s v e n t u r e s a s t o b u i l d a n 1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0
0 g a l l o n s u r f p a r k i n t h e l o w d e s e r
t ( o r a n y o t h e r p l a c e ) ?
I t d o e s n t t a k e a r o c k e t s c i e n t i s t
t o c o m e t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t i
s j u s t w r o n g ! H o w c a n a n y o n e w i t h a
n o u n c e o f c o m m o n s e n s e t h i n k t h i s
i s s o m e t h i n g t o d o ?
W h a t a b o u t t h e o t h e r i s s u e s o f t h e
p a r k c a u s i n g n o i s e , i n c r e a s e d t r u c k
a n d c a r t r a f f i c , a n d t h e p o l l u t i o n
i n a R e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s u r r o u n d e d b y
l u x u r y h o m e s ?
I f y o u h a v e a c o n s c i e n c e a n d c a n l o
o k a t y o u r s e l f i n t h e m i r r o r e a c h m
o r n i n g d o w h a t i s r i g h t , n o s u r f p a
r k i n L a Q u i n t a !
2
D a v i d C r o u s e
L a Q u i n t a , C A 9 2 2 5 3
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:02 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Randy Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear City of La Quinta Leaders,
While I appreciate the idea of growth in La Quinta, I trust that as our community leaders, you will make decisions that
are in the best interest of all of us who live here. This proposed Wave park has no place in a residential area. It seems
better suited for a location like where the new hockey arena is being built, in a more open commercial space. To suggest
this Wave park should be surrounded by residential communities makes no sense.
I live near the proposed Wave park site, and the people in this area are united in opposition to this project. Surely, there
is a more appropriate location, where neighborhoods are not adversely affected.
Please forward this email to members of the Planning commission and include it in the City Records for this project. And
thank you for doing the right thing and rejecting the Wave park project.
Respectfully,
Randy Diamond
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:40 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Fred DiDominick
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 3:38 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Consulting Planner,
I am a La Quinta resident and I’d like to express my opposition to the development of the Coral Mountain Resort. I live in
Trilogy LaQuinta which is virtually next door to the planned wave park community. I’m a member of the Hiking Club and
frequently hike around Coral Mountain. I’d hate to see any possibility that trails and petroglyphs would be disturbed and
the ability to see the ‘bathtub ring’ from the former lake that occupied this area hundreds of years ago. I believe the
proposal will have significant noise implications for the surrounding communities of Trilogy, Andalusia and The Quarry..
I also believe a water wave park should not be constructed at this time until we have a real good handle on the water
crisis facing the state and the surrounding communities. Just because the park may use less water than a golf course,
doesn’t mean it should be built given the concerns surrounding climate change and a severe drought in this area. Let’s
table this proposal until we have a better feel for the long term implications of such a project.
Please forward my email to the Members of the Planning Committee.
Regards,
Fred DiDominick
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:08 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave at Coral mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Howard
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave at Coral mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
My name is Howard Farling I own a house with my wife at in Puerta Azul since 2006. I am also a local
realtor. We are in the only lower then @$900,000 community here in South LaQuinta. We feel that the our value would
be greatly affected by the noise and traffic created by this wave park community. Our values finally after 15yrs have
started to rise. We also feel at a time when we are facing water shortages and the state are asking communities and
commercial sites to conserve water that this idea would go against any good common sense environmental policies.
Please consider the impact to all the residents that live near this site and do not approve this future fiasco.
Howard Farling
BRE#01371914
Power Brokers International
Direct:(310) 717‐4621
Ofc:(760) 777‐9849
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:49 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to wave park Coral Mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Diane Goodman
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:44 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to wave park Coral Mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I’m Diane Goodman and my husband and I have lived in Trilogy for 8 years. We bought our home because of the
location. The quiet and serene beauty of the Santa Rosa Mountains is the best in the valley. We verified the surrounding
area zoning restrictions to make sure of what would be built in the future.
I am very concerned that our planning commission is only seeing dollar signs when it comes to the wave park.
The water waste, noise and light pollution is not acceptable to surrounding communities.
I urge you vote no on this development!
Diane Good
LaQuinta
92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:44 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mtn Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: John Grimes
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:01 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mtn Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
No! A waste of water!!
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:47 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: proposed wave park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Reed Harman
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:34 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: proposed wave park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Dear La Quinta‐ I am a member of The Quarry and have had vacation homes in La
Quinta for 25 years. It is hard for me to understand why our city leaders are so determined to change the rules
and allow an amusement park in the middle of a residential area. I fear that
the lure of bed tax revenue is overcoming sound city planning and generally better judgement.
La Quinta is firmly behind the commercial development of its assets adjacent to Silver Rock ( now Talus?) : why
not encourage Merriweather to move it’s project there? Yes, that area is also residential, but at least
the related traffic would support the planned adjacent commercial/retail development and be far closer to “
old” La Quinta which is sorely in need of support.
The noise, the additional traffic, and the lights at night all contribute to
making this development the wrong project, at the wrong location, at the wrong time. We read daily about
various desert communities pushing back against Air B&B and other short term rentals ( a key to
the wave park’s success) and yet our leaders in LQ support this: why? We have a water shortage,
and we’re discussing a wave park? Golf courses are being asked to reduce their turf; and we want a wave park;
why? Maybe there should be no more golf courses OR wave parks? The Thermal Club is in Thermal
because it’s noisy and generally disruptive to residential development. Locating it next to an
airport made some community planning sense. This make NO sense.
Thank you for your consideration, Reed Harman
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:40 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave,coral mountain resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Mikki Jebousek
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:31 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave,coral mountain resort
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I am not opposed to the development of new single family homes as proposed. I am strongly opposed to the addition of
the surf lagoon. In this time of severe drought it is unconscionable to even consider. Mikki Jebousek
La Quinta,CA. 92253
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:36 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: The Wave at Coral Mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:34 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: The Wave at Coral Mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Please forward to the planning commission.
My wife and I live at The Quarry ‐ . We live very close to Coral Mtn. When we bought our home
we were told the land near us ‐ just in the other side of Coral Mtn ‐ was zoned for residential and possible golf. We
would not have bought our home so close to Coral Mtn if we thought there was any chance a Wave Pool and hotel could
be built on that site. Please do not allow this to happen. It is not in keeping with the entire neighborhood.
Thank you!
Respectfully,
Bob Kain
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:47 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Rosette
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:32 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
We are opposed to this park. The water waste is unconscionable. Are not our drinking water and agriculture
requirements more important then a water park?
The traffic and noise pollution is my second complaint. Our lifestyles will become a nightmare.
I’m sure the Park Wave builders would never want to live in the vicinity of the Park.
The results of this construction will reduce the value of our homes.
The Wave Park approval will drive me away from La Quinta.
Hopefully the town council wishes to make the La Quinta residents life styles better.
Rosette Kivel
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:42 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Richard Kohagen
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:22 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
The Coral Mountain Wave Park--or any wave park in this Desert, is the most ludicrous use of potable water possible. We
are fortunate to have an aquifer under this desert when other areas of the state are running out of water, in a state-wide
drought, with no end in sight.
Our aquifer was accumulated over thousands of years of mountain runoff, and for the last half century Valley cities have
been pumping from it like it's an limitless source. IT ISN'T. It's bad enough that 120+ golf courses are using millions of
gallons a day to keep thousands of acres of grass green---year around, for a few golfers. Go up to any golf course in the
summer with hundred+ degree heat almost every day, with hundreds of Rain Birds running in the middle of the day, and
the temperature will be several degrees cooler from all the evaporation. This is causing our summers to be increasingly
humid.
City Planning Commissions are allowing more stupid uses of our water, to increase tax revenue, and this has to stop. The
proposed wave parks, and the 24 acre lagoon in the Cortino development are the latest examples of waste of the water
resource.
Richard S. Kohagen
Cathedral City, CA 92234
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:05 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: John Martin
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Dear Sirs/Madam,
Please forward to members of the planning commission.
I am opposed to this project as we are in a drought.
Regards,
John Martin
La Quinta, California 92253
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:48 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Vivien McGuire
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 7:18 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
My name is Vivien McGuire and I live at , right across the street on 58th from the proposed Coral
Mountain Resort Wave Park.
I am opposed to the wave park for so many reasons but I’ll only list a few
1. Light pollution from 80’ light standards lit until 10 pm
2. Noise pollution from the wave machine from 7 am to 10 pm, every 30 seconds all day long!
3.Water waste due to the huge amount of evaporation of POTABLE water.
4. Over 650 Short Term Rentals!!!!!! If successful, this acreage will become party city!
These are legitimate concerns that I believe are not being adequately addressed by the council. It appears that the
highest priority is given to the idea of taxable income from the resort. This is a pipe dream waiting to burst.
Please pass this on to those members of the council who will making this decision
Vivien McGuire
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:08 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: dennis mclatcher
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:18 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Dear Planning Commission,
California is in the midst of a continuing drought, and our precious water source is limited. To develop a water
intensive, and blatantly wasteful wave park that caters to a privileged few is ridiculous.
In addition, glaring lights, noise and grid lock traffic are not things that La Quinta would be proud of.
Let’s keep La Quinta the beautiful vibrant community, that drew myself and other residents and that attracts the many
visitors to to the desert.
I am opposed to this project and urge you to vote no.
Dennis McLatcher
La Quinta Resident
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:03 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
FYI
Kathleen Fitzpatrick | Council Member
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
E: kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeanine Moss
Date: April 20, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM PDT
To: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution
when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Ms. Fitzpatrick:
There is no reason in the world to approve the Coral Mountain Resort development.
This is a residential area. Not commercial.
2
o Changing zoning should only be done when absolutely necessary. This does not meet
the criteria.
o We already have many special events that are impacting residents. Do NOT add more.
Creating something exclusive smacks of prejudice against those who are less fortunate
Water is not only scarce, but will be unavailable in the future to fill this wasteful basin – and it
will take from less fortunate residents. One day this will come back to haunt you.
o Does the word DRAUGHT mean anything at all to you?
Natural beauty is scarce – it is CRUCIAL to the future of tourism to this valley and its economic
development.
Cut projections in half for this project as we already have one wave pool approved.
Years of development are disruptive and ruin the quality of life. Those who are well off will
move, and you will reduce the economy here.
I am Jeanine Moss, owner of the home at , LaQuinta, CA 92253. Phone:
.
Please. Maintain our home haven and the environment for future generations.
Jeanine Moss
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:04 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Please stop The Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Susan B Pannoni
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:58 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Please stop The Wave
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I sincerely hope that we can stop the development of the Wave Water Park.
Another massive waste of water here in the desert is unconscionable. The water district recently issued a notice that
residents will be rationed. In light of our drought, reduced water in reservoirs, and ever increasing population here in
the desert, this is reasonable but why bring in a big water waster like The Wave.
This facility is really about the wealthy having another playground and the city getting bigger revenues. The issue is that
it’s at great expense. It’s at the expense of the environment and of our peaceful setting.
I humbly ask you to stop this development.
Susan Pannoni
Full time Trilogy resident for 17 years
Sent from my iPad
2
Nanda: Colorado River basin states must embrace
conservation now to aver...
With a seemingly ominous crisis looming, three states committed
to cut back 500,000 acre-feet in 2022 and 2023, ...
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/colorado-river-dry/
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:39 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave/Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Andrea Silver
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave/Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
To all concerned‐
My name is Andrea Silver and I live at with my husband Gary. We strongly oppose the proposed wave
park for a number of reasons but I will only focus on water for purposes of this email.
As everyone knows, California is experiencing record drought conditions and residents across the state have been asked
to conserve. If the City is inclined to revisit the zoning of the Coral Mountain area, then the only logical variance that
should be granted is one that REDUCES the use of water. The proposed wave park is not a water conserving
development and any grant of a variance to allow for it is gravely irresponsible, not to mention one that has terrible
optics. (As stated above, I won’t even raise the many other negatives such as increased traffic, noise echoing off the
mountains, etc.)
A water guzzling surf attraction in a quiet residential corner of the desert during record drought conditions cannot be
objectively viewed by anyone as an attempt to conserve water or improve our community. Even if the developer’s
assertion is true that a wave park will use less water than a golf course, it does not come anywhere near the
conservation measures that the City should be looking for in order to grant a variance. Nor does it appear to comply
with water conserving requests made by our local and state governments.
The natural beauty of the Coral Mountain area is an attraction in and of itself and what the City should be allowing is an
environmentally friendly development that uses less water per capita and preserves as much of the natural landscape as
possible. How about a drought tolerant spa/wellness resort or a non‐golf luxury community like Griffin Ranch? Just axe
the wave pool piece.
We’re not anti‐development, just pro‐responsible development.
Please forward this email to the members of the planning commission and include it in the City records related to this
project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Andrea Silver
La Quinta
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:39 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Robert Stelzl
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:36 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
My name is Robert Stelzl. I live at in La Quinta (Trilogy).
I am requesting that this email be FORWARDED as soon as possible to Members of the Planning
Commission, and be included in the City Records for this Project.
I am strongly opposed to the development of this project as outlined in the record. The neighborhood
the project is slated to be developed in is a residential community and not a theme park
community. Please do not to destroy this beautiful community with a theme park that wastes water,
creates pollution in many different ways, and increases traffic in a residential community. There are
many more suitable locations.
Please listen to us.
Sincerely,
Robert Stelzl
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:11 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Sandra Stratton
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
We are adamantly opposed to the significant number of amendments proposed to the La Quinta General Plan for 2035.
These proposals are all geared to allow a wave pool for surfing for the rich. To make it profitable the developers need a
hotel and many many small residential units all of which will be allowed for nightly rentals.
There are too many changes for just one developer. They will never build out the commercial corner or the large homes
once they have their wave pool operational. Let’s be realistic. Short term occupancy taxes are the carrot to the City.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WHY DOES OUR CITY WANT TO BE KNOWN FOR THE WASTEFUL AND SELFISH USE OF OUR
PRECIOUS WATER. The news continues to show our water resources diminishing. Nothing is improving.
Please DO NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN.
Sandy Stratton
Ed Stratton
La Quinta
Sent from my iPhone
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:07 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Cher Van Wagenen
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Members of the La Quinta, CA Planning Commission
My name is Jeff Van Wagenen, , La Quinta, 92253; vanwagenen@me.com.
Please forward my strong objection to the Wave ASAP To Members of the Planning Commission, and be included in the
City Records for this Project.
I find it appalling that the Planning Commission is even considering this project. On March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom
issued an executive order declaring a Level 2 Drought in California. The Governor’s action has triggered Coachella Valley
Water to issue water conservation guidelines to residents to reduce water usage by 15%.
If approved, the Wave will be using drinking water (potable water) vs golf courses, parks, green belts, and front lawns
use non potable water. Furthermore, water evaporation will be enormous with the generation of the constant waves.
In recent years, The Coachella Valley has suffered many electrical brown & black outs, with IID and California Edison
mandating that residents avoid using electrical appliances during the high volume hours. The Wave electrical usage for
lights and generation of the waves will be an enormous draw on the already taxed electrical grid.
The rezoning from residential to resort/commercial allowing short term rentals will seriously impact traffic congestion
and vehicle emissions. La Quinta residents already suffer through the long weekends of Coachella and Stagecoach
Festivals, with the addition of the many Wave Coral Mountain Special Events will become a nightmare for the La Quinta
residents.
In conclusion, we (Jeff and Cher Van Wagenen) strongly oppose the Wave Coral Mountain development.
Please be advised that we have communicated the above to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Jeff Van Wagenen
Cher Van Wagenen
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:29 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave coral mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Brenda Vatland
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:23 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave coral mountain
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please forward my comments to the Planning Commission and include them in public comments
As residents of the Citrus golf course, we oppose the surf park project at Coral Mountain. It is not the right
location. This commercial development should not be considered in a residential neighborhood, but would be more
appropriate by I‐10. We object to the water usage, night lighting in our dark sky, loudspeaker announcements and
transient housing. Listen to your constituents and follow the city’s long range planning. This proposal is wrong for our
community and you need to vote no
Thank you
Brenda VATLAND
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:06 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave (coral mountain resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: james wade
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave (coral mountain resort)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Dear Planning Commission
My name is James Wade a full time local resident of La Quinta (, La Quinta 92250).
Please could my email be FORWARDED as soon as possible to members of the Planning Commission, and be included in
the City Records for this project.
I AM OBJECTING TO THE WAVE POOL PROJECT proposed by Coral Mountain Resort.
‐ It is a drain on local resources and does not benefit locals.
‐ Water regulations are to be introduced because water supplies are at risk, and already depleted due to the on going
drought. The Colorado River is almost daily mentioned on news programes. It is gradually drying up. Household supplies
are obviously a concern hence the water restrictions. Allowing a wave pool would be a flagrant disregard to the
restrictions.
‐ The climate is only getting warmer and with it the increased strain on power supplies. In an area already encouraged to
use major appliances as little as possible, especially at peak times to avoid power outages the huge amount of power the
resort would drawer is again a flagrant disregard to the local power supply. Again it seems a no brainer that the wave
would have a huge impact on already stretched resources.
‐ The area has been designated as such for a reason. To prevent such projects being built. What gives the planners the
right to overturn this and build a project so far in violation of the existing designation? Corporate pressure and money
changing hands perhaps?
‐ The scale of the resort, the huge wave pool and all the high intensity lighting. Again how could this even be
considered? How was it not nipped in the bud months ago?
2
This is not the area for such a project. The local resources are needed for local use, not for a limited number of non local
residents wanting to use the peace and quiet of our home town as their playground.
Our roads and infrastructure are already busy without the ingress of part time party goers only interested in their own
fun. Whilst the big business and their ‘supporter’ get rich to the detriment of local residents.
California is facing a massive water shortage moving forward. La Quinta and it’s surrounding cities already import water
from resources that are proven to be at risk, now and definitely long term. Don’t let greed ruin our community.
Lastly residents have been buying property, supporting local businesses in the knowledge that our local landscape is
protected from such proposed development. To allow it would be a contravention of the laws that upheld these right.
How can that be considered legal?
The fact this project is even under consideration raises very serious questions.
The Science is unfortunately blatantly obvious. Water supplies are needed for the future of La Quinta and valley.
The wave pool is not for locals!
I would respectfully ask the Planning Commission and the City of La Quinta reject the project and stand behind the
future of its residents.
LETS SEE RESPECT FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY PLEASE.
Yours sincerely, James Wade
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:10 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the wave (coral mountain resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Joan Brandt
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:38 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the wave (coral mountain resort)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
We are opposed to this development, for the following reasons:
Total water wastage in the desert, I don’t believe assurances given by CVWD
Lack of infrastructure to support the project
Noise and light pollution, demonstration was timed to minimize the impact of light pollution and the video of the wave
pool in operation conveniently did not have audio so the noise could not be assessed.
This project is ONLY supported by the city council as a way to make money from STVRs
Please forward this email to the planning committee members and have it included in formal comments.
Joan Brandt
Barry Waters
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:03 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Julia Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I cannot think of a poorer use of potable water than this proposed Wave Park. Our aquifer is dwindling away by the day
by lack of awareness by users. It’s time to back away from this preposterous idea.
Let us keep what we can of fresh water for survival on this earth.
Julia Wilson
La Quinta CA 92253
Sent from Julia's iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:40 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: KRISTEN WINN
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please forward this email to the members of the Planning Commission. Please also include the
email in the City Records.
Dear Members of the Planning Committee,
We are strongly opposed to the Coral Mountain Resort Project. This opposition is based on the
following:
The change of zoning from low-density residential/golf course to
tourist/commercial/residential/open recreation. This project does not belong in a residential
neighborhood and we do not think it is right to change the zoning after several residential/golf
course developments have been or are being completed.
The consideration of a water park when the state, county and city are mandating water
restrictions due to drought is incomprehensible. As one example, the Colorado River is at a
1200 year low--how can the water park make sense?
The lighting, noise and traffic will be not only disruptive to the neighborhoods, but will forever
change the nature of the neighboring mountains and disrupt valuable wildlife habitat.
Given the issues around short-term rentals in the county, there is no justification to approve a
project with 600 new STR's.
Please listen to your constituents, not the developers of the proposed Coral Mountain Resort. The
time and place is not right for any part of this project.
Richard and Kristen Winn
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:24 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort) Zoning Change
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:22 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort) Zoning Change
N‐ did you get this one? K
Kathleen Fitzpatrick | Council Member
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
E: kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Duncan Woodfin
Date: April 20, 2022 at 6:10:55 PM PDT
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort) Zoning Change
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution
when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
My apologies in advance to all the many articulate and educated speaker presentations in Opposition to
the Wave Amusement Park at your Council Meetings. My opposition to this monster development is
much more visceral, basic and unsophisticated.
So, am I to understand that the drought here in California per our State Government is so dire that even a
glass of water at a restaurant like Applebees will not be served unless requested? The drought is that
bad? Like a Seinfeld Episode...NO WATER FOR YOU!!!....
2
Yet we are contemplating the zoning change from peaceful residential to amusement park commercial
that includes a big ol cement hole in the ground filled with a precious resource, fresh drinking water from
our aquifer and will need to be replenished daily due to evaporation? All for transient rich people to
come, surf the same boring wave over and over just for their selfish, momentary pleasure? With no
regard to the damage to our neighborhood and community or long term water supply? All to benefit some
out of State corporation.
Personal Side Note: The lady living on 60th next door to the proposal said....She fears that her tranquility
and serenity will be ruined and the developer's rep said..."Well that's a given"... So nasty. If they have
no pretense of playing "nice" and cooperation/reconciliation during the approval process, can you just
imagine how uncaring and inconsiderate they will be if they are granted the go ahead with a change in
zoning? Please DON'T DO IT.
At the very least vote to postpone this criminal water wasting enterprise for maybe 5 years to see if the
water crisis is permanent or just a short term situation. That would make sense to me. Build their houses
but hold off on the Amusement Park and hotel aspect for now. A happy compromise for La Quinta.
If you folks approve this, it will scream to our citizens, (the very people you were elected to serve) that the
drought is FAKE, that Government is dishonest to push this drought narrative, that Lake Mead and all the
other reservoirs are really not empty, that the Colorado River is awash in fresh drinking water heading our
way. Why would I want to conserve as I do now if there is no water crisis?
This decision is your legacy for generations to come. Please vote NO on the change of zoning.
Sincerely,
Duncan Woodfin
La Quinta, CA 92253
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:42 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the WAVE (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Chris Zuckerman
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:51 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the WAVE (Coral Mountain Resort)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
To: The Planning Commission and it’s members‐ I would like to request that this email be forwarded ASAP to all
members of this committee and that it be included in the City Records for this project.
Thank you,
Christine Zuckerman
La Quinta, CA. 92253
We have lived at The Quarry in La Quinta since 2006. The Quarry Board (which I have served on in the past) and it’s
residences have protected and only enhanced our complex and it’s surrounding areas since it’s inception by Tom
Fazio. We have ranked in the top 100 Golf Digest’s best golf course in the country for nearly 20 years and have ranked in
Gold Digest’s top five in the country for course condition. In short, we have done our share to enhance the value of
living in La Quinta.
We continually strive to conserve our water resources and we have respected the Big Horn Sheep reserve. The Coral
Mountain and the lake that once surrounded it, were at one time, a great resource for the Cahuilla Indians that once
lived in the area. After a rain, one can hike the floor of the Coral Mountain and still find the shells of mollusk that were
once a great food source for the natives .
It breaks my heart to see a land that I hold so sacred, that is so immersed in La Quinta history, be desecrated by this
commercial endeavor. This project shows no regard in preserving the history, beauty, wildlife, our water resources and
shear solitude that we have come to love ‐ the characteristics that define La Quinta in every way.
The long operational hours, unlimited concerts (due to Special Use availability’s), traffic, short term rentals and strain on
our water resources, all show little or no regard for life in La Quinta, as we had hoped to see for it’s future.
As a resident of La Quinta, we hope that the trust we have put in you, our elected officials, will honor the promises,
hopes and visions that we were promised when we decided to make La Quinta our home. Surely there is a better use
for and equally profitable use for one of the last, historical mountain vistas in La Quinta.
Thank you for taking the time to read this,
Sincerely,
Mrs. Christine Zuckerman
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:34 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave at Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Sandy Lanham
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave at Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
My name is Sandra Lanham, , La Quinta, CA,
I am opposed to the Wave at the Coral Mountain Resort. My main concern is WATER!
You do realize that we are in a serious drought, that the Colorado River is drying up, which is a main source of water for
Southern California. We citizens are asked to conserve, but apparently that does not affect the Wave project.
My other concerns are the noise, lights and traffic. It is not right to impose all of this on the Southern end of La Quinta
where most of us moved for the peace, quiet, and dark skies. The traffic will be horrendous and adding stop lights,
round‐abouts, etc. will cost the City a lot of money, which will be passed onto the home owners.
There are three wave park properties across the country that have failed and left an ugly looking landscape. Palm
Springs and Palm Desert are planning wave parks of some type and if they are approved, will be enough for this
valley. By the way, they aren’t planned to be placed in residential communities.
Please, please, give this project considerable thought before making you decision.
Thank you,
Sandra Lanham
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Brian Levy
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:26 AM
To:Planning WebMail
Subject:Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort).
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please forward this email as soon as possible to Members of the Planning Commission, and include this email in the City
Records for this Project
TO: City Planning Commissioners:
My name is Brian Levy, and I have resided at , La Quinta, CA (Trilogy) on a full‐time basis since
2014. My wife and I moved to Trilogy to enjoy our retirement years in the peaceful and quiet surroundings of the
beautiful residential neighborhood we live in.
I am strongly opposed to the proposed wave park being built in this neighborhood. I question why the City of La Quinta
would even consider putting the proposed commercial project wave park in our residential neighborhood. In order to
proceed with the Coral Mountain Resort as proposed, the City would have to carve out an exception from the current La
Quinta General Plan. I believe that the La Quinta General Plan was well thought out and thoroughly considered while it
was being developed and now serves for the benefit of the residents of La Quinta. I ask myself why the City would
consider the variance from the General Plan that is being requested by this developer solely for the benefit of this
developer. The requested variance does not benefit our residential neighborhood. The only answer that I can think of is
the greed associated with sacrificing the peaceful nature of the quality of life in our neighborhood in the pursuit of the
promise of additional tax revenue that may or may not come to fruition. Also, to proceed with the Coral Mountain
Resort as proposed, the City would have to provide permanent waivers to the current ban on STVR's. I believe the
current ban on STVR's was also well thought out and thoroughly considered before it was developed and adopted. I also
believe that the current ban on STVR's was put in place to protect the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of our residential
neighborhood. I ask myself why the City of La Quinta would consider a permanent waiver on its own ban on STVR's that
is being requested by this developer solely for the benefit of this developer. The proposed permanent waiver does not
benefit our residential neighborhood – to the contrary it would spoil the quiet nature of our neighborhood. The only
answer that I can think of is the greed associated with sacrificing the peaceful nature of the quality of life in our
neighborhood in the pursuit of a promise of additional tax revenue that may or may not come to fruition.
The General Plan and permanent ban on STVR’s were well thought out policy decisions designed to promote the
preservation and improvement of the quality of life in our residential neighborhood. The only possible benefit to the
City of La Quinta for the requested considerations of modifying the well thought out General Plan and permanently
waiving the ban on STVR’s is the lure of possible additional revenue to the city. These considerations must be balanced,
and in my opinion, the quality of life in our neighborhood is more important than the possible additional revenue and
risk of failure of this unproven and untested concept development.
The risks inherent with the proposed project to the city are numerous, and include the high risk of failure for this
untested commercial concept development shoe‐holed into our low‐density residential neighborhood. This project
wastes water spoils the natural beauty of the area, and injects light, noise, traffic and transient visitors into our quiet
2
and peaceful residential neighborhood. Should this project fail, the development will be a blight on our neighborhood,
and if it passes and the project succeeds, our low‐density residential neighborhood will forever be lost to this high
traffic, high volume, noisy and wasteful commercial development. Does the city need the promise of additional revenue
so badly that it would even consider taking the risks of failure associated with this wasteful commercial development
within our residential neighborhood? I hope not.
I ask that the City Planning Department and the City Council honor the promises made to its constituents within the
current General Plan and ban on STVR’s, and reject the concept of making the requested policy concessions and
permanent waivers required in order to put this proposed commercial development in our peaceful and quiet
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Brian Levy
1
Tania Flores
From:Alena Callimanis
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:33 AM
To:Tania Flores; Consulting Planner
Subject:Please replace the LQRRD letter to the Commissioners - a link did not work
Attachments:Letter to the Planning Commission from LQRRD April 19 2022 corrected.pdf; Letter to the Planning
Commission from LQRRD April 19 2022 corrected.docx
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
My deepest apologies. One of the links got cut off when the line wrapped. I have corrected it here. I apologize for the
inconvenience. I am also including the word document. I don’t know which you use.
Alena Callimanis
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alena Callimanis
Subject: Ms. Flores, can you please forward this electronically to the Members of the Planning
Commission
Date: April 19, 2022 at 5:51:35 PM PDT
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Tania Flores <tflores@laquintaca.gov>
Ms. Flores, we would like to respectfully request that you forward this to the Planning Commission
members as soon as possible. The attached document includes the La Quinta Residents for Responsible
Development (LQRRD) comments on the applicant’s presentations during the April 12 Planning
Commission meeting. We would like them to receive this electronically if possible while they are still
reviewing the information the Commission received during last week’s meeting.
We sincerely apologize that this was not completed last week and we hope that does not present a
problem to the Commissioners.
Thank you very much for your consideration and support of our request.
Alena Callimanis
LQRRD
La Quinta, CA 92253
!
!
To: Chairperson Nieto, Vice Chair Currie, Planning
Commissioners and Staff
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you
during these public hearings on the Coral Mountain Surf Resort
and your patience to thoughtfully listen to Staff, Developer and
legal team, and to all the public comments.
We especially commend you on your ability to keep a neutral
bearing. It must be so difficult when you hear statements that
are obviously misleading. We do need to apologize if you have
seen our skeptical expressions, rolling eyes or shaking heads.
LQRRD would like to take this opportunity to highlight those
areas discussed on April 12 where we were particularly
concerned about information that was brushed aside with
vague comments, or with statements that were obviously
misleading. We apologize in advance for the length of this
document, and our delay in getting it to you, but we feel this
information is critical for you to have as background before you
vote.
1) The first statement we would like to reference, is by Tony L.
who spoke about noise. The comment was made that when
you double the distance from a noise source, you drop 6
decibels of sound. I would certainly like to reference this
weekend’s Coachella Fest. If sound truly drops off like this,
why do we hear the music from Coachella all over town? We
will reference Trilogy in particular. Residents Saturday night
heard not only the low frequency bass noise, but it was clearly
perceptible that a female was singing and some words were
discernible. And it is well over 5 miles away. People at Point
Happy heard the music reverberating off the mountains. By
the way, we clearly heard Iron Man announcements from Lake
Cahuilla, the Sheriff shooting range behind Lake Cahuilla, cars
racing at Thermal Speedway, all this a lot further than the
Wave Pool is to Madison.
If you look at the diagram with the wave pool, the machinery
that pulls the chain for the hydrofoil is significantly closer to
Coral Mountain, less than 350 feet away from the Mountain per
the light study. Contrary to the information from the applicant,
the effect of the starting of the machinery to generate the wave
on Coral Mountain was not studied. Also, with the bi -directional
nature of the wave, no impact of wave noise going back
against Coral Mountain was even considered. And the sound
is generated for up to a ½ mile. It is not a “point” sound, but a
“line” sound.
The other thi ng we would like to respectfully request for the
Commissioners to review is the document we included in your
packet “Surf Wave Parks – Assessing the Sound of Fun”, by
Shane Chambers and Ralph James from the Bioacoustics
Research Laboratory, in Western Australia.
https://acoustics.asn.au/conference proceedings/AAS2018/papers/p142.pdf
Patrons, traffic, plant and machinery noise are often
misperceived by the public to be the (only) main contributing
noise sources. However, long durational noise from the
resonance of air in the tube of the wave or formation of vapor
bubbles created in the spilling or breaking process (especially
traveling for almost ½ mile) must be studied and are dominant.
Airborne generation of noise from breaking waves has been
shown to be complex, containing tonal, modulating and
broadband components, which are all additive when assessing
noise dose. These sounds are the Low Frequency Sounds we
discussed in our presentation that travel long distances and
need to be evaluated when placed in environmentally sensitive
areas. With the way the surf basin is situated, and that there
would be 50 h ertz frequencies in the “C” range generated by
the surf (without considering the wave mechanism) this low
frequency noise can also impact wildlife. At the Coral
Mountain side of the wave basin, part of the surf basin would
not be blocked by Coral Mountain. Until further evidence of
noise generated from such parks is available, control of such
noise will be difficult to evaluate, and authorities should
demonstrate caution when assessing such proposals placed in
noise sensitive areas. The Council reviewing the Tompkin’s
Surf Park did and killed the project mentioned in this paper.
https://wavepoolmag.com/urbnsurf-forced-to-find-new-location-
for-perth-wave-pool/
It was a very telling statement that Tony said he has never in
40 years had anyone read the EIR. We have identified and we
can pinpoint missing information from the Lemoore study and
sound factors being changed (like “soft” to “hard” surfaces from
one analysis to another). Given the new significant information
shared at the April 12 meeting about the Potential of Surf-wave
Park Low Frequency Noise that could affect humans and
wildlife, the Commission needs to request a recirculation of the
EIR per Section 15088.5.
2) In Mr. Gamlin’s discussion on Green House Gas emissions,
he discussed the elimination of almost 4000 metric tons a year
based on best practices of using solar and other technologies
for the project. This of course does not include the
tremendous electrical consumption of the wave mechanism,
which will require a new substation buildout. Mr. Gamlin
discussed the equivalent reduction of 850 cars off the road per
year. We would like to respectfully mention that all the STVRs
that will be at Coral Mountain would contribute at least 850
more cars per day for special events and probably 600 cars
per day, every day, based on the City of La Quinta’s STVR
maximum people capacity, for example 8 – 10 people for a 3
bedroom home. Even at 30% STVR occupancy per day, 200
STVRs will typically bring a minimum of 3 cars per day per
residence based on what is seen at PGA West.
2) Mr. Gamlin spoke about the vistas viewable from Monroe of
the area before Trilogy and Andalusia were build and that
Coral Mountain aesthetic impacts are equivalent to impacts of
Trilogy and Andalusia being built out. We would respectfully
disagree in that the vast open areas he referred to are not
equivalent to building right under Coral Mountain. You cannot
compare the aesthetics of building Trilogy and Andalusia with
the aesthetic impacts to Coral Mountain.
3) Mr. Gamlin also attempted to do a land use equivalence of
residences near La Quinta Resort and residences near Coral
Mountain. There are not seventeen 80 foot lights around a one
half mile long wave pool at the La Quinta Resort, with noise
7am – 10pm, traffic, 365 days a year, and four special events
at a minimum.
The developer tells us lights won’t be an issue. We know the
drone photos in the PDF presentation we gave were not that
clear, and we can send you the original photos if you want.
But at 70 feet, if you look closely at the photos in the
documentation we left for you, the drone clearly showed full
houses visible in Andalusia, Trilogy, Cantera and the houses
on the north side of 58, and in the distance. That means for
miles around, the glow of the light will be fully visible. To say
that the EIR took into account the closest developments of
Cantera and Lisa Castro’s house is not true. The line of sight
to Coral Mountain totally bypassed Cantera and went across
the street. Cantera is bounded by Coral Mountain Resort on
two sides and is the closest development to the Coral
Mountain itself and the surf basin. In addition, there will be
lights for the sidewalks and bike and electric vehicle access
along Coral Mountain so there will be light spillage on the
Mountain.
Lisa Castro’s property and house are right by the lights at the
other end of the surf basin. If you look at the site plans, cars
and trucks will only run on her side of the development through
to 60th. There are no through roads on the west side by Coral
Mountain. Lisa Castro is a widow who expected to make this
her forever home. She has lived in this house when it had the
original Thermal address before it was transferred to La
Quinta. Mr. Gamlin says they will be a good neighbor. The
precedent of approving this project should send chills up the
spines of all the residents. A developer comes in, builds a
private resort, not for resident use, and it does not matter that
people live steps away and are faced with constant noise,
lights, water spray, chlorine vapor, etc.
The attorney disclosed that the Wave Project must provide the
City $1.7 Million in income annually. “This is the best thing for
the City of La Quinta”. Why can’t a residential community at
Coral Mountain be the best thing for La Quinta by bringing in
permanent residents, not STVRs. As Toll Brothers did across
the street at Stone Creek, they charge a special City of La
Quinta assessment to help make up the tax difference. If you
do a residential development, which is hot right now, you could
easily get $600,000 to $800,000 annually as part of this special
assessment, which will provide real homes to real families.
And it won’t cause the tremendous GreenHouse Gas and
aesthetic issues.
5) The lawyer spoke about CVWD and its Indio Subbasin
Contingency Plan and how it takes into consideration the
Colorado River and drought and the State Water Project. Here
are the facts as presented in the Indio Subbasin Plan:
a) The lawyer said CVWD was conservative that they only
used a 45% reduction in the State Water Project allocation of
Colorado River water to CVWD. The lawyer failed to mention
that in 2020 and 2021 the allocation was dropped to 5% of
normal. And in 2022 that was dropped to 0%, that is no
Colorado River water coming to CVWD through the State
Water Project.
The lawyer also described the massive overdraft through 2009
and how that has been reversed. Yes, CVWD was able to
purchase more Colorado River Water, which brought it up to
only 45% of what it was in 2009. So in effect we still have a
long way to go to be back to full capacity. But we will not have
excess water from the Colorado River to purchase. There is
no other magic source of Water. CVWD did not take into
consideration the drought in the Indio Subbasin Plan or in the
Drought Contingency Plan. This is what they say: “California’s
Colorado River water rights are defined by the 1922 Colorado
River Compact and the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act.
CVWD’s portion of California’s rights were set by the 1931
Seven Party Agreement (USBR, 1931.3) Under the Seven
Party Agreement, CVWD receives 330,000 AF of Priority 3A
Colorado River water and has water rights as part of the
first 3.85 million AFY of Colorado River water
allocated to California. In other words, CVWD expects it
will continue to get first rights for the Colorado River
Water.
As part of the Drought Contingency Plan, this is what CVWD
has written: “Colorado River (Canal) water has been a
significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the
Coachella Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only
agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives Colorado River
water allocations. Total available Colorado River deliveries will
increase to 464,000 AF in 2045”. This statement proves that
CVWD keeps thinking it will get more and more Colorado River
water and did NOT consider drought in their plans, as alluded
to by the attorney. As far as the Drought Contingency Plan
(DCP), “implementation of the Lower Basin Drought
Contingency Plan Agreement (Lower Basin DCP; USBR, 2019)
may affect reliability of Colorado River water supply through
the year 2025. In addition to criteria set in the 2007 Interim
Guidelines, the Lower Basin DCP establishes that certain
Colorado River users in the Lower Basin, including CVWD,
make DCP contributions if specific triggers are met between
2020 and 2026. CVWD agrees to contribute between 14,000
AF and 24,500 AF if the elevation of Lake Mead drops to
between 1,045 feet and 1,030 feet before 2026”.
Again, there are no built in drought contingencies being
factored in today in the CVWD subbasin studies.
This has been happening throughout the DEIR and the EIR.
We keep seeing vague generalities, or definitions from CEQA
that go on for pages and pages that make people think studies
must be accurate versus just being “filler” information.
As you listen to the last set of presentations from the developer
and the lawyer, please remember we have been studying this
project in depth for well over a year now. If we had not, we
would probably acquiesce to the developer’s dialogue. But we
just can’t do that because we know the issues and we know
this project should not be built in the desert, with a surfing
basin as its centerpiece.
Respectfully,
Carolyn Winnor
La Quinta Resident and Secretary
La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development
!
!
!
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:35 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Drought, eviorment, utilities, security requirements, light and noise restrictions. Drought, California Water Restictins,
Rolling Power Outages. Current and forecasted growth will add increased demand on the aquifer...Colorado River
twenty percent below average lever.
Short term rentals, private or commercial, being restricted by all CV locals. Possible La Quinta Short Term Rental
restrictions on November Ballot.
Impacting thousands of current and future residents who have selected the projects surrounding area. Individuals have
chosen this most peacefull and pristine area of La Quinta.
VOTE NO on Coral Mountain Wave Project.
FORWARD as soon as possible to Members of the Planning Commission and include in the City Records for this Project.
Edward & Janis Milhausen
La Quinta, CA
92253
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:37 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Access to water is a Human Right
Tania,
Please use this one for the record. Mr. Vicari sent an original and two corrections. This is the second correction
which should be used in the record.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: TECTONIC DESIGN
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:45 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Access to water is a Human Right
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Corrected again.
On 4/20/2022 11:40 PM, TECTONIC DESIGN wrote:
> Corrected.
>
> The entire world is watching the Coachella Valley. We are in the third
> year of drought in California and if La Quinta approves this
> completely asinine and irresponsible project and then restricts or
> reduces water to the residents who live here already, it will be a
> violation of basic Human Rights.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us‐news/2022/feb/17/disney‐california‐storyliving‐community‐rancho‐mirage
>
>
> https://www.fb.org/market‐intel/first‐ever‐colorado‐river‐water‐shortage‐declaration‐spurs‐water‐cuts‐in‐th
>
>
> https://kesq.com/news/2022/04/12/cvwd‐limits‐daytime‐watering‐amid‐new‐drought‐conservation‐restrictions/
>
>
> https://www.unwater.org/water‐facts/human‐rights/
>
> Many civilizations have misused and wasted water to the point that
> their cities had to be abandoned. It is possible here and looking more
> and more likely.
2
>
‐‐
TONINO VICARI
LEED® AP ‐ NCARB
TECTONIC DESIGN LLC
1 310 706 5170
WWW.TECTONIC‐DESIGN.COM
@TECTONIC_DESIGN
Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat Philippenses 4:13
May the blessings of the Lord overtake you Deuteronomy 28.2
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:32 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Please no surf park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Terry Werdann
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:07 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Please no surf park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I moved here eleven years ago from Los Angelos . I have loved being here ,away from traffic and noise, I don’t want to
move again. This is my home that I so wanted to spend my life in. What you are voting on, does not fit our community
and does not belong here. If you research the other wave parks, they are unattractive and does not fit with the La
Quinta appeal..
Sincerely
Terry Werdann
La Quinta,CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Wednesday, April 13, 2022 5:03 PM
To:Tania Flores; Consulting Planner
Cc:Danny Castro
Subject:FW: FYI-The Surf Park EIR Did Not Factor In Last Weeks Unprecedented Federal Cutbacks On Lake
Powell And Its Effects On Lake Mead & CVWD's Future Colorado Water Allotments
Cheri Flores | Planning Manager
Design & Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. (760)777-7067
CLFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov
www.LaQuintaCA.gov
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi
<Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores
<clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: FYI-The Surf Park EIR Did Not Factor In Last Weeks Unprecedented Federal Cutbacks On Lake Powell And Its
Effects On Lake Mead & CVWD's Future Colorado Water Allotments
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
FYI-The Southwest MegaDrought is getting much worse and for the 1st time the FEDS are considering cutbacks on Lake
Powell to preserve Power Production. Lake Mead which supplies CVWD water will be severely impacted and Tier 2
Triggers which cut California water become a very real possibility as soon as 2023-2024.
The State Water Project Allocation is 5% this year and may fall even lower. This allocation also relies upon Colorado
River Water Delivered by MWD as In-lieu of SWP water.
It has never been more important to replenish the Coachella Valley Aquifer and Water Bank any and all possible water to
provide resilience for an uncertain but extremely likely dry future.
Please consider the wisdom of committing this precious and rapidly diminishing water resource to Elite Surf Parks,
Disney Lagoons and wall to wall carpeted with grass golf courses.
Thank you for considering these issues.
2
Randy Roberts
https://www.8newsnow.com/news/lake-powell-power-production-could-take-priority-over-lake-mead-water-level/
Lake Powell power production could take
priority over Lake Mead water level
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — An unprecedented proposal to keep more water in
Lake Powell to ensure power production at Glen Canyon Dam could send
the water level at Lake Mead seven to eight feet lower than initial
projections, according to an official with the Southern Nevada Water
Authority (SNWA).
The decision on whether to keep the water in Lake Powell is
expected by April 22.
If Lake Mead’s water level drops below 1,050 feet,
Tier 2 cuts would kick in for Arizona, California,
Nevada and Mexico.
https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2022/4/12/208950-interior-department-considers-emergency-cutbacks-to-
water-supplies/
APRIL 12, 2022
Interior Department
considers emergency
cutbacks to water supplies
https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2022/4/12/208950-interior-department-considers-emergency-cutbacks-to-
water-supplies/
3
Interior Department may limit Lake Powell water
releases to protect infrastructure, hydropower
production
POWERPOINTS
PLANNING
COMMISSION
APRIL 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 26, 2022
Pledge of Allegiance
1
2
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
2
Public Comment - Teleconference
Join virtually via Zoom:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82853067939
Meeting ID: 828 5306 7939
“Raise Hand” to speak
Or join via phone: (253) 215 - 8782
*9 = Raise Hand to speak when addressed
*6 = Unmute when prompted
Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
How to “Raise Hand” via Computer
3
4
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
3
How to “Raise Hand” via Smart Phone App
Public Comment
Via Teleconference
In Progress
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82853067939
Meeting ID: 828 5306 7939
Telephone: (253) 215-8782
“Raise Hand” to request to speak
Limit Comments to 3 minutes
*9 = Raise Hand; *6 = Unmute
5
6
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
4
Planning Commission
April 26, 2022
PH1 –Coral Mountain Resort Project
Continued Hearing
Background
•The Planning Commission originally heard
this item on March 22, 2022, and again
on April 12, 2022.
•The Commission continued the item to
today’s meeting to assure that all
Commissioners could participate in the
discussion.
7
8
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
5
Background
•There are 7 applications associated with
this item.
•The applications are hierarchical in nature.
•The Commission must determine if the
findings for approval for each application
can be made.
Recommendation
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council certify the Coral Mountain Resort EIR (SCH
#2021020310) and direct staff to prepare CEQA
Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for City Council consideration.
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve SP2019-0003, GPA2019-0002,
ZC2019-0004, SP2020-0002, TTM2019-0005,
DA2021-0002 and SDP2021-0001 subject to the
Findings and Conditions of Approval.
9
10
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
6
Background
•Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission hear public testimony, close the
public hearing, and begin deliberations.
–Staff further recommends that the
Commission consider the applications in
their hierarchical order, and that each
application be introduced by a short staff
presentation.
Specific Plan Amendment
•To recommend the removal of the westerly
386 acres from the existing Andalusia
Specific Plan (SP 2019-0003, Amendment
V to Specific Plan 2003-067).
11
12
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
7
Specific Plan Amendment
•Remove 386 acres from the
929-acre Andalusia Specific
Plan.
•No change to the
development potential of
Andalusia.
•West side of Madison Street,
if removed from the Specific
Plan, subject to six
applications including new
Specific Plan.
General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
•To recommend approval of the General
Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002) and
Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), amending
the land use and zoning designations on
386 acres.
13
14
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
8
General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Land Uses
General Plan/Zoning Exist.
Acres
Proposed
Acres
General Commercial/
Neighborhood
Commercial
8.4 7.7
Low Density
Residential/
Low Density
Residential
204.2 232.3
Open Space
Recreation/
Golf Course
171.9 0
Open Space
Recreation/
Parks & Recreation
0 23.6
Tourist Commercial/
Tourist Commercial
0 120.8
Specific Plan
•To recommend approval, subject to
Conditions of Approval, of the Coral
Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020-
0002).
15
16
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
9
Specific Plan
•Establishes Development Standards and
Guidelines for 386 acres.
•Divides the site into 4 planning areas:
•PA-I: Neighborhood Commercial
•PA-II: 496 low density units: single
family, clustered units, condos or
townhomes
•PA-III: Tourist Commercial, including
Hotel, Resort Residential, Wave Basin,
Resort Commercial and back of house
•PA-IV: Open Space including passive
and active recreation, trail
Specific Plan
•Up to 600 residential
units
•Up to 150 hotel rooms
•Up to 60,000 SF of
Neighborhood
Commercial uses
•Up to 57,000 SF of
Resort Commercial uses
•A 16.6-acre artificial
Wave Basin
•26.5 acre “back of
house” area south of
Wave Basin and hotel
for temporary
structures and parking
•24 acres of Open Space
17
18
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
10
Specific Plan
•Contemporary design
aesthetic.
•Establishes allowance
for 4 special events per
year, with up to 2,500
attendees (in addition
to residents and hotel
guests) with Temporary
Use Permit
requirement.
Specific Plan
•Hierarchy of landscaping
styles, from native to more
manicured desert style.
19
20
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
11
Tentative Tract Map
•To recommend approval, subject to
Conditions of Approval, of the Tentative
Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005).
Tentative Tract Map
•Subdivides entire 386 acres
–Neighborhood Commercial
–26 Single Family lots
–104 Resort Residential lots
–Lots for Hotel, Wave Basin
–Backbone streets
•Future subdivision for Resort
Commercial, Single Family
Residential, back of house
area
21
22
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
12
Development Agreement
•To recommend approval of the
Development Agreement (DA 2021-0002).
Development Agreement
A contract between the applicant and the City that:
•Guarantees the implementation of mitigation measures
and Conditions of Approval.
•Allows STVRs for all residential units.
•Establishes mitigation fees to cover costs of providing
services to the project, tied to transient occupancy tax
revenue.
•Obligates applicant to repurpose Wave Basin if the use is
abandoned.
23
24
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
13
Site Development Permit
•To recommend approval, subject to
Conditions of Approval, of the Site
Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001)
for the Wave Basin.
Site Development Permit
•Addresses the site design, architecture and
landscaping for the Wave Basin area.
25
26
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
14
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
27
28
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
15
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
29
30
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
16
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
31
32
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
17
Environmental Impact Report
•To recommend certification of the EIR, and
direct staff to prepare CEQA Findings and
a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Environmental Impact Report
•Draft EIR was available for public comments for 45
days.
•Received just under 100 comment letters.
•Completed Response to Comments/Final EIR.
–Comments addressed multiple issue areas and were all
addressed.
–Concerns by CDFW resulted in addition of a Bighorn Sheep fence,
landscaping restrictions added to Specific Plan.
–No change in the overall severity of impacts identified.
33
34
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
18
Environmental Issues
Aesthetics, Light and Glare
•Project will block views of Coral Mountain.
•Project proposes 80-foot light poles around the wave
pool. The lighting analysis shows that the light levels will
be contained on the site.
Environmental Issues
Cultural Resources & Tribal Resources
•Multiple archaeological and historic sites identified on
and immediately adjacent to the property.
•Extensive mitigation program required prior to any
ground disturbing activity to protect resources in situ,
conduct extensive testing, and prepare National Register
of Historic Places applications.
35
36
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
19
Environmental Issues
Noise
•Project noise impacts are less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
•Operational noise levels meet General Plan standards for
surrounding communities, due to distance.
•Mitigation measures: construction, wave pool hours 7
AM to 10 PM, wall on north and east boundary.
Environmental Issues
•Project will be required to install
traffic signals at Madison/Avenue 58
and Madison/Main Entry at build out.
•Additional improvements required at 9
other intersections, fair share/DIF.
•For special events, all improvements
must be in place or traffic analysis
provided with TUP, traffic
management required.
Traffic
•Analysis conducted for phased build out.
•Project generates 6,994 trips at buildout, 8,932 trips during special events.
Improvement Location Timing
Traffic signal Madison and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Traffic signal Jefferson and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Roundabout
striping/2
lanes
Jefferson and Avenue 52 Phase 1
Add 1 west-
bound through
lane
Jefferson and Avenue 50 Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 60 Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 58 Phase 2
Traffic signal Monroe and Airport Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 52 Phase 1
37
38
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
20
Environmental Issues
Water Resources
•A Water Supply Assessment was prepared and approved
by CVWD.
•Water demand of the project will be 958.63 acre-feet
per year.
•CVWD has sufficient water supplies to serve the project
during normal, single dry and multiple dry years from
multiple water sources, including groundwater and
supplemental allocations.
Environmental Issues
All impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels
except:
•Aesthetics - Impacts to views of Coral Mountain
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•These impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Under CEQA, the City Council must determine whether
the benefits of the project outweigh its significant
impacts.
39
40
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
21
Overriding Considerations
•CEQA allows a Lead Agency to consider whether the
benefits of a project outweigh the significant impacts
that the project will create.
•The Lead Agency must determine what specific benefits
apply to the project:
“Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
EIR.”
Recommendation
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council
certify the Coral Mountain Resort EIR (SCH
#2021020310) and direct staff to prepare CEQA
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for City Council consideration.
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council
approve SP2019-0003, GPA2019-0002, ZC2019-0004,
SP2020-0002, TTM2019-0005, DA2021-0002 and
SDP2021-0001 subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval.
41
42
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
22
Construction Schedule
Table 1
Development Agreement Performance Schedule Summary
Project Component Years
Wave Basin and some resort residential and hotel
development (quantities undefined)
3-5
Completion of hotel and balance of resort residential
(quantities undefined)
5-10
8,000± SF of Neighborhood Commercial 3-6
220 single family units in Planning Area 2 8-15
11,000± SF Neighborhood Commercial 9-12
250 single family units in Planning Area 2 (balance
of single family units)
15-22
41,000± SF Neighborhood Commercial 20-23
43
44
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
23
Wave Basin Reuse
•Added language in Development Agreement:
–The applicant would be required, contractually, to dismantle and remove the wave making machinery and would either:
(i) continue to operate the basin itself as a recreational lake amenity, or
(ii) seek City approval for an alternative use.
Lighting
45
46
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
24
Lighting
Lighting
47
48
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
25
Lighting
Vacation Rentals
Table 2
Summary of Revenues and Costs
Revenues:Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Total Annual Revenues
at Phase Buildout $1,754,758 $1,895,137 $2,130,995 $2,078,195
Costs:
Total Annual Costs at
Phase Build Out $594,437 $594,434 $1,592,234 $1,592,234
Annual Cash Flow at
Phase Build Out $1,160,321 $1,300,703 $538,761 $485,961
Annual Cash Flow with
No Transient
Occupancy Tax
Revenue -$273,034 -$132,652 -$894,594 -$947,394
49
50
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
26
DRD Park and Trail
Background
•Andalusia Specific Plan approved by
County, annexed by City 20 years ago.
•Project includes 929 acres.
•Project includes seven applications to
result in a Master Planned Resort
Community on 386 acres.
51
52
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
27
Background
Project Components
•Specific Plan Amendment
–Remove 386 acres from the Andalusia Specific Plan.
•General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
–386 acres west of Madison.
–Change from General Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial,
Low Density Residential and Open Space – Golf to General
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density
Residential, Tourist Commercial and Open Space – Parks and
Recreation.
53
54
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
28
Project Components
•Specific Plan, including development standards and
guidelines to allow:
–Up to 600 Residential Units
–Up to 150 Hotel Rooms
–Up to 60,000 SF of Neighborhood Commercial uses
–Up to 57,000 SF of Resort Commercial uses
–A 16,6-acre artificial Wave Basin
–26.5 acre “back of house” area south of Wave Basin and Hotel
for temporary structures and parking
–24 acres of Open Space
Project Components
•Tentative Tract Map
–Subdivide 386 acres, including parcels for Wave Basin, Hotel,
Resort Residential, Single-Family.
•Development Agreement
–Provide assurances to developer, and fee structure for City to
recoup costs.
•Site Development Permit
–30.1 acres, including the Wave Basin and surrounding land,
maintenance buildings and wave-making equipment.
55
56
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
29
Specific Plan Amendment
•Remove 386 acres from
the 929-acre Andalusia
Specific Plan.
•No change to the
development potential of
Andalusia.
•West side of Madison
Street, if removed from the
Specific Plan, subject to
seven applications
including new Specific Plan.
General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Land Uses
General Plan/Zoning Exist.
Acres
Proposed
Acres
General Commercial/
Neighborhood
Commercial
8.4 7.7
Low Density
Residential/
Low Density
Residential
204.2 232.3
Open Space
Recreation/
Golf Course
171.9 0
Open Space
Recreation/
Parks & Recreation
0 23.6
Tourist Commercial/
Tourist Commercial
0 120.8
57
58
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
30
Specific Plan
•Establishes Development Standards and
Guidelines for 386 acres.
•Divides the site into 4 planning areas:
•PA-I: Neighborhood Commercial
•PA-II: 496 low density units: single
family, clustered units, condos or
townhomes
•PA-III: Tourist Commercial,
including hotel, Resort Residential,
Wave Basin, Resort Commercial and
back of house
•PA-IV: Open Space including
passive and active recreation, trail
Specific Plan
•Development to be phased:
•Current SDP for Wave Basin
•SDPs for resort residential in
PA-III and part of PA-I
submitted and under review
•Future SDPs for hotel,
residential units
•Provides for on-site and perimeter
roadway improvements.
59
60
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
31
Specific Plan
•Contemporary design
aesthetic.
•Establishes allowance
for 4 special events per
year, with up to 2,500
attendees (in addition
to residents and hotel
guests) with Temporary
Use Permit requirement.
Specific Plan
•Hierarchy of landscaping styles,
from native to more manicured
desert style.
61
62
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
32
Tentative Tract Map
•Subdivides entire 386 acres
–Neighborhood Commercial
–26 Single-Family lots
–104 Resort Residential lots
–Lots for Hotel, Wave Basin
–Backbone streets
•Future subdivision for Resort
Commercial, single family
residential, back of house
area
Site Development Permit
•Addresses the site design, architecture and
landscaping for the Wave Basin area.
63
64
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
33
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
65
66
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
34
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
67
68
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
35
Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit
69
70
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
36
Environmental Impact Report
•Draft EIR was available for public comments for 45
days.
•Received just under 100 comment letters.
•Completed Response to Comments/Final EIR.
–Comments addressed multiple issue areas, and were all
addressed.
–Concerns by CDFW resulted in addition of a Bighorn Sheep fence,
landscaping restrictions added to Specific Plan.
–No change in the overall severity of impacts identified.
Environmental Issues
Aesthetics, Light and Glare
•Project will block views of Coral Mountain
•Project proposes 80 foot light poles around the wave
pool. The lighting analysis shows that the light levels will
be contained on the site.
71
72
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
37
Environmental Issues
Cultural Resources & Tribal Resources
•Multiple archaeological and historic sites identified on
and immediately adjacent to the property.
•Extensive mitigation program required prior to any
ground disturbing activity to protect resources in situ,
conduct extensive testing, and prepare National Register
of Historic Places applications.
Environmental Issues
Noise
•Project noise impacts are less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
•Operational noise levels meet General Plan standards for
surrounding communities, due to distance.
•Mitigation measures: construction, wave pool hours 7
AM to 10 PM, wall on north and east boundary.
73
74
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
38
Environmental Issues
•Project will be required to install
traffic signals at Madison & Avenue 58
and Madison and Main Entry at build
out.
•Additional improvements required at 9
other intersections, fair share/DIF.
•For special events, all improvements
must be in place or traffic analysis
provided with TUP, traffic
management required.
Traffic
•Analysis conducted for phased build out.
•Project generates 6,994 trips at buildout, 8,932 trips during special events.
Improvement Location Timing
Traffic signal Madison and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Traffic signal Jefferson and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Roundabout
striping/2
lanes
Jefferson and Avenue 52 Phase 1
Add 1 west-
bound through
lane
Jefferson and Avenue 50 Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 60 Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 58 Phase 2
Traffic signal Monroe and Airport Buildout
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 54 Phase 1
Traffic signal Monroe and Avenue 52 Phase 1
Environmental Issues
Water Resources
•A Water Supply Assessment was prepared and approved
by CVWD.
•Water demand of the project will be 958.63 acre-feet
per year.
•CVWD has sufficient water supplies to serve the project
during normal, single dry and multiple dry years from
multiple water sources, including groundwater and
supplemental allocations.
75
76
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
39
Environmental Issues
All impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels
except:
•Aesthetics - Impacts to views of Coral Mountain
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•These impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Under CEQA, the City Council must determine whether
the benefits of the project outweigh its significant
impacts.
Recommendation
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council certify the Coral Mountain Resort EIR (SCH
#2021020310) and direct staff to prepare CEQA
Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for City Council consideration.
•Adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve SP2019-0003, GPA2019-0002,
ZC2019-0004, SP2020-0002, TTM2019-0005,
DA2021-0002 and SDP2021-0001 subject to the
Findings and Conditions of Approval.
77
78
Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2022
40
Visual Simulations
From Avenue 58 at Lion’s Gate
Visual Simulations
From Madison Street at Andalusia
79
80
HANDOUTS
PLANNING
COMMISSION
APRIL 26, 2022
12642-16 Noise Memo
April 26, 2022
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: THE WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LQRRD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Garrett Simon:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this summary of the La Quinta Residents for Responsible
Development (LQRRD) response to the comments related to noise.
1.The comment was made that when you double the distance from a noise source, you drop 6
decibels of sound. I would certainly like to reference this weekend’s Coachella Fest. If sound truly
drops off like this, why do we hear the music from Coachella all over town.
Section 2.3 of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis (NIA) describes the sound
propagation, or the way noise reduces with distances. As discussed in the NIA, the way noise
reduces with distance depends on type of noise source (stationary point source, or line source),
the ground absorption, atmospheric effects and shielding. For noise analysis purposes, sound
levels are commonly assumed to attenuate (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of
distance from a point source and at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.
The noise levels associated with the Coachella Fest are vastly different in both frequency content
and source levels than those expected with the wave basin/wave machine activity for the
proposed The Wave at Coral Mountain Project.
It is also important to recognize that NIA demonstrates that the operational noise levels
associated with The Wave at Coral Mountain Project will satisfy the City of La Quinta daytime
exterior noise level standards with no planned nighttime operational noise source ac tivity. This
does not suggest that the wave basin/wave machine activity will be inaudible at times, only that
the Project will not result in significant noise level increase above the existing ambient noise
conditions.
2.The effect of the starting of the machinery to generate the wave on Coral Mountain was not
studied. Also, with the bi-directional nature of the wave, no impact of wave noise going back
against Coral Mountain was even considered. And the sound is generated for up to a ½ mile. It is
not a “point” sound, but a “line” sound.
This statement is factually incorrect. As described in Section 10.1.1 of the NIA, Urban Crossroads,
Inc. collected reference noise level measurements at eight different locations around the Surf
Ranch. The reference noise levels describe the peak noise events associated with all the noise
source activities including, wave announcements over the public address system, move of the
wave sled through the lagoon, mechanical equipment buildings, in addition to cable and metal
PLANNING COMMISSTION MEETING - APRIL 26, 2022 - HANDOUT BY APPLICANT
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 - CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
April 26, 2022
Page 2 of 3
12642-16 Noise Memo
rollers. However, based on our observations, the primary noise source is simply the movement
of water from each wave in the lagoon. The noise analysis describes the wave basin/wave
machine activity as an area source and not as a single line or point source. The area source type
is used to ensure that noise source from the entire wave basin/wave machine is included in the
analysis. These actual noise readings were then used to evaluate projected noise levels at the
Coral Mountain project site using a 3-dimensional noise prediction model that considers changes
in topography, walls and other features that affect noise transmission.
Coral Mountain and the desert land between the wave basin and Coral Mountain are considered
a soft surface that will likely absorb rather than reflect noise back towards sensitive receiver
locations. The direct line of sight between the noise source and the receiver is the primary path
of sound transmission that was considered in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Noise Impact
Analysis. Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and
buildings does not substantially increase noise levels (1). If all the noise striking a structure was
reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA.
Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected back to same point. Some of the energy would
go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is
scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening
structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected
energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to
quantify reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1 -2 dBA;
an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear.
3. The other thing we would like to respectfully request for the Commissioners to review is the
document we included in your packet “Surf Wave Parks – Assessing the Sound of Fun”. Airborne
generation of noise from breaking waves has been shown to be complex, containing tonal,
modulating and broadband components, which are all additive when assessing noise dose. These
sounds are the Low Frequency Sounds we discussed in our presentation that travel long distances
and need to be evaluated when placed in environmentally sensitive areas. With the way the surf
basin is situated, and that there would be 50 hertz frequencies in the “C” range generated by the
surf.
This memo supports our findings that the primary noise source is simply the movement of water
from each wave in the lagoon. In addition, the City of La Quinta has adopted the A-weighted
frequency response to control community noise impacts. A-weighted decibels (dBA)
approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by
discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are
adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Although the A-
Weighted response is used for most applications, C-Weighting is usually used for Peak
measurements and in some entertainment noise measurement, where the transmission of bass
noise can be a problem.
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
April 26, 2022
Page 3 of 3
12642-16 Noise Memo
A review of the unweighted (Z) spectral content of the reference noise level measurements
shows a level of 54.0 dB at 50 hz with most of the noise content in the range of 500 to 1000 hz
of 63.9 dB. The unweighted (Z) frequency content of the reference noise level measurements
does not support the use of the C-Weighting.
4. Until further evidence of noise generated from such parks is available, control of such noise will
be difficult to evaluate, and authorities should demonstrate caution when assessing such
proposals placed in noise sensitive areas.
The evidence shows that wave basin/wave machine will satisfy the City of La Quinta daytime
exterior noise level standards. In addition, the NIA demonstrates that the Project will contribute
a less than significant operational noise level increase to the existing daytime ambient noise
environment at all existing off-site receiver locations.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
LOS ANGELES
706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 335-3434
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(805) 367-5720
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 25, 2022
To: Nicole Criste, Contract Planner, City of La Quinta
From: Tony Locacciato, AICP, Partner
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report Noise Analysis
This memo provides information in response to questions from community members on how the noise that would
be generated by the wave basin in the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project compares to noise generated by
the ongoing Coachella and Stagecoach Music Festivals, held annually over three consecutive weeks in April at the
Empire Polo Club in Indio, approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Coral Mountain Project site. The Empire Polo
Club is located between Avenues 50 and 52 and east of Madison Street.
The City of Indio prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Music Festivals Plan Project, certified in
2013, to support the issuance of a long-term permit for these music festival events. This EIR includes analysis of
the sound systems used at these outdoor music festivals and the level of noise experienced by the surrounding
community.
The most notable noise source associated with these events is from the sound systems for each of the multiple
concert stages. Noise monitoring of the 2012 Music Festivals was conducted and noise modeling was prepared
based on configuration of the speakers used at each stage. This analysis determined the primary source of noise
was from the main stage and for this reason, computer modeling of the sound system was completed that served
as the basis for the noise analysis in the EIR. The sound system for the large outdoor main stage consists of a series
of hanging loudspeaker arrays on either side of the stage along with loudspeakers mounted on the stage deck,
and delay loudspeaker arrays set up in front of the stages. This sound system is designed and operated to produce
a sound level of 105 dBA at the front of house (FOH) equipment area where music is mixed for the audience. The
FOH is located approximately 150 feet from the front of the main outdoor stage.
Attached are two figures from the Music Festivals Plan EIR that show the sound levels from the modeling for the
Coachella and Stagecoach Music Festivals. The festival grounds are configured differently for the Coachella Music
and Arts and Stagecoach Country Music Festivals with the main stage located along Avenue 50 and oriented to
the south for the Coachella Festival and along Monroe Street and oriented to the west for the Stagecoach Festival.
As shown in these figures, sound levels of 69 dBA and above are largely contained on the festival site, located
between Madison Street, Avenue 50, Monroe Street, and Avenue 52. Noise levels above 50 dBA are experienced
Page 2
Coral Mountain Resort EIR Noise Analysis
east of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 54. The City of Indio conducts noise monitoring during these events
at 6 locations around the edge of the festival site during these events. The maximum 10-minute average noise
level along Madison Avenue between Avenues 50 and 52 during the first weekend of the Coachella Music Festival
this year was approximately 75 dBA.
The noise sources and levels generated by the sound system at the main stage at these festivals are not
comparable to the noise sources and levels associated with proposed wave basin, as documented in the Coral
Mountain Resort Final EIR. As described above, the outdoor sound system at the main stage generates a sound
from the large speaker arrays hung above the stage of approximately 105 dBA at a distance of 150 feet from the
stage. Depending on local atmospheric conditions, including air temperature and wind, sound from the festival
sound system may be heard miles away from the festival site.
Noise monitoring was conducted at the Surf Ranch in Lemoore, California in April 2020 and August 2021, as
presented in Appendix K.3 to the Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR to determine the level of noise generated by
this wave basin. The highest measured noise level from the cable roller system that pulls the foil that generates
the wave, and movement of water in the basin, was 75.7 dBA Leq at a distance of 12 feet from the wave basin,
which equates to a noise level of 63.3 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
To understand how sound levels reduce over distance, as explained in Chapter 5 of the Noise of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration Technical Manual, as a principle of physics, sound pressure levels decrease by 6
dB, on a Z-weighted (i.e., unweighted) scale, each time the distance from the point source is doubled. This is a
common way of expressing the inverse-square law in acoustics as shown below:
For example, as shown above, if a point source produces a sound pressure level of 90 dB at a distance of 1 meter,
the sound pressure level is 84 dB at 2 meters, 78 dB at 4 meters, and so forth. This principle holds true regardless
of the units used to measure distance.
The noise analysis of the proposed wave basin in the Coral Mountain Resort EIR was prepared using a 3-
dimensional noise model that takes into account changes in topography, walls and other features that will affect
Page 2
Coral Mountain Resort EIR Noise Analysis
noise transmission. This analysis determined the highest level of noise level from the wave basin, approximately
51 dBA, would be at the home located approximately .2 miles east of the wave basin on Calle Conchita.
Exhibit A, attached, presents a comparison of the noise levels generated by the Indio Music Festivals sound system
and the proposed wave basin by distance based on the inverse-square law in acoustics.
For comparison purposes, the noise level generated by the sound system at the main stage at the Indio Music
Festivals of 105 dBA at a distance of 150 feet would be approximately 63 dBA at a distance of 3.6 miles, 57 dBA at
a distance of 7.3 miles, and 51 dBA at a distance of 14.5 miles from the festival site. As described above, the
festival site is located approximately 4.5 mile from the Coral Mountain Resort Project Site. Sound levels from the
sound system at the festival would be between 57 and 63 dBA at the Coral Mountain Resort Project Site and in
surrounding areas of La Quinta. As shown in the comparison in Exhibit A, the sounds levels from the proposed
wave basin would be lower in the area surrounding the Coral Mountain Resort Project Site, with the noise from
the basin being reduced to less than 40 dBA at a distance of 800 feet from the wave basin.
In conclusion, the level of noise generated by the wave basin is not comparable to the noise generated by the
sound system at the music festivals in Indio. The type of sound generated by the wave basin does not include the
broad frequency of sound generated by the music festival sound system, would be generated at ground level, as
opposed to being generated above ground level, and would generates a much lower sound level than the sound
system used at the music festivals.
Ave 49
Constitution DrLundberg LnJackson StMonroe StMadison St54th Ave
52nd Ave
Ave 51
50th Ave
Jefferson StAve 48
Coachella CanalAve 53Hjorth StClinton StPolo Rd
Ave 48/
Desert Grove Dr
Ave 48/
Desert Grove Dr
Ave 50/
Jefferson St
Ave 50/
Jefferson St
Ave 54/
Merv Griffin Way
Ave 54/
Merv Griffin Way
Ave 50/
Jackson St
Ave 50/
Jackson St
Existing Festivals – 2012 Coachella Sound Levels
FIGURE 4.4-8SOURCE: L-Acoustics - 2012; Google Earth – 2012
002-001-12
N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
400020000 1000
Festival Site
Legend
Sound Levels - dbA
(by color)
Red
Light Orange
Yellow
Dark Green
Areas not inFestival Site
>99 dbA
>87 dbA
>81 dbA
>69 dbA
>50 dbA
Ave 49
Constitution DrLundberg LnJackson StMonroe StMadison St54th Ave
52nd Ave
Ave 51
50th Ave
Jefferson StAve 48
Coachella CanalAve 53Hjorth StClinton StPolo Rd
Ave 48/
Desert Grove Dr
Ave 48/
Desert Grove Dr
Ave 50/
Jefferson St
Ave 50/
Jefferson St
Ave 54/
Merv Griffin Way
Ave 54/
Merv Griffin Way
Ave 50/
Jackson St
Ave 50/
Jackson St
Existing Festivals – 2012 Stagecoach Sound Levels
FIGURE 4.4-9SOURCE: L-Acoustics - 2012; Google Earth – 2012
002-001-12
N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
400020000 1000
Festival Site
Legend
Sound Levels - dbA
(by color)
Red
Light Orange
Yellow
Dark Green
Areas not inFestival Site
>99 dbA
>87 dbA
>81 dbA
>69 dbA
>50 dbA
EXHIBIT A – INDIO MUSIC FESTIVAL AND WAVE BASIN SOUND LEVELS BY DISTANCE
INDIO MUSIC FESTIVAL SOUND LEVELS
dBA Noise Level Distance in Feet Distance in Miles
105 150 0.0
99 300 0.1
93 600 0.1
87 1,200 0.2
81 2,400 0.5
75 4,800 0.9
69 9,600 1.8
63 19,200 3.6
57 38,400 7.3
51 76,800 14.5
45 153,600 29.1
WAVE BASIN SOUND LEVELS
dBA Noise Level Distance in Feet Distance in Miles
63.3 50 0.0
57.3 100 0.0
51.3 200 0.0
45.3 400 0.1
39.3 800 0.2
33.3 1,600 0.3
27.3 3200 0.6
21.3 6,400 1.2
15.3 12,800 2.4
9.3 25,600 4.8
3.3 51,200 9.7
PLANNING COMMISSTION MEETING - APRIL 26, 2022 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT KAREN THOMAS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 - CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
PRESENTATIONS
PLANNING
COMMISSION
APRIL 26, 2022
PH1 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
WATER RESILIENCY IN
A TIME OF CLIMATE
CHANGE
Climate Change
BRIAN F THOMAS, RESEARCH SCIENTIST
JAY FAMIGLIETTI, SR. WATER SCIENTIST JPL
W ATER RESOURCES MGMT
THE SCENARIO OF CONTINUED UNSUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER USE
IN A REGION THAT RELIES HEAVILY ON GROUNDWATER RESOURCES TO
MEET WATER DEMANDS HAS IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
REGION,ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY IN FUTURE CLIMATE
CHANGES AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF INCREASED DROUGHTS …AND THE
UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE ALLOCATIONS FROM THE COLORADO RIVER .
Climate Change
RUTH LANGRIDGE, SENIOR RESEARCHER AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
WATER LAW AND POLICY.
YOU CAN FALLOW AN AGRICULTURAL AREA,BUT YOU
CAN’T FALLOW A CITY ONCE YOU BUILD IT
+8 -14 F
INCREASE IN AVERAGE DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES
PROJECTED BY THE END OF CENTURY.
Your
Challenge
WORKING TOGETHER FOR
THE FUTURE OF LA QUINTA
BUILD AND MAINTAIN A
CLIMATE RESILIENT
COMMUNITY
WHERE PEOPLE AND THE
NATIVE PLANTS AND
ANIMALS CAN THRIVE
WORKING TOGETHER
TO BUILD A RESILIENT
COMMUNITY
Prepared by:
“WEATHER IS A RESOURCE THAT DRAWS IN
MONEY JUST LIKE OTHER RESOURCES DO .
IF THAT GETS REDISTRIBUTED IT COULD
HAVE SEVERE IMPACTS ON PEOPLES’LIVES
BOTH PHYSICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY ”
-Cindy C. Yañez, UC Riverside
Source: Cindy C. Yañez et al. Projected impacts of native weather change on tourism in
the Coachella Valley, California, Climatic Swap (2020). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02843-x
Photo: Sendy Hernádez Orellana Barrows
"CLIMATE CHANGE WILL
DECIMATE PALM SPRINGS
COACHELLA VALLEY TOURISM"
-Cindy C. Yañez,
UC Riverside
Source: Cindy C. Yañez et al. Projected impacts of native weather change on tourism in
the Coachella Valley, California, Climatic Swap (2020). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02843-x
Photo: Sendy Hernádez Orellana Barrows
"ALL OF OUR POOLS
ARE COOLED OR
HEATED,
DEPENDING ON
THE TIME OF YEAR"-
gh
y
-Lisa Luna ,
Director of Marketing
Hyatt Regency
Source: Visit Greater Palm Springs Magazine
"AT ITS PEAK, THE SALTON SEA WAS
DRAWING 1.5 MILLION VISITORS
ANNUALLY, MORE THAN YOSEMITE"
-Chris Iovenko,
The Atlantic
Source: www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/the -airborne-toxic-lake-event/414888/ | Photo: Salton Sea History Museum
"CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE
T AK ES $ 1.2 -BILLION HIT
DURING DROUGHT, LOSING
8,700 FARM JOBS"
-Ian Jam es, LA Tim es,
based on research by Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ph.D., et al. UC Merced
Source: Medellín-Azuara, J., Escriva -Bou, A., Abatzoglou, J.A., Viers, J.H, Cole, S.A., RodríguezFlores, J.M., and
Sumner, D.A. (2022). Economic Impacts of the 2021 Drought on California Agriculture. Preliminary Report.
University of California, Merced | Available at http://drought.ucmerced.edu. | The LA Times
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-25/california -agriculture-takes -1 -2 -billion -hit -during-drought
Photo: Sendy Hernádez Orellana Barrows
CACTUSTOCLOUD INSTITUTE HAS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED VERBAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
OPPOSING THIS UNSUSTAINABLE PROPOSED
PROJECT SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2021.WE ASK
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSIDER THEM
BEFORE MAKING A DECISION AND SHARE OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.
Colorado River Updates
Eve Castles
La Quinta
1
The top 10 most endangered rivers in America –
CNN Mon April 18, 2022 Rachel Ramirez
The Colorado River —which provides drinking water, irrigation and electricity for
more than 40 million people in the West —is the most endangered river in the
United States this year, according to the nonprofit conservation group American
Rivers.
The Colorado River’s outdated water management practices have been worsened
by climate change, pushing the river into the No. 1 slot.
“…the Colorado River system is already operating at a deficit…”
2
The climate crisis has pushed the Colorado River’s Lake Mead and Lake Powell —
the largest and second-largest reservoirs in the country —to unprecedented
lows.
“This is not the same river it was two years ago, three years ago or five years ago.
We need to learn to live with the river that we have, and we need to implement
solutions to allow us to do so.”
“If the river crashes, it’s a massive economy that’s at stake not only in the
Southwest, for cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Denver, it’s a
national economic crisis. This is a national story.”
The top 10 most endangered rivers in America
(cont.)
3
CVWD Board President John Powell Jr. Statement
on April 12 during public hearing on residential
water restrictions
•We have been good stewards of our water and that is why we have enough water for new developments and surf parks and lagoons
•Board Member Anthony Bianco said that is was hard for him to look someone in the eye and tell them to
conserve residential water when CVWD is saying there is enough water for these surfing parks with new developments
4
Hot off the Presses -Brand new CVWD Program -
Colorado River Water Conservation Program on
the CVWD web site
•The Colorado River Basin has been in historic drought
conditions since the early 2000s. Currently, the
combined storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are
at their lowest levels (below 35%) since Lake Powell
initially began filling in the 1960s. CVWD has been
actively discussing with other Basin States to help
mitigate the impacts of the historical dry conditions.
5
Brand new CVWD Program -Colorado River Water
Conservation Program on the CVWD web site
(cont )
•As a first step, CVWD is soliciting interest for a
voluntary, temporary, and compensated water
conservation program for canal water users that can
demonstrate a reduction in Colorado River water use
for 2022 -23. Participants will be incentivized $200/af
(net) based on savings against their historical water
use over the most recent 5-year period.
6
Is there a realization from CVWD finally that the
situation is dire and something must be done?
7
Where our water comes from –from CVWD
website
8
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) relies on four sources of water to
provide service to its customers: groundwater, recycled water,imported water
from the State Water Project and the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal, a
branch of the All-American Canal.
The Coachella Valley is home to more than 120 golf courses. Unfortunately, the
amount of wastewater that is recycled can’t meet the year-round irrigation needs
of the courses. To increase the available nonpotable water supply for golf courses
to reduce their demand on the aquifer, CVWD in 2009 completed the Mid-Valley
Pipeline Project to bring Colorado River water to the Water District’s largest
wastewater reclamation plant in Palm Desert.
Currently, 17.5 golf courses within CVWD boundaries use this nonpotable blend
of recycled water and Colorado River water for irrigation. An additional 36 golf
courses use all Colorado River water imported from the Coachella Canal. Plans
are underway for an additional 40.5 golf courses to switch from groundwater to
these nonpotable supplies in the future.
No matter how it is used, it is the Colorado
River Water
•Whether it is pumped from a well, or taken directly from the Coachella Canal and then treated so it is potable, it is still Colorado River Water
•We have no other water source. The Colorado River is used for our agriculture, is used for our golf courses, and is used for our precious drinking water.
•We are at a crisis point with the Colorado River you can no longer ignore.
9
Water Editorials
Debbie Huber
La Quinta
1
Residents won't take conservation seriously while
cities approve water playgrounds –Desert Sun
Editorial Board –April 16
•Californians have been told to be careful when watering lawns,or
take out lawns altogether,to turn off the faucet while brushing our
teeth and to take shorter showers.
•Now new mandates for residential conservation are out
•Cynicism is warranted when average desert residents get such
conservation nudging while developers plan four wave pools for
surfers and,at a Disney-backed Rancho Mirage resort,a beach park
and 24-acre lagoon.
•Does the Coachella Valley need to be a tropical paradise?
2
•Why do people need to go surfing in the desert when the
Pacific Ocean is a mere hours away?
•Elected officials must change their approach to considering
new developments.
•New developments are necessary,especially given the
state’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.
•City councils should reject any applications for new surf
parks,lagoons and golf courses,and should reverse
approval of any that have not been built.
3
The valley's looming water problem –April 24
Desert Sun Editorial
The water agencies preach conservation while city councils
approve more massive wastes of potable water, all for more
tax revenue and prestige.
The aquifer accumulated over thousands of years, and for
years the valley has pumped from it as if it’s a limitless
resource.It isn't. The Colorado River, which helps replenish the
aquifer, is diminishing with no prospect of improving.
Eventually, this valley will have a water problem.
Everything in our lush green valley would die within a few
months without irrigation. Then watch real estate values,
development and tourism evaporate.
Richard S. Kohagen 4
Surfing is for the ocean, not the desert
What happens when you take more water out of your aquifer then is
going in? The ground level sinks (subsides), as it has in some places as
much as two feet. Yes, we have lots of water in our aquifer, but if city
planners and council members don't make wise and prudent decisions
about our water priorities, we won't have a valley to live in.The water
districts have been challenged to the max keeping clean and ample water
available for our communities. When the aquifer is over drafted, wells
have to be dug deeper to hit the water. Our guests (vacationers), who
support greatly and contribute to our economy, can’t be expect to think
about water conservation when they are paying $300 plus a night. I'm a
surfer, I'm a real estate broker and I'm all for surfing and affordable
housing. Let's use the ocean for surfing, our lakes for boating and
fishing, and our desert for future generations to enjoy.
Kerry Berman
5
You must vote no on Coral Mountain Surf Resort
•Let’s do a beautiful residential-only development and charge a special
“La Quinta Assessment”like Toll Brothers did at Stone Creek Ranch on
58th to help mitigate the Riverside Tax Issue -$2100 per house?
•And residences can start building out right away
•It will have beautiful vistas and dark skies that people will want to
make their permanent home with their families
•Hiking and biking is already abundant.The kids can go to X Park.
•We don’t need surfing in the Desert at a PRIVATE RESORT
6
The Water Issues
Rob Hedges
BioChemist
La Quinta
Water Volume & Loss to Evaporation
Water Cooling and Energy Requirements
The proposed surf pool will cover more than 12 acres and have an
additional intermittently-wet concrete area of almost 4 acres. Evaporation
will occur from up to 16 acres of wet surface.
A 2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of evaporation rates in five
Texas reservoirs shows that monthly losses due to evaporation vary from
3”/month in the winter (Dec, Jan) to 13”/month in the hot months. See the
next slide. Texas has much colder winters than La Quinta and higher
humidity both of which mean that the La Quinta rate will be higher.
Evaporation rate is usually measured as the decline in surface level per
month. Factors affecting the volume of pool evaporation include surface area
of the pool, water temperature, water movement/agitation, air temperature, air
humidity and air movement.
Figure 2 on page 12 of
the US Army Corps of
Engineers study.
Projected Surf Park Evaporation at Coral Mountain
From the Texas data, an extrapolation can be made for the proposed
surf pool. At the high end, the decline in surface level multiplied by the
evaporation surface area gives a daily evaporation volume of a quarter
million US gallons in the proposed pool.
Given that La Quinta temperatures are higher, particularly in the winter
months, the humidity is far lower and the surface of the pool will be
agitated for many hours each day, it’s reasonable to expect that the
actual evaporation loss will substantially exceed 250,000 US gallons per
day. And this must be replaced with potable water.
A Comparison to the WADI Adventures Surf Basin in
UAE
WADI is a 3 -acre 2,800,000 USG surf pool in the UAE. Evaporation
replacement averages 40,000 USG per day for May to November and
10,000 USG per day from December to April. WADI maintains a pool
temperature of 84F.
Simply applying the WADI evaporation rate experience (five times larger
evaporation surface) projects a loss of 200,000 USG/day for the new pool.
This confirms that the previous evaporation projection is reasonable.
Cooling Issues
As anyone with a pool in La Quinta knows, in summer, the pool turns into a
hot tub. Surfing is an energetic activity and to be safe from heat stroke,
water temperature should be lowered to about 84F. Given that water holds
more heat per unit mass than any other substance, cooling 18,000,000 USG,
and keeping it cool, requires a massive amount of energy.
Cooling that volume of water from 100F down to 84F will require the same
amount of energy in 1,000,000 KWH of electricity. It also requires heat-
exchange equipment similar to the exterior condenser and fan on a home AC
unit but much, much larger! The heat energy in the water has to be
dispersed into the air just like a home air conditioner.
During winter months, no cooling will be required. Just as in oceans,
surfers will wear wet suits as necessary. But in the summer, with local
night-time temperatures above 80F, a large pool will not lose enough heat
to maintain a safe temperature in the low 80s.
The cooling apparatus required for an 18,000,000 USG pool will be
massive. It will require numerous huge, noisy fans and large pumps.
If the electricity to power the cooling apparatus comes from IID, significant
equipment will have to be installed or upgraded to deliver this much
electricity. And this delivery will be at the same time as peak electric
demand for cooling homes and business throughout the valley.
There are lots of questions I can’t answer:
1. How will the noise be abated?
2. Will the increased electric demand affect local rates?
3. Will large diesel generators be installed to reduce the extra draw from
the grid?
4. How will the noise from cooling and diesel equipment affect the quality of
life in the proposed residential community and nearby communities?
5. How will the generation and cooling equipment affect the visitor
experience and the spectator experience at surfing events?
Like a good neighbor….
Tom Jackoboice
La Quinta, CA
Real Reason for Location of Surf Basin by
Coral Mountain
•According to John Gamlin: we are good neighbors so we located the
Surf Basin to be as far away from neighbors as possible
•The reality: last year we were told by the developer that they had no
choice placing the surf park where it is due to underground CVWD
pipes
•We did a public records request to CVWD: ”The location the
developer proposed does avoid conflicts with existing Bureau of
Reclamation Irrigation Laterals, and these laterals do provide water
to the Thomas E. Levy Replenishment Facility.”
•In other words, there was no choice but to locate there because the
wave basin’s massive size would interfere with underground pipes
Developer’s Lawyer: We took into consideration
the closest properties Cantera and Lisa Castro’s
House in the EIR line of sight study –they did not
and did Street Level Views
Cantera
Lisa Castro’s
property
View of Coral Mountain from Cantera –no
mitigation of light impact possible
From the Back of the Cantera development From the front of Cantera Development
View of Basin Light location to Lisa Castro’s
house –no mitigation of light impact possible
From 70 feet up –Look at all the houses that will
see the diffused light –the presence of light will
be constant and not just kicked up the night of the
light demo by vehicles
6
Andalusia and Trilogy
Cantera and 58th
Particulate in the air at Coral Mountain –
think 17 lights
Light from particulate and water vapor will impact Coral Mountain
There will be lights along Coral Mountain by the wave machinery
There will be lighted walking and biking paths along Coral Mountain
There will be light on Coral Mountain
Is CVWD accurately portraying the drought?
•The applicant’s lawyer told you that the State Water Project (SWP)
Colorado River Allocation used by CVWD in its calculations for the
Indio Subbasin Water Management was a conservative 45%.
•In actuality, it has been at 5% in 2020 and 2021, and it decreased
from 15 to 5 Percent March 22, 2022 based on the driest January and
February in more than 100 years.
9
GHG Emissions
•John Gamlin to help explain the amount of GHG they will mitigate with their policies said it would be the equivalent of removing 850
cars from the road annually
•Let’s say we had occupancy of 150 three bedroom STVRs at Coral Mountain –they could have 6 –8 people and reasonably 3 cars per STVR with three couples sharing the STVR.
•That would be 450 additional car trips to Coral Mountain per day new trips
Golf Course Evaporation vs Wave Pool
•If you recall, Mr. Gamlin showed the SilverRock water utilization that
he said proved evaporation from the Golf Course is 8 to 10 times
higher than the surf pool
•As a reminder, we did the public records request of the City that
showed that you could not differentiate the water used for the golf
course versus the water used for the rest of the Talus project like dust
mitigation, the park, construction, etc.
Will Serve from IID
•You were all at the Joint Boards/Council/Commissions Meeting where the
Mayor spoke about the fact that IID was at it maximum power output
•The Will Serve letter described in the EIR is still referencing the cancelled
letter from two years ago
•How do we know, given the changes with IID, the two year length of time
and without a new Will Serve Letter, that IID will allow the improvements
to the substation at 58th to be able to supply the project?
Public Health Codes for Wave Basins
•How do you keep a body of water this large clean of wind-swept sand
and debris so it is usable?
•How do you circulate 18 million gallons of water to keep it sanitized
and free of algae and brain-eating bacteria, especially when the water
will heat up into the 90s in the desert, and you are expecting to keep
people safe to be using this massive body of water?
•The massive amount of evaporation from sun, heat, wind and wave
action that will cause the need of constant replenishment from our
aquifer
Did anyone hear Coachella
•We heard Coachella and not just the bass vibrations
•We could even understand words
•Coachella is much further away than the Wave Basin is to Madison
•And there will always be echoing off the mountain with the wave
machinery when it starts up since it is only a few hundred feet away
Associated Press Published an article on the Wave
Basin extreme water use in a drought –optics for
La Quinta not good across the country
Surge of desert surf parks stirs questions in
dry California
•By AMY TAXIN AP
I was in City Government for
the bulk of My Career
Bobbie Fleury for Suzanne Kahn
Suzanne Kahn is on a plane
•Good day Chairperson Nieto, Vice Chair Currie, Commissioners and
Staff. Thank you for your service to La Quinta. My name is Bobbie
Fleury, La Quinta. I am substituting for Suzanne Kahn who expected
to be here.
I strongly oppose the development of a
wave park and private resort in south La
Quinta. I urge you not to approve it.
The bulk of my career was spent working in
local government so I have an appreciation
of the challenges and financial burdens you
face.If revenue is your driving motivation,
then leave the La Quinta General Plan
intact and impose increased mitigation fees
on residential development
there.California has significant housing
and water shortages, development
assessments would be a more thoughtful
and consistent response.
As you undoubtedly know, the private wave park would
require/waste 18 million gallons of potable water not
including evaporative losses during severe water
insecurity across the West.Even CVWD just adopted
further restrictions for residential users (really!).And there
are additional negative livability impacts that make a
private water-intensive resort unsupportable.
Frankly the Desert Sun’s editorial position that all water-
intensive projects not already built should be rejected is
the appropriate, responsible one.
Please reject this project.
Suzanne Kahn
56885 Mountain View
La Quinta, CA 92253
Discussions on Findings Regarding General
Plan and Zoning
Alena Callimanis
La Quinta
Comments to Address these areas
•Goal LU-1 Land use compatibility throughout the City.
•Policy LU-1.2 All land use decisions shall be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and programs and shall uphold the rights and needs of property owners as well as those of the general public.
•Consistency:The General Plan Amendment is proposed to support the development of a master planned community, similar to other master planned communities in the City. Other such communities include Tourist Commercial components, including PGA West and SilverRock. The community will be private, will be surrounded by a perimeter wall, and proposes land uses that, as analyzed in the project Environmental ImpactReport (EIR), will not be visible or discernable from outside its boundaries.
Response
•None of these master planned communities have such a feature like
the wave basin with 17 eighty foot lights . As the pictures in the prior
presentation show, there is a direct direct line of site from houses in
Trilogy, Andalusia, and the ones on 58th directly to the lights where
before there were dark skies.
Comments to address these areas
•The application for the General Plan Amendment has been made in compliance with the City’s procedures and requirements, by a private
landowner. The General Plan Amendment, due to the nature of the private resort community described above, will not negatively affect the general public.
•Goal LU-3 Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place.
•Consistency:The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in a master planned, free-standing community, consistent with the
development which already exists in the area.
Response
•The existing developments that surround Coral Mountain Resort do
not have a Tourist Commercial Component. It is not compatible with
the surrounding area. You cannot broadly say Southwest La Quinta is
compatible because Talus and PGA West are nearby.
•100% STVRs does not provide a sense of place or community. This is
a transient area.
Comments to address these areas
•Goal LU-4 Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods.
•Policy LU -4.1 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing
•neighborhoods and infrastructure.
•Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in
residential densities of up to 4 units per acre, consistent with the land
use designations applied to surrounding development. The project
proposed for the site would result in a residential density of 2.6 units
per acre, which is consistent with the developed projects in the area,
including Centre Pointe, Trilogy, PGA West and Andalusia.
Response
•A development agreement is being used to make the low density
residential area outside of the central tourist commercial Zone 100%
STVRs. The surrounding residential areas are HOA 30 plus rental and
not 100% STVRs
•So while the density may be compatible, the land use is not
Comments to address these areas
•The inclusion of Tourist Commercial land in master planned
communities in the City is not unusual, and is included at Centre
Pointe, PGA West, SilverRock, Legacy Villas.Its location at the south-
central portion of the site provides for a buffer from existing
surrounding neighborhoods, and would be fully shielded from public
view, or views from surrounding existing neighborhoods.As analyzed
in the project EIR, the impacts associated with this land use are less
than significant from the perspective of CEQA.
Response
•It is not shielded and the photos show that the lighting around the
wave basin will cause aesthetic issues that cannot be mitigated
•And what about Lisa Castro and the Cantera residents. Lisa has this
and all the traffic from 60th around the wave pool along her house.
•It is unbelievable you ignore a 30 year plus resident/widow who lived
there when it was still a Thermal address
Comments to address these areas
•Consistency: The project designates areas set aside for recreational
open space uses, as well as a water-based active recreational
amenity that will provide recreational opportunities currently not
available in the City.
Response
•Notice the words ”not available in La Quinta”. This is a private resort.
A ski area is not available in La Quinta. It makes as much sense to do
a ski resort here as a Surfing Basin 2 hours from the most beautiful
surfing coastline in the world
Comments to address these areas
•The proposed project includes a Development Agreement which
addresses the City’s lack of property tax revenue in this area of the
City, by requiring the payment of mitigation fees to offset the loss.
Response
•Build a residential community and charge a La Quinta Assessment Fee
and you address both lack of revenue and the fact that a Wave basin
is the wrong project in the middle of the desert in the middle of the
worst drought in 1200 years.
Water Insecurity
•You can do like Gilbert, Arizona and request the developer to secure
their own water, not the City Water, for Cactus Surf Park. They have
until April 30, 2022 to come back to the City with the source of the
water.
•Great idea!
Development Agreement
Ramón Baez
81245 Andalusia, La Quinta
I will be commenting on the following items in the
Findings on the Development Agreement
•The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare, as it provides for the long term ordered
development of a master planned community.
•The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property or the preservation of property values
insofar as it will ensure that development occurring on the site will
generate revenues and assure high quality development.
•The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the
city by paying mitigation fees for services it requires, and additional
Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues.
Observations
•Reviewing this construction schedule, there are so many “quantities
undefined”
•How can it be said that this schedule provides for the long-term
ordered development of a master planned community?
•How can you determine what revenues will be generated if you
cannot determine quantities?
•The same concern with Sales Tax Revenue and Transient Occupancy
Tax (TOT) –without a defined construction schedule
We need real Communities in La Quinta, not
STVRs Communities
•The Real Estate market is hot
•This is a wonderful location for remote working and raising a family
•Hiking and biking are already in La Quinta
•We have the wonderful new x-Park for children of all ages
•Houses can be built now and you can do a La Quinta Assessment to
mitigate the lack of Riverside County revenue to La Quinta –perhaps
an average of $2500 per house per year until 2033
•You will get sales tax revenue now from our new residents
It is not Clear why we need this project!
•Per the Development Agreement it is not clear why this project is an
imperative for the La Quinta City or any other community in the
Coachella
•We would highly recommend to stick with the original plans to build a
lovely community similar to Andalusia
WRITTEN
PUBLIC COMMENT
PLANNING
COMMISSION
APRIL 26, 2022
PH1 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:40 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the WAVE (coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Brian Folmer
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:52 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the WAVE (coral Mountain Resort)
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please do NOT vote for the WavePark. There are so many reasons why this would be an embarrassment for La Quinta ‐
water usage being the most obvious.
Thank you,
Brian J. Folmer
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2022 11:38 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Vote No to Wave Park at Coral Mountain Resort Project
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Gwendolin Folmer
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:38 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Vote No to Wave Park at Coral Mountain Resort Project
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please, please vote No to the Wave Park. We can't afford to lose our Coachella Valley water! I am Gwen Folmer and I
live at , La Quinta, CA.
Thank you,
Gwen Folmer
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2022 11:42 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Harvey Reed
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave (Coral Mountain Resort)
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Good morning,
I am requesting this email be forwarded as soon as possible to members of the Planning Commission and be included in
the city records for this project.
While I am opposed to the Coral Mountain project, I would like to ask a question about the decision making process:
“Where is the compromise?”
The developer wants to install flood lights for nighttime surfing. Residents have articulated their concerns about the
proposed lighting. Why does there have to be nighttime surfing? Is not 7AM ‐ 6PM enough hours for that activity?
Eliminate nighttime surfing and the lighting concerns are moot.
Why does the project have to be “The world’s largest surf basin” with 18 million gallons of fresh water. Why not a
smaller basin with 9 million gallons?
Finally, why should every single home automatically receive a STVR permit? Why not 50 percent of the homes?
Again, “Where is the compromise?”
Thank you,
Harvey Reed
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Karen Thomas
Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 9:29 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Presentation for Tuesday, April 26th - Coral Mountain Development
Attachments:Screenshot_20220422-073634_Nextdoor.jpg; Screenshot_20220422-073734_Nextdoor.jpg;
Screenshot_20220422-073813_Nextdoor.jpg; Wave Pool.docx
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Ms. Flores,
I sent you an email on the City of La Quinta website requesting to present at Tuesday, April 26th planning
committee meeting with a link for the attached article on The Dead (wave) Pool.
Attached you will find the article along with aerial views for each of the sites listed in the article to be
included in the agenda for the planning commissions packet. I would appreciate being able to present.
Respectfully,
Karen L Thomas
From: Karen Thomas
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 7:40 AM
To: Thomas, Karen
Subject: Fw: Aerial shots
From: Karen Thomas
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 7:39 AM
To: Karen Thomas
Subject: Aerial shots
1
Tania Flores
From:Li Zhou
Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 7:44 AM
To:Tania Flores; li zhou
Subject:written comments
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hello,
my name is Li Watkins and I live at , La Quinta. I am writing
for my concerns regarding the proposed Wave Park development on
Madison between 58th and 60th.
Zoning Change - Home Owners bought a home in an area zoned to be a
Neighborhood, Low Density/Residential. A zoning change to Commercial/
Residential allows more noise, people, and commercial activities not
suited to a residential neighborhood.
Noise - The wave pool is run by turbines and the level of noise produced
by the turbines as well as the moving water is comparable to traffic
rushing down a busy freeway. Add to that the jet skis that patrol the wave,
the 3 story viewing tower from which announcements will be broadcast,
multiple loudspeakers around the pool to call out wave information
projected to occur every 5 minutes, and of course the noise of people
cheering and yelling out. The mountains will block and redirect noise back
towards the neighborhood. The Wave Pool will be open from 7 to 7 every
day of the week. Commercial/Tourist zoning allows for louder noise than
Low Density Residential zoning. The noise from the construction that will
be necessary to build out this entire project is projected to last 10 years.
Light Pollution - The plans call for 80 foot lights all around the 17 acre
Wave pool, as well as the paddleboard pool, the BMX track, and the skate
board park. For those of us who view Coral Mountain from our patios we’ll
see dozens of tall light poles in our view during the day. At night with the
lights on our dark skies will be polluted with light and the stars will dim.
Traffic – This parcel of land is semi land locked with only Madison leading
to the site. Traffic will increase dramatically, not only when the
development is built but with the 10 year build out expected. Construction
vehicles, especially dirt haulers will clog Madison for years to come. In
addition, the development is asking for four 4 day surf events a
year. Considering set up and take down for a big event these 4 events
would be traffic cloggers, not to mention the noise.
Hotel – The development includes a plan to build a 600 room hotel that is
expected to be 4 stories. Look around our corner of the desert and you’ll
2
see nothing higher than 2 stories. Do the math: 600 hotel rooms x 2
occupants=1200 people coming and going. Let’s hope they’re car pooling!
Short term rentals – As if the hotel isn’t enough, the first buildout has plans
for 600 “dwelling units”. These are homes available for nightly rentals with
multiple bedrooms. Think 4 to 6 occupants and add them to the numbers
projected above!
Water – This is a huge concern! The Wave Pool alone will take 14 million
gallons of water to fill. The amount of evaporation, especially in our desert
heat is many times the fill amount and is projected to be much greater
than a typical golf course. We live in a desert in a time when drought is
predicted in California for the next several years. Do we really want to use
precious water on a Wave pool? This is the 4th wave pool planned for the
Coachella Valley!
Maybe you think it would be fun to go over to the new resort and see
what’s going on? Well, think again, the proposed “Amenities” are for
guests only! You can’t even buy a day pass to get in.
The news about this development has been kept very quiet and we intend
to change that. People have a right to know what is going on in their back
yard! Please let me know if you’d like more information about the project
or would like to add your name to the opposition group.
Thank you for reading this!
Best regards!
Li Watkins FNP-BC, DNP
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2022 11:41 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Project - Wave Pool
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Carolyn Winnor
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Project ‐ Wave Pool
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Kathy Weiss asked me to forward this article to you. At the bottom of the email Kathy included her
name and address.
Thanks
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy Weiss
Date: April 22, 2022 at 8:54:57 AM PDT
To: Kathy Weiss
Subject: Wave Pool Graveyards: What happened to the Big Three?
https://wavepoolmag.com/wave-pool-graveyards-what-happened-to-the-big-three/
Wave Pool Graveyards: What
happened to the Big Three?
April 15, 2022
2
This is a very exclusive club. One for which you have to spend millions. And
you don’t want to be in it. The qualifying barrier? Redundancy. Welcome to the
Wave Pool Graveyard.
But were their projects out-and-out flops, or simply ahead of their time?
Regardless, some have paid a hefty price for trying and tripping, but in the
process, they’ve inadvertently inspired future generations of wave-making
dreamers and engineers.
These now-closed, future inspirations did have their day in the sun. Stoking
surfers and beginners, often for decades.
Seagaia Ocean Dome – Miyazaki, Japan
What was once was of the world’s largest indoor water parks (and was also
home to the largest retractable roof) ended up as one of the costliest piles of
rubble. Opened in the heady neon days of 1993 the Ocean Dome had 12,000
square meters of special non-stick sand, 13,500 tonnes of chlorinated water, and
some fine waves. No dribblers here, proper fast-to-your-feet peelers which
offered legit coverups.
As part of the Sheraton Seagaia Resort, the Dome also offered the kind of
theatrical storytelling only dreamed up by someone who builds a no-stick sand
beach. The shows were a mix of Polynesian dance, folklore, fabrication, and
featured jugglers, dancers, and “live” surf demonstrations. But the performance
the world remembers most is the story of the French prince Sabu, played by
Aussie pro surfer Matthew Pitts. Matt would enter the wave pool adorned in a
white unitard, blue shoulder pads, and a medieval gold helmet festooned with a
tinted visor to rescue the kidnapped princess.
Not only was he paid to surf some waves en route to rescuing the princess, but
he was also required to wipe out – onto a very shallow concrete bottom – and
perform a deft tuck-n-roll to avoid concussion. Part surfer, part stuntman,
unitard-clad Matt earned $90 for a 45-minute display. “It was an awesome gig.
The waves at the pool were really good,” says Matt, “You had to be a pretty
good surfer to even ride them.”
And the wave was chlorine quality reckons Matt. “There was a left barrel and a
center peak along with a right barrel in section one. Section two had a long left
from one end of the pool to the other followed by a similar right.”
The Dome was part of an 850-acre resort that also hosted five hotels, several
golf courses, a botanical park, and a zoo. But it was too much of a good thing.
Visitor numbers dropped, particularly outside of holiday seasons, and the
Dome’s upkeep costs were eye-wateringly expensive. “It cost way too much to
run. Just the upkeep and the electricity alone was huge,” says Matt.
3
Visitor numbers peaked in 1995 with 1.25 million people coming through the
doors. The water park was closed in 2007, then after almost a decade of being a
very expensive pond, opened again for one year, before being closed for good
and demolished in 2017. Ocean Dome is in the Guinness Book of Records as
being the most costly bankruptcy in history.
Big Surf, Arizona
Arizona’s Big Surf wave pool at the height of the cut-offs-and-mustache era
When it comes to highlights for any sports and leisure arena, it’s hard to beat
being blessed by the Pope. In 1987 Pope John Paul II rocked up to Big Surf,
after holding a mass at Arizona State University, and promptly posed with a
teenage lovely and a longboard. Sure, he didn’t paddle out, though would he
have needed a board?
This is one of many notable occurrences in the 50-year lifespan of Big Surf.
The whole concept was envisioned and engineered by Phil Dexter, a surf
dreamer and former U.S. Navy sailor who served in World War Two.
4
Big Surf’s lagoon spanned 2 1/2 acres and 50,000 gallons of water were
displaced each time rideable waves were created. A baffle regulated the flow of
water and a submerged gate released it into the lagoon, creating unbridled stoke
for surfers.
Originally financed in ‘67 by hair company Clairol, as a tie-in to promote their
real gone ‘Surfie’ look – it turned out to be a bust for them, but a boon for
everyone in Arizona. By the time the pool was up and running, 2 years later,
surfers (and the poor deluded wannabe-surfer dudes and dudettes wanting to
craft their locks as such) had moved on from bushy blond hairdos to the long,
unkempt hippie hair. Clairol also sponsored and supplied wax for the boards – a
grand gesture until the promo wax began melting in the Arizona summer heat.
With the surf, beach, and palm trees, it was idyllic. Impressed by the realism of
Big Surf, reporter Robert Allison of the Phoenix Gazette wrote in 1969: “The
only thing it needs to duplicate a penned-up portion of ocean beach is a few old
beer cans and some tar on the sand.”
5
The Pope even blessed Arizona’s favorite surf spot, the Big Surf wave pool.
More than just a touchstone to a surf and beach culture many miles away, it
spawned its scene complete with local rippers, a plentiful and never-ending
supply of beginners, beach dwellers, groms gripped with surf fever, and hosted
an intricate surf-focussed social fabric as full and as vibrant as any beach
culture, anywhere in the world.
Big Surf rules saw the number of surfers capped to eight per wave. Each wave
would have a right and left where two surfers on each side would have a chance
to get the best rides. The four surfers in the middle were relegated to a white
water ride straight to the beach. Naturally, this created a desire to obtain an
outside position, so that you would get the opportunity for the best possible ride.
Barry Finnerty, who also grew up with Big Surf as the nucleus of his grommet
life said Big Surf was affectionately referred to as The Flush by locals.
Surf sessions were at one-hour intervals and were two times a day midweek and
three times on weekends.
6
“You would wait in line, like a Disneyland ride, on either side of the lagoon by
the back wall and traverse down a set of stairs,” says Barry. “Four surfers were
allowed from each side per wave. On any given day there might be 20-30
surfers, so you would be lucky to get 3-to-5 waves each session.”
The doors finally closed this year. It looks as if Big Surf was a Covid casualty, a
long hiatus hastened its demise, and the rapidly aging tech didn’t help. No
amount of software updates was going to save it. Big Surf was unashamedly of
an analog era.
NLand – Austin, Texas
NLand had its moments and was loved by many. But today its fate is uncertain.
What’s the next best thing to owning a beer company? Owning a wave pool of
course. And if you own one of each, happy days. Bankrolled by Coors beer heir,
Doug Coors, the 14-acre pool was divided into two sides: Experienced surfers
with bigger waves on one side, while kids and beginners rode the small ones on
7
the other. Across the pool, a snow plow-like blade was dragged underwater,
generating waves with up to 30-second rides in the Wavegarden design.
NLand overcame several obstacles before opening. They boxed with county
officials who wanted to strap the 14-acre lagoon with the same regulations as a
public swimming pool. Construction also hit a snag when a tear in the liner
flooded nearby neighbors, many of whom weren’t happy to see a wave pool in
their neighborhood.
NLand found mixed reactions when opening. Many surfers loved the wave but
felt it wasn’t challenging enough. Others, mostly newbies, espoused what a fun
setup the whole enterprise was.
The park can hold nine football fields of water split in two, right down the
middle, vertically, by a pier. On the left, as you look down the pier, is the West
Bowl. On the right is the East Bowl. Underneath the pier is where all the
technology and magic happened. A pulley system pulled (pushed?) an
underwater plow, which created the wave.
Surf journalist Scott Bass who’s surfed NLand says, “Would I do it again?
Probably. Austin is a cool place. Great food, eclectic music, there is plenty to do
and see. Is the wave Lances Right? No, of course not. An open mind is required.
A free spirit. NLand Surf Park offered fun, exciting, rippable stomach to chest
high waves. What’s not too like?”
A blip in the history of wave pools, it opened in 2016 and shuttered in
November 2018, with Coors selling to Kelly Slater Wave Co. Since then, there
has been plenty of speculation and rumors about the future of the pool, but
there’s been no official news. Currently, the park sits abandoned, desolate, and
as dry as an Aussie in Amish-land.
Kathy Weiss
Owner/Director
Crystal Springs Ranch & Saddlery
Carbondale, CO
Crystal Springs West,
Thermal, Ca.
(970) 309-7037
kathy@crystalspringsranch.co
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 10:31 AM
To:Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Cc:Danny Castro
Subject:Fw: Letter for La Quinta Planning Commission
Attachments:PC letter 4_22.docx
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760‐777‐7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Derek Wong
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Carolyn Winnor
Subject: Letter for La Quinta Planning Commission
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Ms. Flores,
Please be kind enough to forward my latest letter to the LQ Planning Commissioners and City Staff.
Thank you for always remaining professional and courteous.
Regards,
Derek Wong
La Quinta, CA
La Quinta Planning Commission
WAVE POOLS: April 21, 2022
Have demographic studies been undertaken multilaterally by the various valley cities to
determine the viability of having 4 surf pools operating simultaneously in the Coachella Valley?
Two uber-exclusive, one semi-exclusive and one-public…how will they each co-exist in the ~5
months where temps exceed 100° degrees perpetually. What’s the game plan to keep the cash
flowing and the aquifer refilled (as the developers have promised through miraculous new
sustainable technologies?) What is the amount of potable water utilized daily when the pool is
non-operational? What is the amount of potable water needed to clear the sand from the
amplified winds during Spring?
What’s CVWD’s amended plan to counter the inevitable demise of water from the Colorado
River? No decades old contract will hold up when there is no longer any water to deliver.
Seriously, CVWD needs to stand up and declare the true state of this drought disaster and
reverse their approval of these waves and lagoons just because councils vote yes.
Will Coral Mountain succeed only by holding Special Events like concerts, competitions and the
like by using Kelly Slater’s licensed name forever? Note: it’ll require more than 4 events per
year, that’s a given. What’s the draw other than this: wellness, farm to table veggies, a high-end
7-11 pit stop, hiking & biking, zip lining (which exists already everywhere here?)
WavePool Magazine (April 22, 2022) reports on 3 wave pools that have gone bust written by
Neil Armstrong, aka Moonwalker. All 3 held huge promise but times, technologies and
unforeseen circumstances (poor planning, flooding vs neighbors, Covid) closed them
unceremoniously. Was it worth the few days in the sun?
So Planning Commissions & City Councils, I say that if Coral Mountain is signed off on and
proceeds to be built on its ~20 year mission, it will last less than 10 years before it shutters.
Many of us will be long gone by then, including the developer and their cohorts but the scars
and memories of this hideous endeavor will be easy to spot on Google Earth…Coral Mountain
Wave Resort (CLOSED)
This project is wrong on every level, all previously and continuously communicated to you by
hundreds of your constituents which you seemingly choose to ignore. Please do not ignore us, it
is the wrong time in our current history to even consider depleting scarce resources for
questionable, short-term economic gains over true stewardship which is in your hands. This is
your sacred duty.
Derek Wong
La Quinta, CA
1
Tania Flores
From:Cheri Flores
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 10:28 AM
To:Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Cc:Danny Castro
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760‐777‐7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: HOWARD BOLINGER
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 1:52 PM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Cherri Flores, Planning Manager
Dear Ms. Flores,
We just shared our thoughts, copied and pasted below, with www.saynotothewave.com and thought we’d email our response
to you too. We support the Coral Mountain Resort development.
"We will not be signing the petition.
We are currently supporting the possible development of this property and would welcome this potential new neighbor
‐ The Coral Mountain Resort. Based on what we've read so far, most of the opposition is coming from Andalusia and
Trilogy. These two communities, before development, looked just like the 386 acres across the street from both of
us. In our Trilogy community we have 6 lakes and a golf course. In the Andalusia community they have 8 lakes and a
golf course. Both of these communities are using tremendous amounts of water to keep these golf courses green. It is
our understanding that this 386‐acre parcel of land has already been approved and zoned for a new community that
could include a 18 hole golf course. And, we understand that this new wave project will actually use less water than a
golf course would use. We thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts and opinion. Howard and Linda
Bolinger, 14 year residents of Trilogy.”
Regards,
Howard and Linda Bolinger
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:47 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Indio Subbasin Ground Water Management Documents
Tania,
Please add this to the public comments. I have replied to Jim. In addition, please download the documents in
the Dropbox, and keep them also in the public comment record. When you prepare the final record for the
4/26 PC meeting, we should include the documents in their entirety, or provide links to them.
Thanks!
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: James Vaughn
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Nicole Criste (Contract Planner) <ncriste@Terranovaplanning.com>; John Gamlin <jgamlin@coralmountain.com>;
Tony Locacciato ‐ Meridian Consultants LLC (tlocacciato@meridianconsultantsllc.com)
<tlocacciato@meridianconsultantsllc.com>; Witherspoon, Michelle <mwitherspoon@msaconsultinginc.com>; Lee, Asia
<alee@msaconsultinginc.com>
Subject: FW: Indio Subbasin Ground Water Management Documents
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hi Nicole and Cheri,
Here is a link to five important documents concerning the Indio Subbasin and the ongoing groundwater management
efforts of CVWD and the other Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). We request that you
download and include in the administrative record for the Coral Mountain Resort project, the following five documents:
1.Coachella Valley RUWMP‐ 2021
2.CVWD Water Supply Assessment Fact Sheet
3.Indio‐SGMA‐Alternative Plan‐ Compiled‐ FINAL Adopted Dec. 2021
4.Indio‐Subbasin Annual Report Workshop‐ March 22 Final
5.Indio‐Subbasin WY‐ 2021 Final
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gcx5fvdyjg33zob3j6r4f/h?dl=0&rlkey=8abfyqlm7yxyo67ykelvm0jyv
These documents contain important facts regarding some of the comments recently made by LRRD and other members
of the public regarding the sustainability of the Indio Subbasin, including:
2
(1) Since 2009, the amount of water stored in the subbasin has increased by approximately 840,000 acre‐feet through
the groundwater management efforts of these GSAs despite the fact that the western United States experienced
extreme drought conditions between 2013 and 2016 that led to mandatory water use restrictions and drastic cuts in
deliveries of State Water Project water (see Indio Subbasin Plan Update page ES‐4);
(2) Between 2020 and 2045, the amount of groundwater in the Indio Subbasin is expected to increase further, even after
accounting for the Coral Mountain Resort project and all other existing users and planned future growth in the Coachella
Valley, and after accounting for the effects of climate change and further extreme drought conditions, as well as planned
groundwater management efforts (see Indio Subbasin Plan Update page ES‐12 and Figure ES‐8);
(3) The Indio Subbasin SGMA Alternative Plan Update does not assume that more water will be delivered to California in
future years, but rather, takes into account that through existing water transfer agreements, slightly more of the
Colorado River water delivered to California will be allocated to CVWD (see Indio Subbasin Update pages 6‐8 – 6‐10 and
Table 6‐3); and
(4) This Alternative Plan Update also assumes the worst case scenario under the Colorado River Lower Basin Drought
Contingency Plan, whereby CVWD will be required to contribute a portion of its allocated Colorado River water so it will
remain in Lake Mead; and assumes that only 45% of the State Water Project allocation will be delivered, which is more
conservative than the assumptions made by the California Department of Water Resources (see Indio Subbasin Update
pages 7‐43 – 7‐44).
Please confirm that you are able to access and download these important documents, and that they will be included in
the administrative record for this project.
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Jim
James D. Vaughn, Esq.
Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger LLP
jvaughn@szrlaw.com l www.szrlaw.com
Office: 805.446.1496 l Direct: 805.446.7609 l Mobile 805.551.0688
4695 MacArthur Court 4590 East Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Suite 200 Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Westlake Village, California 91362
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 ii TODD / W&C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
ES‐1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
ES‐2 WY 2020‐2021 Overview .................................................................................................................. 2
ES‐3 Indio Subbasin Setting .................................................................................................................. 2
ES‐4 Groundwater Elevation Data ........................................................................................................ 3
ES‐5 Groundwater Extractions ............................................................................................................. 5
ES‐6 Surface Water .............................................................................................................................. 6
ES‐5.1 Local Surface Water .............................................................................................................. 6
ES‐5.2 Colorado River Water ............................................................................................................ 7
ES‐5.3 State Water Project Water .................................................................................................... 7
ES‐5.4 Recycled Water ..................................................................................................................... 7
ES‐7 Total Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 7
ES‐8 Groundwater Balance and Change in Groundwater Storage ...................................................... 9
ES‐9 Description of Progress .............................................................................................................. 11
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1‐1
1.1 Report Organization ................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ........................................ 1‐1
1.2.1 Formation of GSAs by Local Agencies in the Indio Subbasin ............................................. 1‐3
1.2.2 Submission of the Alternative Plan and 2022 Alternative Plan Update ............................ 1‐3
1.2.3 Annual Reporting ............................................................................................................... 1‐6
2. INDIO SUBBASIN SETTING .................................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.1 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ......................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ............................... 2‐2
2.2.2 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 2‐4
2.2.3 Basin Storage Capacity ....................................................................................................... 2‐4
2.3 Indio Subbasin Description ........................................................................................................ 2‐4
2.3.1 Garnet Hill Subarea ............................................................................................................ 2‐6
2.3.2 Palm Springs Subarea ......................................................................................................... 2‐6
2.3.3 Thermal Subarea ................................................................................................................ 2‐7
2.3.4 Thousand Palms Subarea ................................................................................................. 2‐10
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 iii TODD / W&C
2.3.5 Oasis Subarea ................................................................................................................... 2‐10
3. GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA .................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1 Monitoring Wells ....................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Key Wells .................................................................................................................................... 3‐3
3.3 Groundwater Elevations, Flow, and Trends ............................................................................... 3‐7
3.3.1 Artesian Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3‐7
3.4 Land Subsidence ...................................................................................................................... 3‐10
4. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4‐1
5. SURFACE WATER ................................................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.1 Local Precipitation ...................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.2 Local Streamflow ........................................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.2.1 Direct Use of Local Surface Water ..................................................................................... 5‐1
5.3 Imported Water Deliveries ........................................................................................................ 5‐6
5.3.1 Colorado River Water ......................................................................................................... 5‐6
5.3.2 State Water Project (Exchange Water) .............................................................................. 5‐8
5.3.3 Total Imported Deliveries ................................................................................................ 5‐10
5.4 Recycled Water ........................................................................................................................ 5‐12
6. TOTAL WATER USE ............................................................................................................................. 6‐1
7. CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE ............................................................................................. 7‐1
7.1 Groundwater Balance ................................................................................................................ 7‐1
7.1.1 Groundwater Inflows ......................................................................................................... 7‐1
7.1.2 Groundwater Outflows ...................................................................................................... 7‐4
7.1.3 Annual Change in Groundwater Storage ........................................................................... 7‐7
7.2 CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAPS ...................................................................... 7‐11
7.2.1 One‐Year Change (WY 2019‐2020 to WY 2020‐2021) ..................................................... 7‐11
7.2.2 Twelve‐Year Change (WY 2008‐2009 to WY 2020‐2021) ................................................ 7‐14
8. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS .............................................................................................................. 8‐1
8.1 Implementation of Projects and Management Actions ............................................................. 8‐1
8.2 Water Conservation ................................................................................................................... 8‐2
8.3 Water Supply Development ....................................................................................................... 8‐4
8.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 8‐4
8.3.2 SWP Water ......................................................................................................................... 8‐4
8.3.3 Potable Reuse .................................................................................................................... 8‐5
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 iv TODD / W&C
8.4 Source Substitution and Replenishment ................................................................................... 8‐5
8.4.1 Colorado River Water – Non‐Potable Water (NPW) Deliveries ......................................... 8‐5
8.4.2 Recycled Water Deliveries ................................................................................................. 8‐6
8.4.3 Groundwater Replenishment ............................................................................................ 8‐7
8.5 Water Quality Protection ........................................................................................................... 8‐7
8.5.1 Water Quality Programs and Policies ................................................................................ 8‐8
8.5.2 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV‐SNMP) ................................... 8‐8
8.6 Current Implementation Status ................................................................................................. 8‐9
9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 9‐1
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 v TODD / W&C
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table ES‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Wells in Water Level Monitoring Program Indio Subbasin ......................... ES‐4
Table ES‐2 WY 2020‐2021 Groundwater Extractions by Water Use Sector in the Indio Subbasin ....... ES‐6
Table 2‐1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Storage Capacity .................................. 2‐4
Table 3‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Wells in Water Level Monitoring Program Indio Subbasin ........................... 3‐1
Table 3‐2 SGMA Key Wells ..................................................................................................................... 3‐4
Table 4‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Groundwater Extractions by Water Use Sector in the Indio Subbasin ......... 4‐1
Table 5‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Coachella Valley Precipitation Data (Inches) ................................................. 5‐2
Table 5‐2 WY 2020‐2021 Local Streamflow Measurements for the Indio Subbasin ............................. 5‐4
Table 5‐3 WY 2020‐2021 Direct Use of Local Surface Water in the Indio Subbasin .............................. 5‐6
Table 5‐4 CY 2020 CVWD Colorado River Water Entitlements under the QSA ..................................... 5‐8
Table 5‐5 State Water Project Table A Amounts ................................................................................... 5‐9
Table 5‐6 Deliveries of CVWD and DWA SWP Water to MWD in WY 2020‐2021 ............................... 5‐11
Table 5‐7 WY 2020‐2021 Imported Water for Direct Use in the Indio Subbasin ................................ 5‐12
Table 5‐8 WY 2020‐2021 Recycled Water Use in the Indio Subbasin .................................................. 5‐15
Table 5‐9 WY 2020‐2021 Wastewater Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal in the Indio Subbasin .......... 5‐15
Table 6‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Total Water Use by Sector and Source in the Indio Subbasin ....................... 6‐2
Table 7‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Estimated Average Subsurface Inflows into Indio Subbasin ......................... 7‐3
Table 7‐2 WY 2020‐2021 Measured Drain Flows from the Indio Subbasin to the Salton Sea............... 7‐6
Table 7‐3 WY 2020‐2021 Net Drain Flow from the Indio Subbasin to the Salton Sea ........................... 7‐7
Table 7‐4 WY 2020‐2021 Groundwater Balance in the Indio Subbasin ................................................. 7‐9
Table 8‐2 WY 2020‐2021 CVWMP Implementation Status Update ..................................................... 8‐10
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 vi TODD / W&C
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure ES‐1 Comparison of Supply and Demand for Direct Use for the Indio Subbasin ‐
WY 2020‐2021 ................................................................................................................. ES‐9
Figure ES‐2 Groundwater Balance for the Indio Subbasin – WY 2020‐2021 .................................... ES‐10
Figure 1‐1 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basins and Subbasins ....................................................... 1‐4
Figure 1‐2 Plan Area ............................................................................................................................ 1‐5
Figure 2‐1 Groundwater Subareas of the Indio Subbasin ................................................................... 2‐3
Figure 2‐2 Indio Subbasin Area Geologic Map .................................................................................... 2‐5
Figure 2‐3 Generalized Stratigraphic Column Thermal Subarea ......................................................... 2‐8
Figure 2‐4 Approximate Extent of Shallow Semi‐Perched Aquifer in Thermal Subarea ..................... 2‐9
Figure 3‐1 Elevation Monitoring Well Locations in the Indio Subbasin .............................................. 3‐2
Figure 4‐1 WY 2020‐2021 Groundwater Production .......................................................................... 4‐3
Figure 5‐1 Climate and Streamflow Monitoring Station ..................................................................... 5‐3
Figure 6‐1 Comparison of Supply and Demand for Direct Use for the Indio Subbasin
WY 2020‐2021 ................................................................................................................... 6‐3
Figure 7‐1 Groundwater Balance for the Indio Subbasin WY 2020‐2021 ........................................... 7‐2
Figure 7‐2 Historical Annual Change in Groundwater Storage in the Indio Subbasin ...................... 7‐10
Figure 7‐3 Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage since 1970 ................................................ 7‐12
Figure 7‐4 One‐Year Change in Groundwater Elevation (WY 2018‐2019 ‐ WY 2020‐2021) ............. 7‐13
Figure 7‐5 Ten‐Year Change in Groundwater Elevation (WY 2009‐2010 ‐ WY 2020‐2021) .............. 7‐15
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Representative Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs
Appendix B WY 2020‐2021 Water Use Information for SGMA Portal
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 vii TODD / W&C
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
˚F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AF acre‐feet
AFY acre‐feet per year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AOB Area of Benefit
AWAG Agricultural Water Advisory Group
Basin Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
CASGEM Program California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CVRWMG Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
CV‐SNMP Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CWA Coachella Water Authority
CWC California Water Code
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CY Calendar Year
DAC Disadvantaged Community
DCF Delta Conveyance Facility
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ECVWSP the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ET evapotranspiration
EVRA East Valley Reclamation Authority
feet ags feet above ground surface
feet bgs feet below ground surface
feet msl feet above mean sea level
GPS Global Positioning System
GIPSY‐OASIS GNSS‐Inferred Positioning System and Orbit Analysis Simulation Software
GRF Groundwater Replenishment Facility
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 viii TODD / W&C
ID Improvement District
IID Imperial Irrigation District
InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
IPR indirect potable reuse
IWA Indio Water Authority
MCL maximum contaminant level
MC‐GRF Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility
mgd million gallons per day
mi2 square miles
MNM Monitoring Network Module
MP Mile Post
msl mean sea level
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
MT Minimum Threshold
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MVP Mid‐Valley Pipeline
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988
NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPW non‐potable reuse
PD‐GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
PMAs project and management actions
QWELL Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RCFCWD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
SB Senate Bill
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
sq ft square feet
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWP State Water Project
TEL‐GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-21 ix TODD / W&C
VSD Valley Sanitary District
WBIC weather‐based irrigation controller
WRP Water Reclamation Plant
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WWR‐GRF Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility
WY Water Year
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-1 TODD / W&C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency
(DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) represent the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
responsible for sustainably managing the Indio Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA).
On behalf of the Indio Subbasin GSAs, Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran have prepared this Indio
Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 (Annual Report) in accordance with annual
reporting requirements of SGMA. The Annual Report summarizes groundwater conditions and the
implementation status of projects and management actions in the Indio Subbasin for WY 2020‐2021
(October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021). This report is the fifth annual report prepared for the Indio
Subbasin, which is designated as Basin No. 7‐21.01 by the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR).
ES-1 BACKGROUND
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) has been divided into four Subbasins by DWR as
documented in California Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2016). The four Subbasins include the
Indio 1, Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins (Figure 1-1). The Indio,
Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins have been designated medium‐priority Subbasins under
SGMA, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin has been designated a very low‐priority Subbasin.
On December 29, 2016, the Indio Subbasin GSAs submitted to DWR the 2010 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan (CVWMP) (CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs,
2016) that describes how the 2010 CVWMP and supporting documents satisfied the requirements of
SGMA and should be considered as an acceptable Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
for the Indio Subbasin (Alternative Plan).
On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the Alternative Plan with specific recommendations presented in its Indio
Subbasin Alternative Assessment Staff Report and a requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update by
January 1, 2022. Consistent with SGMA, objectives of an Alternative Plan Update were to assess and report
progress toward sustainability of the Indio Subbasin, respond to DWR recommendations and, consistent
with the goals of the 2010 CVWMP, make needed updates to ensure that future water demands in the
Indio Subbasin are reliably met in a cost‐effective and sustainable manner. The Indio Subbasin GSAs
published the update to the Alternative Plan, the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update:
SGMA Alternative Plan (2022 Alternative Plan Update), which was submitted to DWR in December 2021.
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update includes the Indio Subbasin and the areas served by or expected to be
served by groundwater from the subbasin (Plan Area).
1 The Indio Subbasin is also identified as the Whitewater River Subbasin by the United States Geological Survey,
1980. However, the Whitewater River Subbasin is identified as the Indio Subbasin in DWR Bulletin 108 (1964) and
Bulletin 118 (2016). For consistency with SGMA, this Annual Report will identify the Whitewater River Subbasin as
the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-2 TODD / W&C
ES-2 WY 2020-2021 OVERVIEW
While fifth in the series of Annual Reports, this WY 2020‐2021 Annual Report is the first since submittal
of the comprehensive 2022 Alternative Plan Update and incorporates its priorities, findings, and
implementation planning. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update is available on the program website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org).
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update addressed groundwater sustainability criteria, as defined in SGMA,
including the undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater
storage, seawater intrusion, land subsidence, degraded water quality, and depletion of interconnected
surface water. SGMA also defines quantitative measures to demonstrate sustainability, which include the
Minimum Threshold (MT), a numeric value used to define each undesirable result, and the Measurable
Objective (MO), a quantifiable goal to track the performance of sustainable management. The 2022
Alternative Plan Update provided MTs for groundwater levels, defined by historical groundwater low
levels (which occurred in the years around 2009). These levels also serve as effective proxy MTs for the
potential undesirable results of groundwater storage depletion and subsidence given the direct
relationships between groundwater levels and these indicators. Establishment of the MTs also involved
identification of 57 Key Wells across the Subbasin to represent local groundwater levels with each Key
Well assigned a specific MT.
In WY 2020‐2021, water levels in all 57 wells remained above the MT, confirming that significant
undesirable results of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater storage, and
potential subsidence are not occurring across the basin. While total water use increased relative to WY
2019‐2020, managed artificial recharge continued to replenish the Indio Subbasin, which gained 5,954 AF
in storage during WY 2020‐2021. The GSAs continued to implement the Projects and Management Actions
(PMAs) detailed in the 2022 Alternative Plan Update; their progress is documented in Section 8.
ES-3 INDIO SUBBASIN SETTING
The Indio Subbasin is a part of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which extends approximately 50
miles southeast from the San Bernardino Mountains to the northern shore of the Salton Sea (Figure 1-1).
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin lies within the northwesterly portion of California's Colorado
Desert. The San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains impede the eastward movement of
storms and create a rain shadow, which results in an arid climate and greatly reduces the contribution of
direct precipitation as a source of recharge to groundwater.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been divided into four subbasins as described by DWR in
Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2016). The boundaries between the subbasins are generally defined
by faults that impede the lateral movement of groundwater flow.
The Indio Subbasin underlies the major portion of the Coachella Valley floor and encompasses
approximately 525 square miles (mi2). As shown on Figure 1-1, it shares a border with the San Gorgonio
Pass Subbasin; this boundary represents a bedrock constriction and flow divide. On the southwest, the
Indio Subbasin is bordered by the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The Indio Subbasin is separated
from the Mission Creek Subbasin by the Banning Fault, and from the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin by the
San Andreas Fault; both faults represent effective barriers to groundwater flow (DWR, 1964) (Figure 2-2).
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-3 TODD / W&C
Within the Indio Subbasin, the Garnet Hill Fault also partially impedes groundwater flow from the Garnet
Hill Subarea to the south.
Sediments in the northwestern Indio Subbasin are predominantly coarse‐grained. From about the City of
Indio southeasterly to the Salton Sea, the Indio Subbasin is characterized by increasingly thick layers of
silt and clay, especially in the shallower portions. These silt and clay layers are remnants of ancient lakebed
deposits and impede the percolation of water applied for irrigation (DWR 1964). In 1964, DWR estimated
that the Indio Subbasin contained approximately 29,800,000 acre‐feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet
below the ground surface (feet bgs), or approximately 76 percent of the total groundwater in the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.
The Indio Subbasin was divided by DWR (1964) into five subareas: Garnet Hill, Palm Springs, Thermal,
Thousand Palms, and Oasis (Figure 2-1). Subareas have been delineated based on one or more of the
following geologic or hydrogeologic characteristics: type(s) of water‐bearing formations, water quality,
areas of confined groundwater, and groundwater or surface drainage divides. The largest of these are the
Palm Springs and Thermal subareas. The Palm Springs Subarea in the northwest is characterized by a thick
sequence of coarse sediments and by substantial natural recharge along the Whitewater River and
artificial recharge (replenishment). Groundwater from the Palm Springs Subarea moves southeastward
through the Thermal Subarea. The Garnet Hill Subarea is located between the Banning and Garnet Hill
Faults, which act as barriers to groundwater movement below a depth of about 100 feet bgs. The Garnet
Hill Subarea is recharged by subsurface flow from the Mission Creek Subbasin and runoff from the
Whitewater River watershed. Relative to the Palm Springs Subarea, the hydrostratigraphy of the Thermal
Subarea is generally characterized by greater frequency and extent of fine‐grained sediments that define
an Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer (separated by a semi‐confining aquitard) and a shallow fine‐grained
zone in which semi‐perched groundwater occurs. Semi‐perched groundwater has been maintained by
irrigation water applied to agricultural lands, necessitating the construction of an extensive subsurface
tile drain system (DWR, 1964). The Thousand Palms Subarea on the southeast margin is characterized by
distinct water quality and recharge that apparently occurs mostly from the Indio Hills. Similarly, the Oasis
Subarea on the southwest margin is characterized by unconfined groundwater that is different in chemical
characteristics from water in the major aquifers of the Indio Subbasin.
ES-4 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
As summarized in Table ES-1, groundwater levels were measured in 380 wells in WY 2020‐2021. Of these
380 wells, 57 were monitored by the Indio Subbasin GSAs to serve as Key Wells (see Figure 3-1) for
assessing sustainability in terms of groundwater levels, storage, and potential subsidence.
As documented in the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, the 57 Key Wells were selected through a
quantitative approach that considered wells in terms of long records characteristic of an area and
distribution across the Indio Subbasin, Figure 3-1. Each Key Well was assigned a groundwater level MT,
based on historical low groundwater levels. Information on these Key Wells and the associated water level
data were uploaded to the SGMA portal in December 2021 and will be updated on an on‐going basis.
Groundwater elevations in all 57 of the Key Wells were above the MTs set in the 2022 Alternative Plan
Update, showing no indication of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, storage depletion, or potential
subsidence.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-5 TODD / W&C
corresponding to higher groundwater levels in response to WWR‐GRF recharge. In the Thermal area, the
ground surface has also rebounded about 2 inches over the past 10 years, returning to elevations
observed in 2001. This rebound coincides with commencement of recharge operations at the TEL‐GRF in
2009.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs plan to continue monitoring water levels and subsidence to track the effects of
management actions on land subsidence. The GSAs and the USGS have established a partnership and a
continuing subsidence monitoring program to collect and evaluate data between 2015 and 2023 with a
report to be published by the USGS by June 30, 2025.
ES-5 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS
A total of 285,351 AF of groundwater was extracted from the Indio Subbasin in WY 2020‐2021 (Table
ES-2). The total groundwater extracted represents an increase of 18,597 AF (7 percent) compared to the
volume extracted in WY 2019‐2020 (266,754 AF). (local precipitation was below average) or changes in
water use patterns due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The agricultural sector (including fish farms)
experienced a volumetric increase in groundwater use of 1,500 AF compared to WY 2019‐2020, or 3.3
percent. The industrial sector experienced a small volumetric decrease in groundwater use of 94 AF
compared to WY 2019‐2020, or 6.8 percent. The overall urban usage experienced a volumetric increase
in water use (17,191 AF compared to WY 2019‐2020, or 7.9 percent). The increased water use may be due
to dry hydrologic conditions in WY 2020‐2021 compared to the wet conditions in WY 2019‐2020. The
groundwater use by golf courses and other recreational users is included in the urban sector.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-7 TODD / W&C
ES-5.2 Colorado River Water
Colorado River water has been a major water supply source for the Indio Subbasin area since the
completion of the Coachella Canal in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that has
Colorado River water allocations established in the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement. In
Calendar Year (CY) 2020, CVWD’s total entitlement of Colorado River water was 399,000 AF, an increase
of 5,000 AF as compared to the CY 2019 entitlement. In WY 2020‐2021, approximately 73 percent of the
Colorado River water delivered through the Coachella Canal was used for agriculture, about 12 percent
was for urban uses (e.g., golf courses and homeowners’ associations), and about 15 percent was
replenished at the TEL‐GRF and PD‐GRF.
ES-5.3 State Water Project Water
DWR manages the SWP and determines the available amount of SWP water for delivery based on
hydrologic, storage, water rights, water quality, and environmental factors, including requirements for
the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta. While CVWD and DWA have contracts for Table A SWP water, there
are no physical facilities to deliver this water to the Coachella Valley. SWP water is exchanged for Colorado
River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD’s) CRA. Since 1973, this
exchange water has been delivered for groundwater replenishment to the Indio Subbasin at the WWR‐
GRF and to the Mission Creek Subbasin at the Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility (MC‐
GRF). An Advance Delivery Agreement between CVWD, DWA, and MWD allows for pre‐delivery of SWP
water, exchanged for Colorado River water, in wet years to WWR‐GRF or MC‐GRF. As such, CVWD and
DWA may either receive deliveries of SWP exchange water from the CRA or from water previously stored
in the Indio Subbasin as part of the Advance Delivery Account.
In WY 2020‐2021, CVWD and DWA received 106,181 AF of SWP and other exchange water at the WWR‐
GRF and 427 AF at the MC‐GRF (in the Mission Creek Subbasin), for a total delivery to the Coachella Valley
of 106,608 AF. From this total, 36,925 AF was added to the Advance Delivery Account. At the end of WY
2020‐2021, there was 304,381 AF in MWD’s Advance Delivery Account in the Indio Subbasin.
ES-5.4 Recycled Water
Figure 5-2 shows the locations of water reclamation plants (WRPs) and other wastewater treatment
facilities in the Indio Subbasin. Currently, three WRPs provide recycled water for irrigation in the Indio
Subbasin (City of Palm Springs WWTP/DWA WRP, CVWD WRP‐7, and CVWD WRP‐10).
Four additional WRPs in the Indio Subbasin treat wastewater, but do not deliver recycled water for direct
use (CVWD WRP‐2, CVWD WRP‐4, Coachella WRP, and Valley Sanitary District (VSD) WWTP). For these
wastewater treatment facilities, treated effluent is discharged either to onsite percolation/evaporation
ponds or to the Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC). In WY 2020‐2021, a total of 40,296 AF of
wastewater was treated, of which 14,000 AF was recycled and reused, 4,446 AF was discharged through
percolation/evaporation, and 21,849 AF was released to the CVSC.
ES-7 TOTAL WATER USE
A total of 587,632 AF of water was delivered for direct use within the Plan Area during WY 2020‐2021.
This represents an increase of 31,965 AF, or 6 percent, compared to WY 2019‐2020 for the Plan Area, this
includes water used in the Subbasin and additional supplies exported for use outside of the groundwater
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-8 TODD / W&C
basin. Over the past three years, water use has been generally consistent despite variations in local
weather.
As summarized in Figure ES-1, total direct use is calculated by summing groundwater production, local
surface water diversions, Coachella Canal water deliveries, and recycled water use for agricultural,
industrial, urban, and other undetermined uses.
Total direct use volumes include 4,876 AF of water exported for use outside of the Indio Subbasin. This
includes Colorado River water exported outside the Indio Subbasin for agricultural use (1,117 AF) and
urban use (1,572 AF), and groundwater pumped from the Indio Subbasin and delivered outside of the
Indio Subbasin (2,187 AF), including groundwater delivered to CVWD customers in Imperial and Riverside
counties on the east and west sides of the Salton Sea (East and West Salton Sea Basins) and groundwater
pumped by MSWD and delivered to its customers in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-10 TODD / W&C
Figure ES-2 Groundwater Balance for the Indio Subbasin – WY 2020-2021
Long‐term sustainability is typically assessed based on changes in groundwater storage over a historical
period on the order of 10 to 20 years that includes wet and dry periods. While the goal of the 2010 CVWMP
(Alternative Plan) was to eliminate groundwater overdraft, not to restore the Indio Subbasin to historical
conditions, it is worth noting that since 2009 the Subbasin has recovered approximately 845,000 AF of
groundwater in storage, or about 45 percent of the cumulative depletion observed from 1970 to 2009.
Figure 7-3 shows the cumulative change in storage since 1970. The Indio Subbasin was at its minimum
storage in 2009 (with a calculated storage loss of 1,890,000 AF from 1970 to 2009, which represents 6
percent of the estimated storage capacity of the Indio Subbasin). Since 2009, groundwater pumping has
decreased by about 25 percent, and replenishment activities have increased, leading to the observed
recovery of groundwater in storage. The recovery of groundwater storage demonstrates the progress
being made through implementation of the Alternative Plan. Water levels in the Indio Subbasin have
generally increased over the past ten years (Figure 7-5), reflecting storage benefits from replenishment
operations at all GRFs within the Indio Subbasin and decreased pumping.
Figure 7-4 shows the one‐year change in average groundwater elevations from WY 2019‐2020 to WY
2020‐2021 for the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin generally increased from WY
2019‐2020 to WY 2020‐2021 in most of the Subbasin. However, in the northwestern area of the Subbasin
in the immediate vicinity of the WWR‐GRF, groundwater levels declined compared with WY 2019‐2020,
due to reduced managed recharge (lower SWP deliveries) in the spring and summer of WY 2020‐2021.
Groundwater levels also declined slightly across the southeast. Increasing groundwater levels up to 11
feet are seen downgradient of the WWR‐GRF in the vicinity of Palm Springs associated with past
+5,954 AFY
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-11 TODD / W&C
groundwater replenishment at these facilities. In the central portion of the Indio Subbasin from Palm
Desert to La Quinta, groundwater levels generally rose, with water level changes ranging from about ‐3 to
8.5 feet. Some of the increase in groundwater levels is likely associated with the initiation of
replenishment at the PD‐GRF beginning in February 2019. In the vicinity of TEL‐GRF, groundwater levels
increased by up to 5 feet, with increases observed as far as the Mecca area and adjacent to the Salton
Sea. Groundwater level increases reflect the continued benefits of recharge operations at the TEL‐GRF.
Figure 7-5 shows the ten‐year change in average groundwater elevations from WY 2010‐2011 to WY 2020‐
2021 for the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater levels in most of the Indio Subbasin have increased over the
past 10 years. The largest groundwater increases are observed downgradient of the WWR‐GRF in the Palm
Springs area and in the vicinity of the TEL‐GRF and PD‐GRF, with water level increases of up to about 70
feet downgradient of the WWR‐GRF, about 43 feet near the TEL‐GRF, and about 26 feet near the PD‐GRF.
In the greater mid‐valley area near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta, groundwater level increases
have risen on the order of 20 feet, reflecting the benefits of source substitution, conservation programs,
and managed recharge operations. Decreases are seen in the immediate vicinity of the WWR‐GRF where
groundwater levels are variable due to large recharge operations, and some localized declines have
occurred northeast of Bermuda Dunes. Groundwater levels in the southeastern portion of the Indio
Subbasin have generally increased, typically between 10 and 40 feet, reflecting storage benefits from
replenishment operations at the TEL‐GRF and decreased pumping.
ES-9 DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update identified the following water management strategies to achieve water
reliability and resilience:
• Fully use available Colorado River water supplies
• Support improvement of the long‐term reliability of SWP supplies, including participation in the
Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF)
• Continue developing recycled water as a reliable local water supply
• Implement source substitution and replenishment for resilience in response to changing
conditions and for maintenance of long‐term groundwater supply reliability
• Increase water‐use efficiency across all sectors
• Participate in development of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV‐
SNMP) to address salt and nutrient management in the Indio Subbasin.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs are working collaboratively to implement the goals and programs of the 2022
Alternative Plan Update. A variety of projects and management actions (PMAs) are planned for
implementation over the planning horizon (to 2045) to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin, summarized
in Table 8-1. Thirty PMAs were identified based on priorities identified by the GSAs and stakeholders;
these represent a wide variety of activities by the four GSAs. Projects are classified into four categories
based on project benefits: water conservation, water supply development, source substitution and
replenishment, and water quality protection.
Water conservation is a major component of overall water management in the Indio Subbasin. As a desert
community reliant upon imported water supplies, the Coachella Valley has and will continue to use its
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 ES-12 TODD / W&C
water resources efficiently. The Indio Subbasin GSAs are continuing to work with urban and agricultural
water purveyors, as well as golf courses, to increase efficiency and reduce future water demands.
CVWD and DWA continue their efforts to increase reliability and obtain additional water supplies, as
opportunities become available through SWP‐related projects (e.g., Delta Conveyance Facility, Sites
Reservoir, Lake Perris Seepage and other exchanges, entitlements, and transfers).
Source substitution and replenishment is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users that
currently pump groundwater, reducing groundwater extraction and allowing the management of
groundwater in storage. CVWD is working to expand direct delivery of Colorado River water for
agriculture, golf courses, and homeowners’ associations. The Indio Subbasin GSAs are also working to
maximize the use of recycled water and expand their non‐potable water systems (some CVWD customers
receive a blend of recycled water and Canal water). The 2022 Alternative Plan Update includes non‐
potable water expansions at multiple WRPs in order to reduce the volume of recycled water that is
disposed of through onsite percolation basins. CVWD and DWA also intend to continue and expand
groundwater replenishment operations with SWP and Canal water in the Indio Subbasin.
PMAs related to water quality that will help protect the groundwater basin for beneficial uses and users
and avoid undesirable results include continued implementation of water quality programs and policies
in the Subbasin, as well as implementation of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
(CV‐SNMP).
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-1 TODD / W&C
1. INTRODUCTION
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency
(DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA), represent the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
responsible for managing the Indio Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA). On behalf of the Indio Subbasin GSAs, Todd Groundwater and Woodard &
Curran have prepared this Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year (WY) 2020-2021 (Annual Report)
in accordance with annual reporting requirements of SGMA. The Annual Report summarizes groundwater
conditions and the implementation status of projects and management actions in the Indio Subbasin for
WY 2020‐2021 (October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021).
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Annual Report is divided into the following nine sections:
Section 1 – Introduction summarizes the report organization, background as related to SGMA, and the
approach used by the four Indio Subbasin GSAs to comply with the SGMA.
Section 2 – Groundwater Basin Setting provides an overview of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin,
its component Subbasins and Subareas, and the physiography, climate, and regional geology of the Indio
Subbasin.
Section 3 – Groundwater Elevation Data describes the sources of groundwater level data and provides a
groundwater elevation contour map and hydrographs of groundwater levels over time.
Section 4 – Groundwater Extraction summarizes groundwater extraction by volume, area, and water use
sectors.
Section 5 – Surface Water summarizes the various surface water sources and surface water‐related
components in the Indio Subbasin including precipitation, streamflow, imported water deliveries for
direct use and groundwater replenishment, and wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse.
Section 6 – Total Water Use provides a summary of the total water use by source and water use sector.
Section 7 – Groundwater Balance and Change in Groundwater Storage provides the groundwater
balance and change in storage for the Indio Subbasin.
Section 8 – Description of Progress provides a summary of progress toward achieving the water
management objectives outlined in the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update: SGMA
Alternative Plan (2022 Alternative Plan Update).
Section 9 – References provides references for this report.
1.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
In 2014, faced with declining groundwater levels (most notably in California’s Central Valley), the
California Legislature enacted SGMA to provide a framework for the sustainable management of
groundwater resources throughout California, primarily by local authorities. SGMA consisted of three bills,
Assembly Bill (AB) 1739 (Dickinson), Senate Bill (SB) 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley) that were signed
into law by Governor Brown on September 16, 2014.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-2 TODD / W&C
For groundwater basins designated by DWR as medium or high‐priority, SGMA required local authorities
to form GSAs by June 30, 2017, to evaluate conditions in the groundwater basins, and to prepare and
adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSPs) or Alternative Plans consistent with GSP regulations. The
option of an Alternative Plan was provided by SGMA for local water agencies with existing groundwater
management plans that could be documented as functionally equivalent to a GSP; the deadline for
submittal of Alternative Plans was January 1, 2017. The Indio Subbasin GSAs chose to submit an
Alternative Plan, based on decades of local Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) management.
SGMA allows a 20‐year time frame for GSAs to implement their GSPs or Alternative Plans and achieve
long‐term groundwater sustainability. While protecting existing water rights, SGMA provides GSAs with
the tools and authority to:
• Monitor and manage groundwater levels and quality
• Monitor and manage land subsidence and changes in surface water flow and quality affecting
groundwater levels or quality or caused by groundwater extraction
• Require registration of groundwater wells
• Require reporting of annual extractions
• Require reporting of surface water diversions to underground storage
• Impose limits on extractions from individual wells, if needed
• Assess fees to implement GSPs and Alternative Plans, and
• Request revisions of basin boundaries, including establishing new boundaries.
DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program to track
seasonal and long‐term trends in groundwater elevations in California’s groundwater basins. Through its
CASGEM program, DWR ranked all groundwater basins and subbasins in California as either very low, low,
medium, or high priority. In addition, DWR, as required by SGMA, identified 21 basins and subbasins in
California as critically overdrafted. None of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin were
listed as high priority or critically overdrafted.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been divided into four subbasins by DWR in California
Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2016): the Indio,2 Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot
Springs Subbasins (Figure 1-1). The Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasins were
designated medium‐priority under the SGMA, and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin was designated a very
low‐priority Subbasin.
2 The Indio Subbasin is also identified as the Whitewater River Subbasin by the United States Geological Survey
(1980). However, the Whitewater River Subbasin is identified as the Indio Subbasin in DWR Bulletin 108 (1964) and
Bulletin 118 (2003). For consistency with SGMA, this Annual Report will identify the Whitewater River Subbasin as
the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-3 TODD / W&C
1.2.1 Formation of GSAs by Local Agencies in the Indio Subbasin
Four separate entities filed Notices of Election with DWR to become GSAs to manage the Indio Subbasin
within their respective services areas in compliance with the SGMA:
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Coachella Water Authority (CWA)
• Desert Water Agency (DWA)
• Indio Water Authority (IWA)
These agencies have been designated by DWR as Exclusive GSAs within their respective service areas in
the Indio Subbasin and are referred to herein collectively as the Indio Subbasin GSAs. Figure 1-2 shows
the jurisdictional areas of the Indio Subbasin GSAs with reference to the Indio Subbasin.
1.2.2 Submission of the Alternative Plan and 2022 Alternative Plan Update
SGMA recognized that some groundwater basins, such as the Indio Subbasin, have been managed for
years and allowed existing groundwater management plans to be submitted as an Alternative Plan.
Twenty years before the adoption of SGMA, CVWD began development of its initial water management
plan to manage available surface water resources and local groundwater resources in the Indio Subbasin
and adjacent areas dependent on these water resources. The 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management
Plan (CVWMP) and 2010 CVWMP Update were developed to eliminate long‐term overdraft and satisfy
the goals and intent of the then‐Groundwater Management Planning Act (now superseded by SGMA).
On December 29, 2016, the Indio Subbasin GSAs collaboratively submitted to DWR the 2010 CVWMP
Update (CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016) that describes
how the 2010 CVWMP Update and supporting documents satisfy the requirements of SGMA and thus
should be considered as an acceptable Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin.
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan was one of fifteen submitted to DWR by the January 1, 2017 deadline
and was one of nine approved by DWR. On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the Indio Subbasin Alternative
Plan with specific recommendations presented in its Alternative Assessment Staff Report and a
requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update by January 1, 2022.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-4 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-5 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 1-6 TODD / W&C
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update was submitted to DWR on December 29, 2021. Consistent with SGMA,
objectives of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update are to assess and report progress toward sustainability of
the Indio Subbasin, as well as respond to DWR recommendations. Consistent with the goals of both the
2010 CVWMP Update and the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs’ overarching water management
goal is to ensure that future water demands in the Indio Subbasin are reliably met in a cost‐effective and
sustainable manner.
Additionally, in accordance with SGMA GSP Emergency Regulations (DWR, 2016), DWR requires that the
Indio Subbasin GSAs submit annual reports following submission of the Alternative Plan. Annual Reports
were therefore submitted in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. This WY 2020‐2021 Annual Report is required to
be submitted to DWR by April 1, 2022.
1.2.3 Annual Reporting
CVWD and DWA have reported on groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin annually since 1978.
CVWD has published an annual Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for its
West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit (AOB) since 1980 and for the East Whitewater River
Subbasin AOB since 2004. Similarly, DWA has published an Annual Engineer’s Report for the Groundwater
Replenishment and Assessment Program in its Whitewater River Subbasin AOB since 1978. The Engineer’s
Reports describe groundwater levels, annual water budgets, artificial and natural recharge, and
groundwater pumping, as well as the replenishment assessment charged for production within each
management area for the following fiscal year.
In accordance with SGMA (Water Code 10728), on April 1 following the year of adoption of a GSP or
submission of an Alternative Plan and annually thereafter, the annual report must document the following
Basin conditions for the preceding water year:
• Groundwater elevation data
• Aggregated data identifying groundwater extraction
• Surface water supply used or available for groundwater recharge or in‐lieu use
• Total water use
• Change in groundwater storage
• Progress toward implementing the GSP or Alternative Plan.
This Indio Subbasin Annual Report for WY 2020‐2021 is the fifth annual report prepared for the Indio
Subbasin in response to SGMA requirements and the first prepared following submittal of the 2022
Alternative Plan Update. This Annual Report contains a discussion of the Indio Subbasin followed by
sections describing each of the above‐listed elements required by SGMA. Data used to support the
development of this Annual Report have been uploaded to DWR’s SGMA Portal. Groundwater elevations
of the Key Wells and water use information were uploaded in the format required and included here as
Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-1 TODD / W&C
2. INDIO SUBBASIN SETTING
Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which encompasses more than
800 square miles and extends from the San Gorgonio Pass area in the San Bernardino Mountains to the
northern shore of the Salton Sea. The Basin is bordered by the San Bernardino Mountains on the north,
the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west, the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the east
and Salton Sea on the south. The Coachella Valley lies within the northwesterly portion of California's
Colorado Desert, an extension of the Sonoran Desert. The San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa
Mountains impede the eastward movement of storms and create a rain shadow, which results in an arid
climate and greatly reduces the contribution of direct precipitation as a source of recharge to the Basin.
The Basin is composed of the San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and Indio Subbasins
(Figure 1). The boundary between the San Gorgonio Pass and Indio Subbasins is a bedrock constriction
and divide; otherwise, the boundaries between subbasins within the Basin are generally defined by faults
that represent barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater.
The western portion of the Indio Subbasin is characterized by an urban resort/recreation‐based economy
and includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and
Indian Wells. The eastern portion has a predominantly agricultural‐based economy and includes the cities
of Indio, Coachella, and La Quinta, along with the unincorporated communities of Mecca, Thermal, and
Oasis.
2.1 CLIMATE
The bulk of natural groundwater replenishment comes in the form of runoff from the adjacent mountains.
Climate in the Indio Subbasin is characterized by low humidity, high summer temperatures, and mild dry
winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from 3 to 6 inches on the Valley floor. Most of the
precipitation occurs between December and February. Additional discussion of precipitation is provided
in Section 5.
Mid‐summer high temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), frequently exceed 110°F,
and periodically reach 120°F. Winter high temperatures typically range from about 45°F to 80°F.
2.2 COACHELLA VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded by crystalline (non‐water bearing) rocks of the San
Bernardino Mountains and Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north/northwest and of the San Jacinto
Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains to the west/southwest. At the west end of the San Gorgonio Pass
Subbasin between Beaumont and Banning, a surface drainage divide separates the Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana Drainage Area.
The southern boundary is formed primarily by the watershed of the Mecca Hills and by the northwest
shoreline of the Salton Sea. At the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the southern boundary crosses the
Riverside County Line into Imperial and San Diego counties. Although there is subsurface groundwater
flow throughout the Basin, fault barriers, constrictions in the groundwater Basin profile, and areas of low
permeability limit and control movement of groundwater. Based on the occurrence of these features, the
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-2 TODD / W&C
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been divided into subbasins and subareas as described by the
DWR in Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2016).
Sedimentary infill in the Indio Subbasin consists of thick sand and gravel sedimentary sequences eroded
from the surrounding mountains. From about the City of Indio southeasterly to the Salton Sea, the Indio
Subbasin is characterized by increasingly thick layers of silt and clay, especially in the shallower portions
of the Indio Subbasin. These silt and clay layers are remnants of ancient lakebed deposits and impede the
percolation of water applied for irrigation (DWR, 1964).
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
As shown on Figure 1-1, the Basin is divided into four Subbasins – Indio, San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek,
and Desert Hot Springs. The subbasins encompass areas underlain by formations that readily yield stored
groundwater through water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the management of water supplies. The
boundaries between the subbasins are generally defined by faults that impede the lateral movement of
groundwater.
Of the four subbasins, the Indio Subbasin is the focus of this Annual Report. The Indio Subbasin has been
subdivided into subareas based on one or more of the following geologic or hydrogeologic characteristics:
type(s) of water‐bearing formations, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, and groundwater or
surface drainage divides. Boundaries for the Indio Subbasin subareas are shown on Figure 2-1.
The following is a list of the subbasins and associated subareas in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
as identified by DWR in Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2016), with the subbasin numbers designated
by DWR (2016):
• Indio Subbasin (7‐21.01)
o Garnet Hill Subarea
o Palm Springs Subarea
o Thermal Subarea
o Thousand Palms Subarea
o Oasis Subarea
• Mission Creek Subbasin (7‐21.02)
• Desert Hot Springs Subbasin (7‐21.03)
o Miracle Hill Subarea
o Sky Valley Subarea
o Fargo Canyon Subarea
• San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (7‐21.04)
Section 2.3 provides additional descriptions of Indio Subbasin subareas and boundaries including geology,
hydrogeology, water supply, and groundwater storage.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-3 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-5 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-6 TODD / W&C
The Indio Subbasin is bordered on the southwest by the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and is
separated from the Mission Creek Subbasin by the Banning Fault, and from the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasin by the San Andreas Fault; both faults represent effective barriers to groundwater flow (DWR,
1964) (Figure 2-2). The San Andreas Fault extends southeasterly from the junction of the Mission Creek
and Banning Faults in the Indio Hills and continuing out of the Basin on the east flank of the Salton Sea.
The boundaries between subbasins within the Basin are generally defined by other faults that serve as
effective barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater.
Within the Indio Subbasin, the Garnet Hill Fault extends southeasterly from the north side of the San
Gorgonio Pass to the Indio Hills. The Garnet Hill Subarea lies between the Garnet Hill and Banning faults,
which act as partially effective barriers to lateral groundwater movement. The Garnet Hill Fault partially
impedes groundwater flow from the Garnet Hill Subarea toward the south. This effect is revealed by close
inspection of groundwater level information on either side of the Garnet Hill Fault; for example, the
groundwater level contour map in the Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2018-2019 shows
differences of as much as 220 feet across the Garnet Hill Fault. The Garnet Hill Fault does not reach the
surface and is probably effective as a barrier to lateral groundwater movement only below a depth of
about 100 feet (CVWD, DWA, and MSWD, 2013).
Figure 2-1 shows the five Indio Subbasin subareas: Garnet Hill, Palm Springs, Thermal, Thousand Palms,
and Oasis. The Palm Springs Subarea is the forebay or main area of replenishment to the Indio Subbasin,
and the Thermal Subarea includes the pressure, or confined area, within the Indio Subbasin. The other
three subareas are characterized by unconfined groundwater conditions.
2.3.1 Garnet Hill Subarea
The Garnet Hill Subarea, located between the Garnet Hill Fault and the Banning Fault, is considered part
of the Indio Subbasin as defined in DWR's California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003 (Bulletin
118) (DWR, 2003) as shown in Figure 2-1. The relative scarcity of wells in the subarea limits the available
geologic information and understanding of groundwater interactions between this subarea and the
adjoining Mission Creek Subbasin and Indio Subbasin. Groundwater production is relatively low in the
Garnet Hill Subarea and is not expected to increase significantly in the future due to relatively low well
yields compared to those in the Mission Creek Subbasin. Groundwater levels in the western and central
portions of the Garnet Hill Subarea show response to large replenishment quantities from the WWR‐GRF,
while levels are relatively flat in the eastern portion of the subarea.
While the Garnet Hill Subarea receives subsurface inflow from the Mission Creek Subbasin and some
natural recharge from occasional high flows of Mission Creek and other streams, the chemical character
of the groundwater and its direction of movement indicate that the main source of inflow to the subarea
comes from percolation associated with the Whitewater River (CVWD, DWA, and MSWD, 2013).
2.3.2 Palm Springs Subarea
Located in the northwestern portion of the Indio Subbasin, the Palm Springs Subarea is bounded by the
Garnet Hill Fault to the north and the eastern slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south and extends
southeast to Cathedral City. Alluvial fan deposits consist of heterogeneous, coarse‐grained sediments with
a total thickness in excess of 1,000 feet. Although no lithologic distinction is apparent from water well
driller’s logs, the total thickness of recent deposits suggests that Ocotillo Conglomerate underlies recent
Fanglomerate deposits at a depth ranging from 300 to 400 feet (DWR, 1964). Substantial natural and
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-7 TODD / W&C
artificial recharge (i.e., replenishment) occurs through the thick sequence of coarse sediments in this
subarea.
2.3.3 Thermal Subarea
Groundwater in the Palm Springs Subarea moves southeastward into the Thermal Subarea. As shown in
Figure 2-1, the division between the Palm Springs Subarea and the Thermal Subarea is near the City of
Cathedral City.
Figure 2-3 presents a generalized stratigraphic column of the Thermal Subarea showing local geologic
units and groundwater zones. As illustrated, the hydrostratigraphy is characterized by the following:
• A shallow semi‐perched and confining zone consisting of recent silts, clays, and fine sands
• An upper aquifer with unconfined (water table) conditions
• A semi‐confining aquitard of fine‐grained materials
• A lower aquifer with confined and artesian conditions
As shown on Figure 2-3, fine‐grained (clay) deposits of the upper Ocotillo Conglomerate Formation
separate the upper and lower aquifers. The clay deposits are not regionally extensive or thick enough to
completely restrict vertical groundwater flow between the upper and lower aquifer zones and are thus
referred to as an aquitard.
The aquitard is absent (and no distinction between the upper and lower aquifer zones occurs) along the
southwestern margins of the Thermal Subarea at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, such as the
alluvial fans at the mouth of Deep Canyon and near the City of La Quinta.
The lower aquifer, composed of Ocotillo Conglomerate Formation, consists of silty sands and gravels with
interbeds of silt and clay. The lower aquifer contains the greatest quantity of stored groundwater in the
Indio Subbasin. The top of the lower aquifer occurs at a depth ranging from 300 to 600 feet bgs. The
thickness of the zone is undetermined, as the deepest wells in the Coachella Valley do not fully penetrate
the formation. Available data indicate the zone is at least 500 feet thick and can be in excess of 1,000 feet
thick. The thickness of the aquitard overlying the lower aquifer zone ranges from 100 to 200 feet, although
in some areas near the Salton Sea it may be in excess of 500 feet.
Capping the upper aquifer zone in the Thermal Subarea is a shallow fine‐grained zone in which semi‐
perched groundwater occurs (Figure 2-4). This zone consists of recent silts, clays, and fine sands and is
relatively persistent southeast of the City of Indio. It ranges from 0 to 100 feet thick and is an effective
barrier to deep percolation. The low permeability of the materials southeast of the City of Indio has
contributed to irrigation drainage challenges in the area. Semi‐perched groundwater has been maintained
by irrigation water applied to agricultural lands, necessitating the construction of an extensive subsurface
tile drain system (DWR, 1964). North and west of the City of Indio, the zone is composed mainly of clayey
sands and silts, and its effect in retarding deep percolation is limited.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-9 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 2-10 TODD / W&C
2.3.4 Thousand Palms Subarea
The Thousand Palms Subarea (Figure 2-1) is located along the southwest flank of the Indio Hills and is
differentiated from the Thermal Subarea by groundwater quality differences (DWR, 1964). In brief,
groundwater in the Thousand Palms Subarea is characterized by sodium sulfate chemistry that is distinct
from the calcium bicarbonate water of the Thermal Subarea. The differences in water quality indicate that
replenishment to the Thousand Palms Subarea comes primarily from the Indio Hills and is limited in
supply. The relatively sharp boundary between chemical characteristics of water derived from the Indio
Hills in the Thousand Palms Subarea and groundwater in the Thermal Subarea suggests there is little
intermixing between the two subareas.
The configuration of the water table north of the community of Thousand Palms is such that the generally
uniform, southeasterly gradient in the Palm Springs Subarea diverges and steepens to the east along the
base of Edom Hill. This steepened gradient suggests the presence of a barrier to groundwater flow in the
form of a reduction in sediment permeability or a southeast extension of the Garnet Hill Fault. Gravity
surveys by DWR (1964) do not indicate a subsurface fault. Accordingly, the sharp increase in gradient is
attributed to lower sediment permeability to the east.
2.3.5 Oasis Subarea
Another peripheral zone of unconfined groundwater, with different chemical characteristics from water
in the major Indio Subbasin areas, is found underlying the Oasis Subarea that extends along the base of
the Santa Rosa Mountains. Water‐bearing materials underlying the subarea consist of highly permeable
alluvial fan deposits. Although groundwater data suggest that the boundary between the Oasis and
Thermal subareas may be a buried fault extending from Travertine Rock to the community of Oasis, the
remainder of the boundary is a lithologic change from the coarse fan deposits of the Oasis Subarea to the
interbedded sands, gravel, and silts of the Thermal Subarea. Little information is available as to the
thickness of the water‐bearing materials, but it is estimated to be in excess of 1,000 feet.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-2 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-3 TODD / W&C
3.2 KEY WELLS
As part of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs took the general approach to defining sustainability
criteria based on recognition of the following: 1) historical low groundwater levels have occurred relatively
recently in the Indio Subbasin and 2) there has been an absence of reported problems associated with
those historical lows. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that maintaining groundwater elevations at
or above minimum historical values should not cause undesirable results. This has been substantiated by
a review of available information on the location and depths of wells serving both municipal and small
water systems, which indicated that historical low groundwater levels were above the shallowest well
depths.
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update identified a network of 57 Key Wells, shown on Figure 3-1. These Key
Wells were selected through a quantitative approach that considered the wells with long records
characteristic of an area and distribution of wells across the Indio Subbasin. These wells are representative
of local groundwater elevation conditions and are appropriate for inclusion in the Key Well groundwater
elevation monitoring network (a subset of the overall monitoring program). Each Key Well was assigned
a Minimum Threshold (MT) for groundwater levels, recognizing that chronic lowering of groundwater
levels can indicate significant and unreasonable depletion of supply, causing undesirable results to
domestic, agricultural, municipal, and other beneficial uses of groundwater.
The MT for chronic lowering of groundwater levels is defined at each Key Well by historical low
groundwater levels. Undesirable results are indicated when groundwater levels are below the MT for five
consecutive same season monitoring events, in 25 percent or more of the Key Wells in the Indio Subbasin.
Consistent with SGMA, Measurable Objectives (MOs) are specific, quantifiable goals to track management
performance relative to sustainability indicators. In the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs define the
MOs as maintaining groundwater levels above the groundwater level MTs and within an operating range;
this represents a sustainable groundwater system. In addition, the 2022 Alternative Plan Update
demonstrated that the groundwater level MTs are appropriate proxy criteria for other sustainability
indicators including groundwater storage and subsidence, given that groundwater levels are linked to
these indicators.
Key Wells, their MTs, and WY 2020 – 2021 minimum groundwater levels are listed in Table 3-2. These
wells and associated level data were uploaded to the MNM of the SGMA Portal with submittal of this
Annual Report. For elevations, CVWD uses the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) NGVD29 and
MTs for each well were determined in this datum for the 2022 Alternative Plan Update. DWA has surveyed
their key wells and reference point elevations are available in the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD)
NAVD88. The datum used for the other GSAs was unknown but assumed to be NGVD29, pending
verification. DWR requires all elevation data be submitted in the MNM using the NAVD88 datum. For
transparency, both datums are shown in Table 3-2. A figure showing key well locations and numbers
(Figure A-1), hydrographs and the respective MTs for each Key Well in the NAVD88 datum are included as
Appendix A.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-6 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-7 TODD / W&C
3.3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS, FLOW, AND TRENDS
Figure 3-2 shows the WY 2020‐2021 groundwater elevation contour map for the Indio Subbasin. Average
groundwater elevations of the principal aquifer for the water year are used for contouring, as water levels
do not exhibit strong seasonal trends. Regional groundwater flows are in a northwest‐to‐southeast
direction through the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater elevations range from greater than 1,200 feet above
mean sea level (feet msl) near the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin in the northwest to approximately ‐200
feet msl in the southeast along the northern shoreline of the Salton Sea. The hydraulic gradients across
the Indio Subbasin in WY 2020‐2021 were typically steeper in the northwest with the gradient flattening
to the southeast. Groundwater elevations and gradients are strongly influenced by groundwater
replenishment activities near the WWR‐GRF and TEL‐GRF. Geological faults, constrictions, and pumping
also affect local hydraulic gradients.
Long‐term water level hydrographs for 16 selected Key Wells distributed across the Indio Subbasin are
presented on Figure 3-2 to illustrate groundwater elevation trends over time. Water level measurements
for the 16 wells are included on five hydrographs labeled 1 through 5 on Figure 3-2 and depict the
groundwater level response to historical pumping and water management activities in the Indio Subbasin.
The hydrographs show that groundwater levels in the northwestern portion of the Indio Subbasin have
responded directly and positively to historical replenishment activities at the WWR‐GRF (Hydrograph 1).
Groundwater elevations in the Palm Springs/Cathedral City area have remained relatively stable over time
with more moderate positive responses to upgradient WWR‐GRF replenishment activities. Groundwater
levels in the Palm Desert area have stabilized since 2005 and increased slightly since 2010 with recent
increases coinciding with reduced groundwater pumping and initiation of recharge at the PD‐GRF in
February 2019 (Hydrograph 2). Groundwater elevations in Bermuda Dunes, La Quinta, Indio, and
Coachella have stabilized since 2005 and increased slightly in the La Quinta area since 2010 (Hydrograph
3). Groundwater elevations in the southeastern portion of the Indio Subbasin near Thermal and Mecca
have responded positively to replenishment activities at the TEL‐GRF since recharge commenced in 2009
(Hydrographs 4 and 5). Full‐scale hydrographs for all Key Wells are provided in Appendix A. The full‐scale
hydrographs in Appendix A show the surface elevation of each well as a horizontal line.
Collectively, the selected hydrographs illustrate the effectiveness of groundwater replenishment, source
substitution, and conservation programs in the Indio Subbasin in maintaining and, in some areas,
increasing groundwater storage under varying historical climatic and water use conditions.
3.3.1 Artesian Conditions
Historically, the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin experienced artesian conditions with sufficient
pressure to cause groundwater levels in wells to rise above the ground surface. Artesian flowing wells
attracted early settlers to farm in this area, but subsequently declined in the late 1930s due to increased
local groundwater pumping. The completion of the Coachella Canal by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) in 1949 brought Colorado River water to the eastern Coachella Valley for agricultural
irrigation purposes. Artesian conditions returned in the early 1960s through the 1980s, as imported
Colorado River water was substituted for groundwater production. Beginning in the late 1980s,
groundwater use increased again, resulting in declining water levels and the loss of artesian conditions.
The GSAs’ water management programs, including groundwater replenishment, source substitution and
water conservation, are restoring local groundwater levels and artesian conditions have returned in the
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-8 TODD / W&C
eastern Indio Subbasin. Benefits associated with artesian conditions include reduced groundwater
pumping costs and water quality protection of the deeper, confined production zone aquifers.
Figure 3-3 shows the location of 15 wells under artesian pressure in WY 2020‐2021 and their respective
water pressure equivalent elevation (measured in feet above ground surface [feet ags]). The area of
artesian conditions remained relatively stable in comparison to WY 2019‐2020. The table on the figure
compares groundwater elevations between WY 2019‐2020 and WY 2020‐2021 for 13 wells that
consistently show artesian conditions. Increases in artesian water levels (ranging from +0.53 to +7.33 feet)
are noted in 8 of the 13 artesian wells. The other five wells showed decreases of up to 2.9 feet.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-9 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 3-10 TODD / W&C
3.4 LAND SUBSIDENCE
Land subsidence is the differential lowering of the ground surface, which can damage structures and
facilities. This may be caused by regional tectonism or by declines in groundwater elevations due to
pumping. Land subsidence, resulting from aquifer system compaction and groundwater level declines, has
been a concern in the Coachella Valley since the mid‐1990s and has been investigated since 1996 through
an on‐going cooperative program between CVWD and the USGS (Sneed and Brandt, 2020). Global
Positioning System (GPS) surveying, using GNSS‐Inferred Positioning System and Orbit Analysis Simulation
Software (GIPSY‐OASIS) and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) methods, have been used to
determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the vertical land‐surface changes in the Coachella
Valley.
The GPS measurements have been used to determine elevation changes at specific locations, while InSAR
measurements have documented the geographic extent of elevation changes for the Indio Subbasin.
Analysis of InSAR data collected from 1995 to 2017 by the USGS indicates that as much as 2.0 feet of
subsidence occurred in the Indio Subbasin from 1995 to 2010 near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La
Quinta (Sneed and Brandt, 2020).
Since 2010, groundwater levels have stabilized or have partially recovered in response to the
implementation of source substitution, conservation, and groundwater replenishment programs. Up to
one inch of uplift has been measured since 2011 in the Palm Springs area, corresponding to higher
groundwater levels in response to upgradient WWR‐GRF recharge. In the Thermal area, the ground
surface has also rebounded about two inches over the past 10 years, returning to elevations observed in
2001. This rebound roughly coincides with commencement of recharge operations at the TEL‐GRF in 2009.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs plan to continue monitoring water levels and subsidence to track the effects of
management actions on land subsidence. The GSAs and the USGS have established a partnership and a
continuing subsidence monitoring program to collect and evaluate data between 2015 and 2023 with a
report to be published by the USGS before June 30, 2025 (CVWD, et al., 2021b).
Groundwater level MTs are used as a proxy to monitor subsidence. Table 3-2 indicates that all Key Wells
are above their MTs.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 4-2 TODD / W&C
The total groundwater extracted in WY 2020‐2021 represents an increase of 18,597 AF (7 percent)
compared to the volume extracted in WY 2019‐2020 (266,754 AF). The agricultural water use sector
(including fish farms) experienced a volumetric increase in water use (1,500 AF) compared to WY 2019‐
2020, or 3.3 percent. The industrial sector experienced a small volumetric decrease in water use of 94 AF
compared to WY 2019‐2020, or 6.8 percent. Urban usage experienced a volumetric increase in water use
of 17,191 AF compared to WY 2019‐2020, or 7.9 percent. The water use by golf courses and other users
was included in the urban sector.
Note that Table 4-1 includes a portion of groundwater extracted from the Indio Subbasin that is exported
for use outside the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater volumes exported for use outside the Indio Subbasin in
WY 2020‐2021 are described in further detail in Section 6.
Figure 4-1 shows the location of groundwater extraction in the Indio Subbasin based on public land survey
sections. The volume of groundwater extraction is indicated by color with dark blue sections
corresponding to groundwater extraction greater than 5,000 AF per square mile. Such areas are generally
located near urban centers, including the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm
Desert, and Indio.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 4-3 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-1 TODD / W&C
5. SURFACE WATER
This section presents the surface water supplies and use for the Indio Subbasin for WY 2020‐2021. Surface
water supplies consist of local surface water, imported Colorado River water from the Coachella Canal,
State Water Project (SWP) and other exchange water from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), and
recycled water produced by publicly owned wastewater reclamation plants.
5.1 LOCAL PRECIPITATION
Natural surface water flow in the Coachella Valley occurs as a result of precipitation, precipitation runoff,
and stream flow originating from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, with lesser amounts
originating from the Santa Rosa Mountains. Most precipitation occurs from December through February,
though intense precipitation events from subtropical thunderstorms can occur during the summer
months. The precipitation that occurs within the tributary watersheds either evaporates, is consumed by
native vegetation, percolates into underlying alluvium and fractured rock, or becomes runoff, which can
be captured by mountain‐front debris basins and percolated into the aquifer. A portion of the flow
percolating into the mountain watersheds eventually becomes subsurface inflow to the Subbasins.
Precipitation data for WY 2020‐2021 collected for 12 precipitation monitoring stations are provided in
Table 5-1. Station locations are shown on Figure 5-1. The annual precipitation for these stations during
WY 2020‐2021 averaged 2.81 inches, or approximately 58 percent relative to the long‐term average.
5.2 LOCAL STREAMFLOW
Streamflow is measured by the USGS at 19 stations in the Indio Subbasin. Table 5-2 shows the station
names and numbers, and the recorded streamflow volumes for WY 2020‐2021. Stream gauge locations
are shown on Figure 5-1.
Note that some streams (e.g., Whitewater River, Snow Creek, and Falls Creek) are gauged at multiple
locations. For example, the Whitewater River is gauged at six locations. USGS gauges 10257548 and
10257549 are downstream from where imported water is released at the WWR‐GRF. USGS gauge
10259540 measures the flow in the CVSC before it enters the Salton Sea. Snow Creek and Falls Creek are
each gauged at two locations (upgradient and downgradient of respective diversion structures).
Differences for each creek are calculated based on the difference between the upstream and downstream
gauges and reported as a separate station by the USGS.
5.2.1 Direct Use of Local Surface Water
DWA operates stream diversions facilities on Snow, Falls, and Chino Creeks, and captures subsurface flow
from the Whitewater River Canyon. During WY 2020‐2021, 719 AF of local surface water was directly used
as shown in Table 5-3, all of which was used for urban and agricultural water supply in DWA’s service area.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-3 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-5 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-7 TODD / W&C
In 2003, CVWD, MWD, and Imperial Irrigation District (IID) successfully negotiated the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA), which quantifies the Colorado River water allocations through 2077 and
supports the transfer of water between agencies. The QSA defines CVWD’s Colorado River water supply
entitlement on a calendar year basis. Under the QSA, CVWD has a base allotment of 330,000 AFY. CVWD
negotiated water transfer agreements with MWD and IID that increased CVWD supplies by an additional
123,000 AFY. From CVWD’s QSA entitlement, 26,000 AFY is transferred to San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA) as part of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and 3,000 AFY is transferred to Indian
Present Perfected Rights. As a result, CVWD’s net QSA supply will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and
remain at that level until 2047, decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates
(Secretary of the Interior, 2003). CVWD’s Colorado River entitlement under the QSA for Calendar Year (CY)
2021 is summarized in Table 5-4. CVWD’s total Colorado River water entitlements for CY 2021 under the
QSA is 399,000 AFY, an increase of 5,000 AF as compared to CY 2020 reflecting the change in Second
IID/CVWD Transfer water from 23,000 AF in calendar year CY 2020 to 28,000 AF in CY 2021.
Additionally, under the 2003 QSA, MWD transferred 35,000 AFY of its SWP Table A Amount to CVWD. This
SWP water is exchanged for Colorado River water and can be delivered at Imperial Dam for delivery via
the Coachella Canal to the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin or at Lake Havasu for delivery via the
Colorado River Aqueduct to the western portion of the Indio Subbasin at the WWR‐GRF. The 2019 Second
Amendment (CVWD, 2019b) guaranteed delivery of the 35,000 AFY from 2019 to 2026, for a total of
280,000 AFY of water to the WWR‐GRF during that timeframe. MWD can deliver the water through
CVWD’s Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR‐GRF) or via the Advance Delivery account.
The MWD/IID Transfer originated in a 1989 agreement with MWD to receive 20,000 AF of its Colorado
River supply. The 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water
(CVWD, 2019a) defined the exchange and delivery terms between MWD, CVWD, and DWA. The 2019
Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement (CVWD, 2019b) reduced CVWD’s annual
delivery of the MWD/IID Transfer to 15,000 AFY, for a total of 105,000 AF, if taken at the Whitewater
Service Connections (for recharge at WWR‐GRF) between 2020 and 2026. For those seven years, MWD
keeps the remaining 5,000 AFY.
Colorado River water is delivered extensively throughout the East Valley to agricultural users, golf courses,
and homeowner’s associations for irrigation, in addition to being used in CVWD’s groundwater
replenishment programs at WWR‐GRF, TEL‐GRF, and PD‐GRF. Colorado River Water is also delivered to
the Mid‐Valley area via the Mid‐Valley Pipeline (MVP) where it is delivered directly or blended with
CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and open space irrigation.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-10 TODD / W&C
As shown in Table 5-6, CVWD and DWA received 106,181 AF of SWP Exchange water at the WWR‐GRF
and 427 AF at the MC‐GRF (in the Mission Creek Subbasin), for a total delivery to the Coachella Valley of
106,608 AF. This was 57,727 AF more than the 48,881 AF delivered in WY 2019‐2020, with an additional
36,925 AF added to the Advance Delivery Account. At the end of WY 2020‐2021, 304,381 AF was stored
in MWD’s Advance Delivery Account in the Indio Subbasin. -
In WY 2020‐2021, water delivered to WWR‐GRF totaled 106,181 AF. SWP water is used entirely for
groundwater replenishment at WWR‐GRF. No SWP exchange water is directly delivered to local
customers.
5.3.3 Total Imported Deliveries
Table 5-7 summarizes the total imported water in the Indio Plan Area by water use sector and source
during WY 2020‐2021. Table 5-7 is split by the total imported deliveries for direct use by local customers
in the Plan Area (69,683 AF) and the total imported deliveries for groundwater replenishment (106,608
AF). Total water imported to the Indio Plan Area was 442,411 AF. This includes 2,689 AF of imported water
deliveries used outside the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-13 TODD / W&C
Shadow Hills in north Indio. Recycled water not used for irrigation is percolated at onsite and offsite
percolation ponds. WRP‐7 delivered 2,594 AF of recycled water in WY 2020‐2021.
CVWD WRP‐10, located in Palm Desert, has a tertiary treatment capacity of 15 mgd and delivers recycled
water for irrigation of golf courses and homeowner’s associations landscaping within the mid‐valley area.
WRP‐10 recycled water is blended with Canal water particularly in summer months when recycled water
supply alone cannot meet non‐potable irrigation demands. WRP‐10 delivered 7,529 AF of recycled water
in WY 2020‐2021.
The DWA WRP is located in the City of Palm Springs and has a tertiary treatment capacity of 10 mgd. DWA
provides tertiary treatment of secondary treated supply from the City of Palm Springs’s WWTP for
irrigation of parks and other greenscapes in the Palm Springs area. DWA WRP supplied 3,877 AF of
recycled water in WY 2020‐2021, including 444 AF for onsite use. Table 5-8 shows that a total of 14,000
AF of recycled water was used in WY 2020‐2021 to offset groundwater pumping.
Four additional WRPs in the Indio Subbasin treat wastewater, but do not generate recycled water. These
wastewater treatment facilities are operated by the Valley Sanitary District (VSD), the City of Coachella,
and CVWD (WRP‐2 and ‐4); locations of each facility are shown on Figure 5-2. For these wastewater
treatment facilities, treated effluent is discharged either to on‐site percolation/evaporation ponds or to
the CVSC. Additionally, the Kent SeaTech Fish Farm has a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to discharge water to the CVSC. Table 5-9 summarizes the volumes of wastewater treated,
recycled, and disposed in the Indio Subbasin by facility (listed from northwest to southeast).
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 5-14 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 6-1 TODD / W&C
6. TOTAL WATER USE
This section presents the total water use for the Plan Area for WY 2020‐2021. Table 6-1 presents a
summary of water use by water use sector and water source. As shown in Table 6-1, a total of 587,632 AF
of water was used within the Plan Area, and of that, 4,876 AFY was exported for use outside of the Indio
Subbasin. Figure 6-1 shows a comparison of supply and demand for direct use within the Plan Area for
WY 2020‐2021.
The total water use in the Plan Area was 587,632 AFY. This represents an increase of 31,965 AF or 6
percent compared to WY 2019‐2020 (555,667 AF). Export uses include (a) Colorado River water exported
outside the Indio Subbasin for agricultural use (1,117 AF) and urban use (1,572 AF) and (b) groundwater
pumped from the Indio Subbasin and delivered to CVWD customers in Imperial and Riverside counties on
the east and west sides of the Salton Sea (East and West Salton Sea Basins) (2,135 AFY) and pumped by
MSWD and delivered to its customers in the Mission Creek (52 AFY).
As summarized on Figure 6-1, total Plan Area water use is calculated by summing groundwater
production, local surface water diversions, Coachella Canal water, and recycled water for agricultural,
industrial, urban, and other undetermined uses, and including water exports for use outside the Indio
Subbasin.
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update forecasted demand in the Indio Subbasin from 2020 to 2045 based on
average current uses, because water demand varies from year to year due in part to hydrologic conditions
(wet and dry year types). The 2022 Alternative Plan Update estimated total water use in 2020 to average
594,823 AF. Figure 6-2 compares the forecasted demand volume to the actual water use in WYs 2016‐
2017 through 2020‐2021 and the five‐year average (573,435 AFY, shown as a dashed line on Figure 6-2).
Compared to the projected demand for 2021, the five‐year average is lower than projected demands by
approximately 20,000 AF.
DWR requires that SGMA Annual Reports be accompanied by tables summarizing water use by type and
source. The following required tables are included as Appendix B.
A – Groundwater Extractions
B – Groundwater Extraction Methods
C – Surface Water Supply
D – Total Water Use
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 6-3 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 6-4 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-1 TODD / W&C
7. CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE
This section presents the groundwater balance and change in storage for the Indio Subbasin for WY 2020‐
2021.
7.1 GROUNDWATER BALANCE
The water budget compares the inflows to and outflows from the Indio Subbasin. The difference between
inflows and outflows defines the change in storage over a specific time period, in this case, WY 2020‐2021.
The annual water balance for the Indio Subbasin in WY 2020‐2021 shows an increase in groundwater
storage of 5,954 AF. A discussion of major inflows and outflows from the Indio Subbasin is presented
below and a stacked bar chart of total groundwater inflows and outflows is presented on Figure 7-1. Some
elements of the methodology used in calculating the water balance change in storage were modified in
WY 2020‐2021, including use of the numerical model to be more consistent with the 2022 Alternative Plan
Update, as explained below. The numerical model was updated from December 2019 through September
2021.
7.1.1 Groundwater Inflows
Major inflows to the Indio Subbasin include natural recharge, subsurface inflow (from adjacent subbasins
and potentially from the Salton Sea), return flows from use and wastewater percolation, and groundwater
replenishment (or artificial recharge).
Natural Recharge
Precipitation that falls in the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Little San Bernardino mountains is the primary
source of natural recharge in the Indio Subbasin. A portion of the surface runoff produced by precipitation
percolates directly into the subsurface or infiltrates through streambeds. The annual volume of natural
recharge varies significantly as the annual volume of precipitation varies widely.
Natural recharge was estimated using the same methodology that was developed for the 2022 Alternative
Plan Update numerical model. As part of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, the groundwater flow model
and data were updated to reflect hydrologic conditions through WY 2020‐2021. Recharge from mountain
front inflow and from percolation of stream flows into the Indio Subbasin was estimated for 24
watersheds and stream channels along the southwest edge of the model, where the Indio Subbasin
interfaces with the consolidated rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains.
In past annual reports, the long‐term average value (45,953 AF) was used in the water budget to represent
natural recharge. However, more recent years have experienced less than the long‐term average natural
recharge and an annual volume is more indicative of natural water year variations. Natural infiltration for
WY 2020‐2021 was calculated as 23,897 AF, 52 percent of the long‐term average (1930‐2021).
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-2 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-4 TODD / W&C
disposal to percolation/evaporation ponds was 4,446 AF for WY 2020‐2021. For groundwater balance
purposes, a two percent evaporation loss is applied to wastewater evaporation as an outflow.
Groundwater Replenishment
Artificial recharge is accomplished in the western portion of the Indio Subbasin at the WWR‐GRF, in the
mid‐valley at the PD‐GRF, and in the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin at the TEL‐GRF.
The source of replenishment water for the WWR‐GRF is SWP exchange water (exchanged for Colorado
River water via the CRA) and QSA water, while the source of replenishment water for the PD‐GRF and TEL‐
GRF is Colorado River water imported through the Coachella Canal. Canal water is delivered to the PD‐
GRF via the MVP.
In WY 2020‐2021, 154,848 AF of imported water was used for groundwater replenishment in the Indio
Subbasin. Of this volume, 106,181 AF of SWP exchange water and QSA water was replenished at the
WWR‐GRF (see Table 5-7). Of the 48,667 AF of Colorado River (Coachella Canal) water delivered for
replenishment, 37,878 AF was replenished at the TEL‐GRF, and 10,789 AF was replenished at the PD‐GRF
(Table 5-7). For groundwater balance purposes, a four percent evaporation loss is applied to WWR‐GRF
and a two percent evaporation loss is applied to all other replenishment water deliveries as an outflow.
7.1.2 Groundwater Outflows
Indio Subbasin groundwater outflows consist of:
• Groundwater pumping to meet water demands,
• Flow from the semi‐perched aquifer through the agricultural drains into the Salton Sea,
• ET from groundwater replenishment, wastewater percolation and semi‐perched aquifer, and
• Subsurface flow out of the Indio Subbasin, into the aquifers beneath the Salton Sea.
Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater pumping is the largest component of outflow from the Indio Subbasin. During WY 2020‐
2021, 285,351 AF of groundwater were pumped for beneficial uses within the Plan Area as shown in Table
4-1.
Flow to Drains
In the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin, the confining unit of the Upper Aquifer impedes deep
percolation of applied water at the surface, resulting in saturated soil conditions that can reduce
agricultural productivity. In the 1930s, a network of drains was constructed to alleviate this condition. The
CVSC and 27 drains that flow to the Salton Sea receive intercepted shallow groundwater from agricultural
fields. Following the delivery of Coachella Canal water to the Coachella Valley in 1949, subsurface (tile)
drainage systems were soon installed to control the high‐water table conditions and to intercept poor
quality shallow groundwater. CVWD currently maintains 21 miles of open drains and 166 miles of
subsurface pipe drains serving 37,425 acres of agricultural lands in the Coachella Valley (CVWD, 2018a).
Provision of shallow drainage reduces the percolation of poor‐quality return flows into the deeper potable
aquifers. Flow in the drains increased steadily as additional tile drains were installed, until the early 1970s.
Agricultural drainage flow remained relatively stable through the 1970s and steadily declined through
2009. Drain flow (excluding wastewater discharges and fish farm effluent) has decreased steadily from a
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-5 TODD / W&C
high of approximately 158,000 AF in 1976, to 58,800 AF in 1999, and about 40,000 AF in 2009. Since 2009,
drain flows have increased in part because of higher groundwater levels in the eastern Indio Subbasin.
CVWD monitors drain flows to the Salton Sea on a monthly basis. The USGS also operates a continuous
flow gauge near the terminus of the CVSC (USGS Gauge Number 10256540 on Table 5-1). As shown in
Table 7-2, the total measured drain flow to the Salton Sea in WY 2020‐2021 was approximately 80,720
AF.
The CVSC and drain system also receive flows of Coachella Canal water that exceed requested deliveries
(regulatory water), treated wastewater, and fish farm effluent. These flows must be deducted from the
total flow to calculate the amount of groundwater leaving the Indio Subbasin through the drain system.
Table 7-3 indicates that 52,676 AF of drain water flowed from the shallow groundwater system to the
Salton Sea in WY 2020‐2021.
Subsurface Flow to the Salton Sea
Historically, when groundwater levels were relatively high, groundwater naturally flowed toward the
Salton Sea. Shallow semi‐perched groundwater discharged into the Salton Sea and deeper groundwater
left the Indio Subbasin as subsurface outflow. As groundwater levels in the southeastern portion of the
Indio Subbasin declined, the rate of outflow to the Salton Sea decreased.
The Salton Sea is simulated in the 2022 Alternative Plan Update model as a general head boundary (GHB)
with time‐varying elevations. The model was updated to reflect actual Salton Sea elevations. Both
groundwater outflow to the Sea and inflow from the Sea are simulated, depending on location, time
period, and hydraulic gradients between the shallow aquifer and the Sea. Simulated net flow between the
Sea and groundwater system is relatively small and has become a net outflow in recent years. In WY 2020‐
2021, the net subsurface outflow to the Salton Sea was simulated as 2,806 AFY.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-8 TODD / W&C
2021 was a dry year, managed artificial recharge continued to replenish the basin. The Indio Subbasin
gained 5,954 AF in storage.
Long‐term sustainability is typically assessed based on changes in groundwater storage over a historical
period on the order of 10 to 20 years that includes wet and dry periods. Figure 7-2 shows the annual
change in groundwater storage from 1970 through WY 2020‐2021 (gray columns). The starting year of
1970 was selected as it is three years before imported water replenishment commenced in the Indio
Subbasin. The data used to prepare this figure are based on calendar year until WY 2016‐2017, when data
sources were compiled for the water year for the first SGMA Annual Report. WY 2020‐2021 is the first
year that the numerical model was used to simulate the change in storage. The model from the 2022
Alternative Plan was updated to reflect conditions through September 2021. Previous years relied on
analytical solutions developed to estimate natural processes and long‐term averages.
Figure 7-2 also shows the annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and ten‐year and twenty‐
year running‐average change in groundwater storage. As shown on the chart, annual inflows to the Indio
Subbasin (blue line) are highly variable with years of high inflows corresponding to wet years when SWP
delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid‐1980s occurred when MWD commenced large‐
scale advanced water deliveries to the Indio Subbasin. The chart shows that after an extended period of
decline, both the ten‐year and twenty‐year running average change in storage have shown upward trends
since 2009, and the ten‐year running average has been positive since 2017.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-11 TODD / W&C
While the goal of the CVWMP was to eliminate groundwater overdraft, not to restore the Indio Subbasin
to historical conditions, it is worth noting that since 2009 the Indio Subbasin has recovered approximately
845,000 AF of groundwater in storage, or about 45 percent of the cumulative depletion observed from
1970 to 2009. Figure 7-3 shows the cumulative change in storage since 1970. The Indio Subbasin was at
its minimum storage in 2009 (with a calculated storage loss of 1,890,000 AF from 1970 to 2009, which
represents 6 percent of the estimated storage capacity of the Indio Subbasin). Since 2009, groundwater
pumping has decreased by about 25 percent and replenishment activities have increased leading to the
observed recovery of groundwater in storage.
The recovery of groundwater storage and the positive trends in the water balance demonstrate the
progress being made through implementation of the Alternative Plan.
7.2 CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAPS
Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5 show one‐year and twelve‐year groundwater elevation change maps,
respectively. In addition to the main map frame, two separate zoomed‐in frames are included on each
figure to show calculated water level changes for the numerous wells in the mid‐valley area and TEL‐GRF
vicinity. The change in groundwater elevation is based on the difference between the average
groundwater elevations for wells monitored in the Indio Subbasin during WY 2019‐2020 and WY 2020‐
2021 (one‐year) and WY 2008‐2009 and WY 2020‐2021 (twelve‐year). Current groundwater elevations
were compared to WY 2008‐2009 because that water year represented recent historical lows for much of
the basin. Figure 7-3 shows the volume of recovery since those historical lows. Careful consideration was
taken to ensure that average water level measurements for each well for the respective water years were
comparable.
7.2.1 One-Year Change (WY 2019-2020 to WY 2020-2021)
Figure 7-4 shows the one‐year change in average groundwater elevations from WY 2019‐2020 to WY
2020‐2021 for the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin generally increased from WY
2019‐2020 to WY 2020‐2021 in most of the Subbasin. However, in the northwestern area of the Subbasin
in the immediate vicinity of the WWR‐GRF, groundwater levels declined compared with WY 2019‐2020,
due to reduced replenishment in the latter half of WY 2020‐2021. Groundwater levels also declined
somewhat across the eastern portion of the Subbasin but have shown long‐term increasing trends.
Increasing groundwater levels up to 11 feet are seen downgradient of the WWR‐GRF in the vicinity of
Palm Springs associated with greater groundwater replenishment at this facility in previous years. In the
central portion of the Indio Subbasin from Palm Desert to La Quinta, groundwater levels generally rose
with water level changes ranging from about ‐3 to 8.5 feet. Some of the increase in groundwater levels is
likely associated with the initiation of replenishment at the PD‐GRF beginning in February 2019. In the
vicinity of TEL‐GRF, groundwater levels increased by up to 5 feet, with increased levels observed as far as
the Mecca area and adjacent to the Salton Sea. Groundwater level increases reflect the continued benefits
of recharge operations at the TEL‐GRF.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2020-2021 TODD / W&C TODD / W&C 7-12
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-13 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-14 TODD / W&C
7.2.2 Twelve-Year Change (WY 2008-2009 to WY 2020-2021)
Figure 7-5 shows the twelve‐year change in average groundwater elevations from WY 2008‐2009 to WY
2020‐2021 for the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater levels in most of the Indio Subbasin have increased over
the past 12 years. The largest groundwater increases are observed downgradient of the WWR‐GRF in the
Palm Springs area and in the vicinity of the TEL‐GRF and PD‐GRF, with water level increases of up to about
150 feet directly downgradient of the WWR‐GRF, about 100 feet near the TEL‐GRF, and about 25 feet near
the PD‐GRF. In the greater mid‐valley area near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta, groundwater
level increases have risen on the order of 20 feet, reflecting the benefits of source substitution,
conservation programs, and recharge operations. Some localized declines have occurred northeast of
Bermuda Dunes and at the northeastern tip of the Subbasin. Groundwater levels in the southeastern
portion of the Indio Subbasin have generally increased, typically between 10 and 45 feet, reflecting
storage benefits from replenishment operations at the TEL‐GRF and decreased pumping.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 7-15 TODD / W&C
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-1 TODD / W&C
8. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS
Building on the original 2002 CVWMP, the 2010 CVWMP Update was adopted in January 2012 with the
goal “to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost‐effective and sustainable manner” and
meet the following objectives:
1. Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer.
2. Eliminate long‐term groundwater overdraft.
3. Manage and protect water quality.
4. Comply with state and federal laws and regulations.
5. Manage future costs.
6. Minimize adverse environmental impacts.
In response to adoption of the SGMA in 2014, the Indio Subbasin GSAs collaboratively submitted to DWR
the 2010 CVWMP, accompanied by a Bridge Document, as an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan (GSP) for the Indio Subbasin that describes how the existing 2010 CVWMP met the requirements of
the SGMA. DWR approved the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan in July 2019. SGMA requires
plan updates every 5 years. In compliance with SGMA, the GSAs updated and adopted the 2022 Indio
Subbasin Water Management Plan Update (2022 Alternative Plan Update) to fulfill that requirement.
This section provides an update of the status of 2022 Alternative Plan Update implementation activities
during WY 2020‐2021.
8.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The 2022 Alternative Plan Update identified the following water management strategies to achieve water
reliability and resilience through the planning horizon:
• Fully use available Colorado River water supplies
• Support improvement of the long‐term reliability of SWP supplies, including participation in the
Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF)
• Continue developing recycled water as a reliable local water supply
• Implement source substitution and replenishment for resilience in response to changing
conditions and for maintenance of long‐term groundwater supply reliability
• Increase water‐use efficiency across all sectors
• Participate in development of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV‐
SNMP) to address salt and nutrient management in the Indio Subbasin.
To accomplish this, the GSAs updated and expanded the list of PMAs that support water management
within the Subbasin. Thirty PMAs were identified based on priorities set by the GSAs and stakeholders;
these represent a wide variety of activities by the four GSAs. Projects are classified into four categories
based on project benefits: water conservation, water supply development, source substitution and
replenishment, and water quality protection.
The following sections provide a summary of the PMAs included in the 2022 Alternative Plan Update
grouped by category. Please refer to the 2022 Alternative Plan Update for more detailed information on
the PMAs, and Table 8-1 below for the current status of the PMAs.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-2 TODD / W&C
8.2 WATER CONSERVATION
Water conservation is a major component of overall water management in the Indio Subbasin. As a desert
community reliant upon imported water supplies, the Coachella Valley has and will continue to use its
water resources efficiently. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update included water conservation efforts for
agriculture, urban, and landscaping water demands, and the GSAs continue to expand and strengthen
water conservation programs not only through the 2022 Alternative Plan Update, but also through other
efforts, such as the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG). This section
summarizes existing and proposed urban, agricultural, and golf course water conservation activities in the
Coachella Valley.
PMA 1: Urban Water Conservation
For the past three decades, water purveyors have placed a significant focus on urban water conservation
as a way of life to address the increasing water demands due to population growth and economic
development in the Coachella Valley. Local urban water conservation programs began as early as 1988.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs manage a suite of conservation programs and activities designed to increase
efficiency, reduce future water demand, and support fulfillment of the statewide Water Conservation Act.
The Regional Water Conservation Program (Regional Program) has been a cornerstone of water
conservation in the Coachella Valley. Implemented in 2013 by the CVRWMG, this multifaceted Regional
Program has achieved a significant level of conservation through programs and activities designed to
increase efficiency, reduce future water demand, and assist the Coachella Valley in meeting regulatory
requirements. The Regional Program funds many of the conservation programs as well as the CV Water
Counts (www.cvwatercounts.com) conservation website.
The demand management programs highlighted in the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (2020 RUWMP) (CVWD, et al., 2021c) and refined by the GSAs include but are not
limited to landscape plan checks, residential and large landscape smart controller rebates, residential turf
conversions, water waste investigations, toilet and clothing washer rebates, commercial and residential
plumbing retrofits, and efficient rotating nozzles. The GSAs will continue to seek grant funding to support
ongoing delivery and expansion of their conservation programs.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-3 TODD / W&C
The Indio Subbasin GSAs are committed to continued implementation of water conservation programs
for both large landscape customers and residential customers in the Subbasin. In addition to rebates and
conservation education and outreach, the GSAs continue to implement water use efficient landscape
development standards. Additionally, the GSAs will work to implement the 2018 Water Use Efficiency
Legislation that will determine preliminary water use objectives for each of the GSAs in 2022.
As part of the 2020 RUWMP, the GSAs have also each developed and adopted a Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP) (CVWD et al., 2021c). Each WSCP included six shortage response levels and
associated voluntary and mandatory actions for conservation, depending on the causes, severity, and
anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. These response actions have been used effectively in
the past and could be implemented as needed, as part of the GSAs’ adaptive management strategy. During
WY 2020‐2021 the GSAs were in Shortage Level 1 of their respective WSCPs, which is in place during
normal conditions and when less than a 10 percent supply shortage exists. Shortage Level 1 conservation
measures currently enacted include:
• Water flow onto adjacent property, non‐irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways,
parking lots, or parking structures is prohibited.
• Using any water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, unless the water
recirculates.
• Applying water to driveways, sidewalks, concrete or asphalt is prohibited unless to address
immediate health and safety needs. Reasonable pressure washer or water broom use is
permitted.
• Spray irrigation of outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after rainfall of 0.10 inches is
prohibited.
• Using a hose to wash a vehicle, windows, or solar panels is prohibited unless an automatic shut‐
off nozzle or pressure washer is used.
• Broken sprinklers shall be repaired within five business days of notification by agency, and leaks
shall be repaired as soon as practical.
• Hotels will provide guests the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily.
• Draining and refilling of private swimming pools is discouraged, unless necessary for health and
safety or repairs.
• Overseeding is discouraged.
• Rebates for landscape efficiency are provided.
• Rebates for indoor water use efficiency are provided.
• Water use surveys/audits are offered.
PMA 2: Golf Water Conservation
Golf water conservation has been implemented by CVWD since development of the 2002 CVWMP and
recognition that demand management was essential to balancing the Indio Subbasin. The CVWD
Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1302.5, last updated July 2020) establishes uniform landscaping
standards throughout the Coachella Valley and is one of the few ordinances in the State to establish turf
limitations for new and renovated golf courses. CVWD is committed to working with new and existing golf
courses to reduce water demands through programs such as irrigation system audits, scheduling irrigation
with the best available science, plan checking, inspecting new golf courses for plan check compliance, and
monitoring maximum water allowance compliance.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-4 TODD / W&C
In December 2013, CVWD collaborated with the local chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents
Association to create a Golf and Water Task Force. In collaboration with the golf course representatives
on the Task Force, CVWD launched the golf course rebate program in 2015, after securing a State grant.
CVWD is committed to continued participation in the Task Force.
CVWD’s non‐potable water program currently has 54 golf courses connected to the Mid‐Valley Pipeline
(MVP), the Coachella Canal, or the blended delivery systems from WRP‐7 and WRP‐10. The conversion of
golf courses from private production wells to non‐potable water reduces groundwater use and maximizes
delivery of the region’s imported supplies. CVWD is committed to its ongoing non‐potable water
expansion.
DWA serves recycled water to golf courses within its service area where it has been deemed cost effective
to connect. Additional courses may be connected when recycled water pipelines are extended to closer
proximity. DWA offers incentives to convert grass areas to desert landscape.
PMA 3: Agricultural Water Conservation
Following the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD began implementing a variety of agricultural conservation
programs, including grower education and training, scientific irrigation scheduling, irrigation
upgrades/retrofits, and engineering evaluations. Programs with voluntary grower participation, such as
the Extraordinary Conservation Measures programs, have been effective in increasing water use
efficiency. CVWD is committed to ongoing implementation of agricultural conservation programs.
CVWD established the Agricultural Water Advisory Group (AWAG) in December 2015 to collaborate with
other organizations and educate Valley residents about the agricultural industry’s stewardship of water
in the Coachella Valley. CVWD is committed to continued participation in the AWAG.
8.3 WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
CVWD and DWA continue their efforts to increase reliability and obtain additional water supplies, as they
become available through SWP‐related projects (e.g., Delta Conveyance Facility, Sites Reservoir, Lake
Perris Seepage) and other exchanges, entitlements, and transfers.
8.3.1 Surface Water
PMA 4: Increased Surface Water Diversion
DWA’s surface water rights for Chino, Snow, Falls Creek, and Whitewater canyon flows total 13,309 AFY.
However, DWA has not always captured all the surface water it has had the right to divert from those
sources. DWA plans to divert as much water from those sources as may be available and deliver that
diverted surface water to the WWR‐GRF for replenishment into the Indio Subbasin and subsequent
extraction for use in DWA’s domestic water supply system. Some of that diverted water is and will
continue to be filtered for use in the Snow Creek Village west of Palm Springs.
8.3.2 SWP Water
CVWD and DWA are working with MWD and DWR to both improve the reliability of SWP water and acquire
additional supplies. Future SWP projects are outlined below.
PMA 5: Delta Conveyance Facility
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-5 TODD / W&C
The Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF) is a project led by DWR to improve SWP reliability by modernizing
SWP conveyance facilities in the Delta. The DCF will construct and operate a new tunnel to bypass the
existing natural channels that are currently used for SWP conveyance, which are vulnerable to
earthquakes, sea level rise, and pumping restrictions. CVWD and DWA both continue to support planning
activities associated with DCF.
PMA 6: Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project
The Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project is a project led by DWR to collect and distribute SWP water
seeping under Lake Perris Dam and deliver the water to MWD in addition to its current allocated Table A
water. The proposed project consists of installing an integrated recovery well system that would include
up to six new seepage recovery wells and a conveyance pipeline connecting the wells to the CRA. CVWD
and DWA both continue to support planning activities for this project.
PMA 7: Sites Reservoir Project
The Sites Reservoir Project is a reservoir in the Sacramento Valley that will capture and store excess water
from snowmelt and winter runoff from the Sacramento River for use during dry periods. Water supply
and storage capacity will be made available to water purveyors throughout California. CVWD and DWA
both continue to support planning activities for this project.
PMA 8: Future Supplemental Water Acquisitions
CVWD has entered into various agreements with Rosedale Rio‐Bravo, Glorious Lands Company, and MWD
to deliver supplemental water to the Indio Subbasin. As opportunities arise, CVWD and DWA will continue
to make water transfers and purchases.
8.3.3 Potable Reuse
PMA 9: East Valley Reclamation Authority Potable Reuse
In 2013, IWA and VSD formed a Joint Powers Agreement for the East Valley Reclamation Authority (EVRA),
with the main objective to augment local water resources through beneficial water reuse. This project
involves injection of treated wastewater from the existing VSD WRF for indirect potable reuse. IWA
continues to support planning activities for this project.
8.4 SOURCE SUBSTITUTION AND REPLENISHMENT
Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users that currently pump
groundwater, reducing groundwater extraction and allowing the management of groundwater in storage.
The source substitution projects are presented by water source and location within the Coachella Valley.
8.4.1 Colorado River Water – Non-Potable Water (NPW) Deliveries
Historically, Colorado River water (Canal water) was used almost exclusively for agricultural irrigation,
with golf course irrigation beginning in 1986. Direct use of Colorado River water now includes agriculture,
duck clubs and fish farms, golf courses, and construction water. CVWD is working to expand direct delivery
of Colorado River water for agriculture, golf courses, and homeowner’s associations.
PMA 10: Mid‐Valley Pipeline (Canal Only Customers)
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-6 TODD / W&C
The MVP is a pipeline distribution system to deliver Canal water to the Mid‐Valley area. Canal water from
the MVP is either delivered directly or used to supplement CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and
open space irrigation. CVWD continues to pursue the direct connection of golf courses and open spaces
that primarily use groundwater for irrigation to the MVP.
PMA 11: Mid‐Canal Storage Project
The Mid‐Canal Storage Project will increase storage along the Coachella Canal by removing the existing
embankment between the current lined canal with the original earthen canal section to form a single wide
trapezoidal reservoir section. This additional storage will allow CVWD to manage common, but
unpredictable, events by providing for capture during excess water events for use during deficit water
events. During drought periods, this added backup supply will improve efficient use of water and limit
waste.
PMA 12: East Golf Expansion
The East Golf NPW Program currently serves 30.5 golf courses with Canal water. CVWD continues to
pursue the East Golf Expansion project to connect additional golf courses in the East Valley to the
Coachella Canal.
PMA 13: Oasis Distribution System
The Oasis Distribution System will expand the Canal water delivery system to the Oasis Area to utilize
additional Colorado River water and offset groundwater production for agricultural irrigation primarily.
Phase 1 of the project is currently under construction, and CVWD continues to move forward with
agricultural connections.
8.4.2 Recycled Water Deliveries
Currently, recycled water production exceeds existing demand during the winter months, and the
remaining recycled water is disposed of through onsite percolation basins. The following is a summary of
projects to maximize recycled water use by continuing to expand the NPW system and to eliminate land
disposal.
PMA 14: WRP‐10 Recycled Water Delivery
The WRP‐10 distribution system delivers NPW to existing customers throughout Indian Wells, Palm
Desert, and portions of Rancho Mirage. There are currently 18 customers served by a blend of Canal water
and recycled water. CVWD continues to pursue new WRP‐10 NPW connections.
PMA 15: WRP‐7 Tertiary Expansion
CVWD plans to expand its WRP‐7 recycled water production tertiary treatment capacity by 3 mgd to a
total capacity of 5.5 mgd (6,150 AFY) to meet anticipated regulatory changes and utilize increases in future
wastewater flows. CVWD continues to support planning activities for this tertiary expansion.
PMA 16: Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-7 TODD / W&C
The Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade would upgrade the Mile Post (MP) 113.2 Canal water pump
station capacity to convey Colorado River supply for blending with WRP‐7 recycled water. CVWD
continues to support planning activities for this pump station upgrade.
PMA 17: WRP‐7 Recycled Water Delivery
WRP‐7 delivers NPW to golf courses in the Sun City area. CVWD continues to pursue new WRP‐7 NPW
connections.
PMA 18: WRP‐4 Tertiary Expansion & Delivery
CVWD’s tertiary treatment expansion at WRP‐4 will construct tertiary capacity in four phases, establish a
recycled water distribution system, and reduce discharges to the CVSC. CVWD continues to work on
planning, permitting, and environmental compliance activities for this expansion.
PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled Water Delivery
DWA will increase deliveries of recycled water consistent with existing customer demands, wastewater
flow growth and new cost‐effective connections.
8.4.3 Groundwater Replenishment
Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have replenished the western portion of the Subbasin at the WWR‐GRF with
nearly 4 million AF and at the PD‐GRF with a total of 14,836 AF since starting operations in 2019. CVWD
has replenished the eastern portion of the Subbasin at TEL‐GRF with about 400,000 AF since full‐scale
operations commenced in 2009. The following is a brief summary of projects to continue groundwater
replenishment in the Indio Subbasin.
PMA 20: PD‐GRF Expansion
The PD‐GRF Expansion will expand direct replenishment capacity at the PD‐GRF by constructing Phase II
of the project which will provide for an additional recharge capacity of up to 15,000 AFY. CVWD continues
to operate the PD‐GRF with expanded replenishment volumes as feasible given supply availability and
hydraulic capacity.
PMA 21: TEL‐GRF Expansion
The TEL‐GRF Expansion will expand recharge capacity at the TEL‐GRF incrementally through 2025. CVWD
continues to evaluate the need to expand the recharge capacity at TEL‐GRF.
PMA 22: WWR‐GRF Operation
The WWR‐GRF has a recharge capacity of more than 300,000 AFY. CVWD and DWA continue to replenish
as much SWP Table A water or other imported water at WWR‐GRF as is available annually.
8.5 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
The Indio Subbasin has variable concentrations of water quality constituents as documented in the 2022
Alternative Plan Update. Below are the PMAs related to water quality that will help protect the
groundwater basin for beneficial uses and users and avoid undesirable results.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-8 TODD / W&C
8.5.1 Water Quality Programs and Policies
The following is a list of water quality policies and programs to help protect the Indio Subbasin.
PMA 23: Eliminate Wastewater Percolation
Currently, CVWD’s WRP‐7, WRP‐10, and Palm Springs’ WWTP/DWA’s WRP all discharge to percolation
ponds within the Indio Subbasin. The GSAs continue to pursue expansion of recycled water to reduce and
eventually eliminate percolation of wastewater into the Indio Subbasin.
PMA 24: Wellhead Treatment
The Wellhead Treatment program assesses the need to expand groundwater treatment facilities to treat
additional drinking water wells for arsenic, nitrate, or other constituents of concern. The GSAs continue
to monitor the development of new maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (e.g., hexavalent chromium) to
ensure delivered drinking water meets state and federal MCLs established to protect public health.
PMA 25: Small Water System Consolidations
Small water systems, often serving disadvantaged communities (DACs), may face challenges in providing
safe, accessible, and affordable water because they may not have adequate resources to support
maintenance, operation, and treatment costs. CVWD continues to pursue grant funding and design for
several top‐ranked small water system consolidations that were identified in the East Coachella Valley
Water Supply Project.
CWA also continues to seek grant funding to consolidate multiple mobile home parks within its service
area to address water quality deficiencies identified by the Riverside County Department of Health (DEH).
PMA 26: Septic to Sewer Conversions
Septic systems are a documented source of nitrate to the groundwater basin. CVWD continues to pursue
grant funding and design for several septic‐to‐sewer conversions to improve groundwater quality and
sanitation within small communities in the East Valley.
8.5.2 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP)
In 2020 and 2021, the CV‐SNMP agencies – which include CVWD, Coachella Sanitary District, City of Palm
Springs, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, and VSD – prepared a CV‐SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan and a CV‐SNMP Development Workplan to guide the
monitoring and update of the 2015 CV‐SNMP.
PMA 27: Implement CV‐SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
The GSAs, along with the other CV‐SNMP partners, began implementing the CV-SNMP Groundwater
Monitoring Program Workplan approved by the RWQCB in February 2021 and outlining an expanded
groundwater monitoring program.
PMA 28: Implement CV‐SNMP Development Workplan
The GSAs, along with the other CV‐SNMP partners, will begin implementing the CV-SNMP Development
Workplan approved by the RWQCB in October 2021 and outlining a scope of work for updating the CV‐
SNMP in accordance with the Recycled Water Policy.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 8-9 TODD / W&C
PMA 29: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
The Salinity Forum, which is a cooperative effort involving federal, state, and local agencies, includes
projects that remove salt tonnage. This will be accomplished principally by reducing the salt contributions
to the Colorado River from existing sources and minimizing future increases in salt load caused by human
activities. CVWD will continue to support and participate in Salinity Forum efforts.
PMA 30: Source Water Protection
Well management programs are required to ensure that existing and future wells do not impact the
usability of the groundwater resource. CVWD continues to implement the Leaking Artesian Well Rebate
Program to educate and work with well owners to properly control artesian wells.
8.6 CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
The PMAs are identified and described in Table 11‐3 of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update. The GSAs have
continued efforts to advance the PMAs to maintain the Indio Subbasin in sustainable conditions, able to
meet Plan Area water demands, and groundwater levels and quality that avoid undesirable results. With
continued implementation of these PMAs, the GSAs are anticipated to meet their water management
goals and comply effectively with SGMA. A revised version of Table 11‐3, with the current updated status
of each PMA, is presented as Table 8-1.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 9-1 TODD / W&C
9. REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1964. California Department of Water Resources
Bulletin 108—Coachella Valley Investigation. July. Sacramento, California. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=8773.
DWR. 1979. Coachella Valley Area Well Standards Investigation: Los Angeles. California Department of
Water Resources, Southern District.
DWR. 2016. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016. Received December 2020,
Available:
https://water.ca.gov/‐/media/DWR‐Website/Web‐Pages/Programs/Groundwater‐
Management/Bulletin‐118/Files/B118‐Interim‐Update‐2016 ay 19.pdf.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) 2002a. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan.
September 2002, prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2002b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan,
prepared by MWH.
CVWD. 2012a. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
CVWD. 2012b. Final Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report, for the Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan 2010 Update, prepared by MWH.
CVWD, 2014. 2014 Status Report on the 2010 Update. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD. 2017. Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River
Subbasin Area of Benefit 2017-2018. April. Palm Desert, California. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/574.
CVWD. 2018a. Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River
Subbasin Area of Benefit 2017-2018, April 2018.
CVWD. 2018b. Non-Potable Water System: WRP-10 NPW System Expansion, Final Draft, prepared by Akel
Engineering Group, Inc., June 2018.
CVWD. 2019a. Amended and Restated Agreement Between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Coachella Valley Water District, and Desert Water Agency for the Exchange and Advance
Delivery of Water.
CVWD. 2019b. Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement Between Metropolitan and
Coachella for 35,000 Acre-Feet.
CVWD. 2020. Sanitation Master Plan Update, Volume 3 General. April 2020. Prepared by CDM Smith.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 9-2 TODD / W&C
CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2016. SGMA
Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Mission Creek Subbasin. Prepared
by MWH/Stantec.
CVWD, Coachella Water Authority (CWA), DWA, and Indio Water Authority (IWA) (Indio Subbasin GSAs).
2019. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2017-2018, prepared by Stantec.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA (Indio Subbasin GSAs). 2021a. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year
2019-2020. February 2021. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA (Indio Subbasin GSAs). 2021b. Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan
Update, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Alternative Plan, prepared by Todd Groundwater and
Woodard and Curran, December 2021.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021c. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2021. Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan. April.
East Valley Reclamation Authority (EVRA). 2020. Evaluation of Indirect Potable Reuse at the Valley
Sanitary District Water Reclamation Facility. November 2020. Prepared by Geoscience Support Services,
Inc.
Fogg, G.E., G.T. O’Neill, E.M. LaBolle, and D.J. Ringel, 2000. Groundwater Flow Model of Coachella
Valley, California: An Overview, November 2000.
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). 2020. Summary of Lake Perris Seepage Recovery Project Sharing
Agreement Terms, DRAFT – As of November 26, 2019.
MWH. 2011. Groundwater Model Simulations for Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update, for
Draft Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report, July 2011.
MWH. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan, Final Report, January 2013.
Sites Project Authority. 2019. 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, As of April 1, 2019.
Sites Project Authority. 2020. First Amendment to 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, As of January 1,
2020.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1931. 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/ca7pty.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. 2020 Demographic and Housing Estimates. Available at:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Detection and measurement of land subsidence and uplift using
Global Positioning System surveys and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 2010–17. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5093. Authors: Sneed,
M., and Brandt, J.T. Available: https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093.
USGS. 1980. Potential for Using the Upper Coachella Valley Ground-Water Basin, California, for Storage of
Artificially Recharged Water, Open‐File Report 80‐599.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 TODD / W&C
APPENDIX A
Representative Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs
Indio Subbasin Annual Report
for Water Year 2020-2021 TODD / W&C
APPENDIX B
WY 2020-2021 Water Use Information for SGMA Portal
Indio Annual SGMA Portal A Groundwater Extractions
Basin Number 7-021.01
Water Year 2021 (Oct. 2020 - Sept. 2021)
Total Groundwater
Extractions
(AF)
285,351
Water Use Sector
Urban
(AF)
236,002
Water Use Sector
Industrial
(AF)
1,288
Water Use Sector
Agricultural
(AF)
46,561
Water Use Sector
Managed Wetlands
(AF)
Water Use Sector
Managed Recharge
(AF)
-
Water Use Sector
Native Vegetation
(AF)
-
Water Use Sector
Other
(AF)
1,500
Water Use Sector
Other
Description
Groundwater extractions are
mostly metered. Unmetered
uses include other water use
for domestic use (1,000 AFY in
the East, 500 AFY in the West)
and for uses on Tribal Trust
land (Eagle Creek Golf Course
1,200 AFY and Greenleaf
Power Station 1,100 AFY)
Indio Annual SGMA Portal B Groundwater Ex Methods
Basin Number 7-021.01
Water Year 2021 (Oct. 2020 - Sept. 2021)
Meters
Volume
(AF)281,551
Meters
Description
Meters
Type
Meters
Accuracy
(%)
0-5 %
Meters
Accuracy
Description
Electrical Records
Volume
(AF)
0
Electrical Records Description
Electrical Records
Type
Electrical Records
Accuracy
(%)
Electrical Records
Accuracy
Description
Land Use
Volume
(AF)
0
Land Use
Description
Land Use
Type
Land Use
Accuracy
(%)
Land Use
Accuracy
Description
Groundwater Model
Volume
(AF)
-
Groundwater Model
Description
Groundwater Model
Type
Groundwater Model
Accuracy
(%)
Groundwater Model
Accuracy
Description
Other Method(s)
Volume
(AF)
3,800
Other Method(s)
Description
Other water use is based on expected
unmetered domestic use (1,000 AFY in the
East, 500 AFY in the West) and for uses on
Tribal Trust land (Eagle Creek Golf Course
1,200 AFY and Greenleaf Power Station 1,100
AFY)
Other Method(s)
Type Estimate
Other Method(s)
Accuracy
(%)
40-50 %
Other Method(s)
Accuracy
Description
Estimates are based on population not
served directly by the available water
suppliers and estimates for the Tribal Trust
land is estimated base on use type.
Indio Annual SGMA Portal C SW Supply
Basin Number 7-021.01
Water Year 2021 (Oct. 2020 - Sept. 2021)
Methods Used To Determine Meters
Water Source Type
Central Valley Project
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
State Water Project
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
Colorado River Project
(AF)
287,563
Water Source Type
Local Supplies
(AF)
719
Water Source Type
Local Imported Supplies
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
Recycled Water
(AF)
14,000
Water Source Type
Desalination
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
Other
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
Other
Description
Indio Annual SGMA Portal D Total Water Use
Basin Number 7-021.01
Water Year 2021 (Oct. 2020 - Sept. 2021)
Total Water Use
(AF)582,755
Methods Used To
Determine 99% metered, 1% estimated
Water Source Type
Groundwater
(AF)
283,164
Water Source Type
Surface Water
(AF)
719
Water Source Type
Recycled Water
(AF)
14,000
Water Source Type
Reused Water
(AF)
-
Water Source Type
Other
(AF)
284,874
Water Source Type
Other
Description
Colorado River Water
Water Use Sector
Urban
(AF)
287,201
Water Use Sector
Industrial
(AF)
1,288
Water Use Sector
Agricultural
(AF)
292,767
Water Use Sector
Managed Wetlands
(AF)
-
Water Use Sector
Managed Recharge
(AF)
-
Water Use Sector
Native Vegetation
(AF)
-
Water Use Sector
Other
(AF)
1,500
Water Use Sector
Other
Description
Other category refers to the
unmetered groundwater pumping
for domestic uses. Includes only
water use in the Subbasin
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban
Water Management Plan
Prepared For:
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
6/30/2021
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
i
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
RUWMP Organization ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Plain Language Summary ................................................................................................................ 1-3
Chapter 2 Agency Descriptions .............................................................................................................. 2-1
Agencies Participating in RUWMP ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Coachella Valley Water District ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.2 Coachella Water Authority ......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.1.3 Desert Water Agency ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.4 Indio Water Authority ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.5 Mission Springs Water District ................................................................................................... 2-4
2.1.6 Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company ..................................................................................... 2-4
Other Agencies and Entities ............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.2.1 Valley Sanitary District ............................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.2 Agua Caliente Water Authority .................................................................................................. 2-4
2.2.3 City of Palm Springs .................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.2.4 Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group ............................................................. 2-5
2.2.5 Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies ............................................................... 2-5
2.2.6 Mission Creek Subbasin Management Committee ................................................................... 2-6
Outreach During RUWMP Preparation ............................................................................................ 2-6
Chapter 3 Regional Sources of Supply .................................................................................................. 3-1
Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Basin Description ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Groundwater Management ........................................................................................................ 3-6
3.1.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act .............................................................................. 3-7
3.1.4 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................................. 3-7
Imported Water ................................................................................................................................. 3-8
3.2.1 Colorado River Water ................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.2.2 State Water Project Water/MWD Exchange ............................................................................ 3-13
Local Surface Water ....................................................................................................................... 3-16
Recycled Water .............................................................................................................................. 3-17
Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ............................................ 3-20
Climate Change .............................................................................................................................. 3-20
Chapter 4 Coachella Valley Water District ............................................................................................. 4-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 RUWMP in Relation to Other Efforts ......................................................................................... 4-1
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
ii
4.1.3 RUWMP and Grant or Loan Eligibility ....................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ........... 4-2
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 4-3
4.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 4-3
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2 Jurisdictional Boundary .............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 4-7
4.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 4-8
4.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 4-9
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 4-9
4.4.1 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................. 4-10
4.4.2 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 4-15
4.4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 4-15
4.4.4 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 4-17
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 4-17
4.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 4-17
4.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 4-17
4.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 4-17
4.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 4-18
4.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use ....................................................................... 4-18
4.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 4-19
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 4-19
4.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 4-19
4.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 4-20
4.6.3 Submittal Tables Completion Using the Optional Planning Tool ............................................. 4-29
4.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 4-29
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 4-30
4.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 4-30
4.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 4-31
4.7.3 Management Tools and Options .............................................................................................. 4-34
4.7.4 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 4-34
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 4-36
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 4-36
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
iii
4.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 4-36
4.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 4-36
4.9.3 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 4-43
4.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 4-44
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 4-44
4.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 4-44
4.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 4-44
4.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 4-45
4.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 4-45
4.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 4-46
4.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 4-46
4.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 4-46
Chapter 5 Coachella Water Authority .................................................................................................... 5-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ........... 5-1
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 5-2
5.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 5-2
5.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 5-2
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.2 Service Area Boundary Map ...................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 5-6
5.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 5-7
5.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 5-8
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 5-9
5.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................... 5-9
5.4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 5-12
5.4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 5-12
5.4.5 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 5-13
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 5-13
5.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 5-13
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
iv
5.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 5-13
5.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 5-13
5.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 5-13
5.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD).......................................................... 5-13
5.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 5-14
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 5-14
5.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 5-14
5.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 5-14
5.6.3 Submittal Tables Using Optional Planning Tool ...................................................................... 5-18
5.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 5-18
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 5-19
5.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 5-19
5.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 5-19
5.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 5-23
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 5-25
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 5-25
5.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 5-25
5.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 5-25
5.9.3 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 5-28
5.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 5-29
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 5-30
5.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 5-30
5.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 5-30
5.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 5-30
5.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 5-30
5.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 5-31
5.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 5-31
5.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 5-31
Chapter 6 Desert Water Agency ............................................................................................................. 6-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan .................................................................... 6-1
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 6-2
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
v
6.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 6-2
6.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 6-2
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.2 Institutional Boundary Map ........................................................................................................ 6-3
6.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 6-6
6.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 6-8
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 6-9
6.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ................................................................................... 6-9
6.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................... 6-9
6.4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 6-12
6.4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 6-12
6.4.5 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 6-13
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 6-13
6.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 6-13
6.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 6-13
6.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 6-13
6.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 6-13
6.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) .......................................................... 6-13
6.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 6-14
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 6-14
6.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 6-14
6.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 6-15
6.6.3 Submittal Tables Using Optional Planning Tool ...................................................................... 6-22
6.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 6-22
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 6-24
6.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 6-24
6.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 6-24
6.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 6-27
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 6-30
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 6-30
6.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 6-30
6.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 6-30
6.9.3 Implementation of DMMs ......................................................................................................... 6-32
6.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 6-32
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 6-32
6.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 6-33
6.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 6-33
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
vi
6.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 6-33
6.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 6-33
6.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 6-34
6.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 6-34
6.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 6-34
Chapter 7 Indio Water Authority ............................................................................................................. 7-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility ........................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ........... 7-1
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 7-2
7.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 7-2
7.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 7-2
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps .................................................................................................... 7-3
7.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 7-6
7.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 7-7
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 7-7
7.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ................................................................................... 7-7
7.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................... 7-7
7.4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 7-11
7.4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 7-11
7.4.5 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 7-11
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 7-11
7.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 7-12
7.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 7-12
7.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 7-12
7.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 7-12
7.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) .......................................................... 7-12
7.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 7-13
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 7-13
7.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 7-13
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
vii
7.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 7-13
7.6.3 Submittal Tables Using Optional Planning Tool ...................................................................... 7-20
7.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 7-20
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 7-21
7.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 7-21
7.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 7-22
7.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 7-24
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 7-27
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 7-27
7.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 7-27
7.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 7-27
7.9.3 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 7-31
7.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 7-31
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 7-31
7.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 7-31
7.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 7-31
7.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 7-32
7.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 7-32
7.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 7-32
7.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 7-32
7.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 7-32
Chapter 8 Mission Springs Water District ............................................................................................. 8-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts .......................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ........... 8-1
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 8-2
8.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 8-2
8.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 8-2
8.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 8-3
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps .................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 8-5
8.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 8-6
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
viii
8.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 8-7
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 8-8
8.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................... 8-8
8.4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 8-11
8.4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 8-11
8.4.5 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 8-12
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 8-12
8.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 8-12
8.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 8-12
8.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 8-12
8.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 8-12
8.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) .......................................................... 8-12
8.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 8-13
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 8-13
8.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 8-13
8.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 8-13
8.6.3 Submittal Table Using Optional Planning Tool ........................................................................ 8-21
8.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 8-21
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 8-22
8.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 8-22
8.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 8-23
8.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 8-25
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 8-28
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 8-28
8.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 8-28
8.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 8-28
8.9.3 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 8-34
8.9.4 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets ....................................................................... 8-35
8.9.5 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 8-36
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 8-36
8.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 8-36
8.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 8-36
8.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 8-37
8.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 8-37
8.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 8-37
8.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 8-37
8.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 8-37
Chapter 9 Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company ................................................................................ 9-1
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
ix
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.1 Chapter Organization ................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility ........................................................................................ 9-1
9.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ........... 9-1
Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1 Plan Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 9-2
9.2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan ......................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.3 Regional Planning ...................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance ...................................................................... 9-2
9.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure .......................................................................... 9-2
9.2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 9-2
System Description ........................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps .................................................................................................... 9-3
9.3.3 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................. 9-5
9.3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................. 9-6
9.3.5 Land Uses within Service Area .................................................................................................. 9-8
Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................. 9-8
9.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ................................................................................... 9-8
9.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ................................................................... 9-9
9.4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables .......................................................................................... 9-12
9.4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households ............................................................................... 9-12
9.4.5 Climate Change Considerations .............................................................................................. 9-12
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets ....................................................................................................... 9-13
9.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 9-13
9.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables ..................................................................................................... 9-13
9.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs ............................................................... 9-13
9.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use ...................................................................... 9-13
9.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) .......................................................... 9-13
9.5.6 Regional Alliance ..................................................................................................................... 9-14
Water Supply Characterization ....................................................................................................... 9-14
9.6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ............................................................................................. 9-14
9.6.2 Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 9-14
9.6.3 Submittal Tables Using Optional Planning Tool ...................................................................... 9-19
9.6.4 Energy Use .............................................................................................................................. 9-19
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................... 9-20
9.7.1 Reliability Overview ................................................................................................................. 9-20
9.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment ..................................................................................... 9-21
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
x
9.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 9-23
Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 9-26
Demand Management Measures ................................................................................................... 9-26
9.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ..................................................... 9-26
9.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ............................................................... 9-26
9.9.3 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 9-27
9.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) ......................................................................... 9-27
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ............................................................................ 9-28
9.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ...................................................................................................... 9-28
9.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ........................................................................................................ 9-28
9.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................. 9-28
9.10.4 Plan Submittal ........................................................................................................................ 9-28
9.10.5 Public Availability ................................................................................................................... 9-29
9.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 9-29
9.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................... 9-29
Chapter 10 References .......................................................................................................................... 10-1
Table 2-1. Outreach Recipients ................................................................................................................ 2-7
Table 3-1. Priorities and Water Delivery Contracts, California Seven-Party Agreement of 1932 ............ 3-10
Table 3-2. CVWD Colorado River Water Budget under the Quantification Settlement Agreement ........ 3-11
Table 3-3. State Water Project Allocations to CVWD and DWA (AFY) ................................................... 3-13
Table 3-4. Non-Municipal Water Use ....................................................................................................... 3-20
Table 4-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ............................................................................................ 4-2
Table 4-2. Monthly Average Climate Data (Palm Springs) ........................................................................ 4-7
Table 4-3. Monthly Average Climate Data (Thermal) ................................................................................ 4-8
Table 4-4. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population ......................................................................... 4-9
Table 4-5. Water Use Sectors ................................................................................................................. 4-10
Table 4-6. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting ................................................................ 4-12
Table 4-7. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AFY) ........................................................................ 4-13
Table 4-8. DWR 4-2R Projected Retail Demands for Water (AFY) ........................................................ 4-14
Table 4-9. Anticipated Water Savings Due to Conservation (AFY) ........................................................ 4-15
Table 4-10. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use (AFY) ........................................................................... 4-15
Table 4-11. Lower Income Housing Units ............................................................................................... 4-16
Table 4-12. DWR 4-5R Inclusion in Water Use Projections ................................................................... 4-17
Table 4-13. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ...................................................................... 4-19
Table 4-14. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance .............................................................................................. 4-19
Table 4-15. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ............................................................... 4-20
Table 4-16. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................... 4-23
Table 4-17. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 ................. 4-23
Table 4-18. DWR 6-4R Recycled Water Within Service Area in 2020 (AFY) ......................................... 4-25
Table 4-19. DWR 6-5R Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to Actual ....................................... 4-26
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xi
Table 4-20. DWR 6-7R Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs ...................................... 4-28
Table 4-21. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies ....................................................................................... 4-29
Table 4-22. DWR 6-9R Projected Water Supplies .................................................................................. 4-29
Table 4-23. DWR O-1B Energy Intensity Reporting ............................................................................... 4-30
Table 4-24. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data .................................................................................. 4-31
Table 4-25. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................ 4-32
Table 4-26. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................... 4-32
Table 4-27. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................... 4-33
Table 4-28. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 4-35
Table 4-29. Demand Management Measure Implementation Summary ................................................ 4-44
Table 4-30. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties ................................................................... 4-45
Table 5-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ............................................................................................ 5-2
Table 5-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................. 5-6
Table 5-3. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population ......................................................................... 5-7
Table 5-4. Coachella City Demographic Data........................................................................................... 5-8
Table 5-5. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting ................................................................. 5-10
Table 5-6. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AFY) ......................................................................... 5-10
Table 5-7. DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Water .............................................................................. 5-11
Table 5-8. Anticipated Water Savings Due to Conservation (AFY) ......................................................... 5-12
Table 5-9. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use (AFY) .............................................................................. 5-12
Table 5-10. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ....................................................................... 5-13
Table 5-11. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance ............................................................................................... 5-14
Table 5-12. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ................................................................ 5-15
Table 5-13. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................... 5-16
Table 5-14. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 ................. 5-16
Table 5-15. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies ....................................................................................... 5-18
Table 5-16. DWR 6-9 R Projected Water Supplies ................................................................................. 5-18
Table 5-17. DWR O-1B Energy Intensity Reporting ............................................................................... 5-19
Table 5-18. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data ................................................................................... 5-20
Table 5-19. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................. 5-21
Table 5-20. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................ 5-21
Table 5-21. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................ 5-22
Table 5-22. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment .................................................................... 5-24
Table 5-23. DMM Implementation Summary .......................................................................................... 5-29
Table 5-24. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties .................................................................. 5-30
Table 6-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ........................................................................................... 6-2
Table 6-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................. 6-5
Table 6-3. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population .......................................................................... 6-8
Table 6-4. Water Use Sectors .................................................................................................................... 6-9
Table 6-5. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting ................................................................. 6-10
Table 6-6. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AF) ........................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-7. DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Water (AF) ...................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-8. Estimated Water Savings Due to Passive Conservation ........................................................ 6-12
Table 6-9. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use ......................................................................................... 6-12
Table 6-10. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ....................................................................... 6-14
Table 6-11. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance ............................................................................................... 6-14
Table 6-12. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ................................................................ 6-15
Table 6-13. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 ........................................... 6-18
Table 6-14. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 .................. 6-18
Table 6-15. DWR 6-4R Recycled Water Within Service Area in 2020 .................................................... 6-19
Table 6-16. DWR 6-5R Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to Actual ........................................ 6-20
Table 6-17. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies ........................................................................................ 6-21
Table 6-18. DWR 6-9 R Projected Water Supplies .................................................................................. 6-22
Table 6-19. Energy Use for Water Management ..................................................................................... 6-23
Table 6-20. DWR O-1B Energy Intensity Reporting ................................................................................ 6-23
Table 6-21. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data ................................................................................... 6-26
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xii
Table 6-22. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................. 6-26
Table 6-23. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................ 6-26
Table 6-24. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)................................ 6-27
Table 6-25. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment .................................................................... 6-29
Table 6-26. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties ................................................................... 6-33
Table 7-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ........................................................................................... 7-2
Table 7-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................ 7-5
Table 7-3. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population ......................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-4. City of Indio Demographic Data ............................................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-5. Water Use Sectors ................................................................................................................... 7-7
Table 7-6. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting ................................................................... 7-8
Table 7-7. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AFY) .......................................................................... 7-9
Table 7-8. DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Water ............................................................................. 7-10
Table 7-9. Anticipated Water Savings Due to Conservation (AFY) ........................................................ 7-10
Table 7-10. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use ...................................................................................... 7-11
Table 7-11. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ....................................................................... 7-12
Table 7-12. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance .............................................................................................. 7-13
Table 7-13. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ............................................................... 7-14
Table 7-14. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................... 7-15
Table 7-15. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 ................. 7-15
Table 7-16. DWR 6-4R Recycled Water Within Service Area (AFY) ...................................................... 7-17
Table 7-17. DWR 6-5R Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to Actual ....................................... 7-18
Table 7-18. Emergency Interties ............................................................................................................. 7-19
Table 7-19. DWR 6-7R Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs ...................................... 7-19
Table 7-20. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies (AFY) ............................................................................ 7-20
Table 7-21. DWR 6-9 R Projected Water Supplies (AFY) ...................................................................... 7-20
Table 7-22. DWR O-1B Energy Intensity Reporting ................................................................................ 7-21
Table 7-23. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data .................................................................................. 7-22
Table 7-24. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................ 7-23
Table 7-25. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................... 7-23
Table 7-26. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................... 7-24
Table 7-27. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 7-26
Table 7-28. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties .................................................................. 7-32
Table 8-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ........................................................................................... 8-2
Table 8-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................ 8-5
Table 8-3. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population .......................................................................... 8-6
Table 8-4. City of Desert Hot Springs Demographic Data ........................................................................ 8-7
Table 8-5. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting .................................................................. 8-8
Table 8-6. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AFY) .......................................................................... 8-9
Table 8-7. DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Water ............................................................................. 8-10
Table 8-8. Anticipated Water Savings Due to Conservation ................................................................... 8-11
Table 8-9. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use ........................................................................................ 8-11
Table 8-10. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ...................................................................... 8-13
Table 8-11. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance .............................................................................................. 8-13
Table 8-12. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ............................................................... 8-14
Table 8-13. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................... 8-16
Table 8-14. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 ................. 8-16
Table 8-15. DWR 6-4R Recycled Water Within Service Area (AFY) ...................................................... 8-18
Table 8-16. DWR 6-5R Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to Actual ....................................... 8-19
Table 8-17. DWR 6-6R Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use ............................................... 8-19
Table 8-18. DWR 6-7R Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs ...................................... 8-20
Table 8-19. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies ....................................................................................... 8-20
Table 8-20. DWR 6-9R Projected Water Supplies (AFY) ....................................................................... 8-21
Table 8-21. DWR O-1A Energy Intensity Reporting ............................................................................... 8-22
Table 8-22. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data .................................................................................. 8-23
Table 8-23. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................ 8-24
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xiii
Table 8-24. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................... 8-24
Table 8-25. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................... 8-25
Table 8-26. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 8-27
Table 8-27. Summary of DMM Implementation (2016 – 2020) ............................................................... 8-34
Table 8-28. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties .................................................................. 8-36
Table 9-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems ........................................................................................... 9-2
Table 9-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................ 9-5
Table 9-3. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population ......................................................................... 9-6
Table 9-4. Bermuda Dunes CDP Demographic Data ............................................................................... 9-7
Table 9-5. City of La Quinta Demographic Data ....................................................................................... 9-8
Table 9-6. Water Use Sectors ................................................................................................................... 9-9
Table 9-7. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting .................................................................. 9-9
Table 9-8. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water (AFY) ........................................................................ 9-10
Table 9-9. DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Water (AFY) .................................................................. 9-11
Table 9-10. Anticipated Savings Due to Conservation ........................................................................... 9-12
Table 9-11. DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use (AF) .............................................................................. 9-12
Table 9-12. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary ...................................................................... 9-14
Table 9-13. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance .............................................................................................. 9-14
Table 9-14. DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AFY) ................................................................ 9-15
Table 9-15. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................... 9-17
Table 9-16. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies ....................................................................................... 9-19
Table 9-17. DWR 6-9 R Projected Water Supplies (AFY) ...................................................................... 9-19
Table 9-18. DWR O-1B Energy Intensity Reporting ............................................................................... 9-20
Table 9-19. DWR 7-1R Basis of Water Year Data .................................................................................. 9-21
Table 9-20. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................. 9-22
Table 9-21. DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................ 9-22
Table 9-22. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................ 9-23
Table 9-23. DWR 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 9-25
Table 9-24. DWR 10-1R Notification to Cities and Counties .................................................................. 9-28
Figure 2-1. Water Agencies Participating in Coachella Valley RUWMP ................................................... 2-2
Figure 3-1. Coachella Valley Groundwater Subbasins and Groundwater Replenishment Facilities ......... 3-3
Figure 3-2. Sources of Imported Water Supply.......................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-3. Wastewater and Recycled Water Facilities .......................................................................... 3-19
Figure 4-1. CVWD Jurisdictional Boundary .............................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 5-1. CWA Service Area Boundary .................................................................................................. 5-5
Figure 5-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................ 5-6
Figure 6-1. DWA Institutional Boundary ..................................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ................................................................................................ 6-6
Figure 7-1. IWA Service Area Boundary ................................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ............................................................................................... 7-5
Figure 8-1. MSWD Service Area Boundary .............................................................................................. 8-4
Figure 8-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ............................................................................................... 8-5
Figure 9-1. MDMWC Service Area Boundary ........................................................................................... 9-4
Figure 9-2. Monthly Average Climate Data ............................................................................................... 9-5
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xiv
A. Applicable Sections of California Water Code
B. Notification Letters and Newspaper Notices of Plan Preparation and Adoption Hearing
C. Reduced Delta Reliance
D. Standard UWMP Reporting Tables
E. SB X7-7 Verification Forms
F. Agreements Related to Water Management
a. Agreement Between MWD, CVWD, and DWA for the Exchange and Advance Delivery of
Water (December 2019)
b. Agreement Between MWD and CVWD for Transfer of 35,000 AFY (Amended December
2019)
G. AWWA Water Loss Audits
H. Resolutions of Adoption
I. DWR UWMP Checklists
Water Shortage Contingency Plan for each agency including Legal Authority
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xv
C Degrees Celsius
F Degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AF Acre Foot
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AHHG Area of Historic High Groundwater
AMR Automatic Meter Reader
AOB Area of Benefit
APA Administrative Procedures Act
AWWA American Water Works Association
BDCC Bermuda Dunes Country Club
BMP Best Management Practice
CALWARN California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network
CAP Central Arizona Project
CAT Climate Action Team
CCF Hundred Cubic Feet
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Irrigation System
CPS City of Palm Springs
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CSD Coachella Sanitary District
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVRWMG Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA Coachella Water Authority
CWC California Water Code
DCFP Delta Conveyance Facility Project
DCP Drought Contingency Plan
DCR DWR SWP Delivery Capacity Report
DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
DFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xvi
DMM Demand Management Measure
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERNIE Emergency Response Network of the Inland Empire
ESA Endangered Species Act
ET Evapotranspiration
ETo Reference Evapotranspiration
EVRA East Valley Reclamation Authority
GAC Granulated Activated Carbon
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
GPM Gallons per Minute
GRF Groundwater Replenishment Facility
GRP Groundwater Replenishment Program
HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washer
HET High Efficiency Toilet
IWA Indio Water Authority
IX Ion Exchange
KAF Thousand Acre Feet
KAFY Thousand Acre Feet per Year
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
MAF Million Acre-Feet
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDMWC Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
MF Multi-family
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSL Mean Sea Level
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
MVP Mid-Valley Pipeline
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
xvii
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCE Perchloroethylene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
QWEZ Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper
RIX Rapid Infiltration and Extraction
RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB X7-7 Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7
SCSD Salton Community Services District
SF Single Family
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemicals
SOI Sphere of Influence
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TCE Trichloroethylene
ULFT Ultra-Low Flush Toilet
USGS United States Geological Survey
UV Ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VSD Valley Sanitary District
WBIC Weather Based Irrigation Controller
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WFF Water Filtration Facility
WSS Water Sense Specification
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
1-1
This Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) has been prepared on behalf of the six urban
water suppliers that serve customers in the Coachella Valley:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Coachella Water Authority (CWA)
Desert Water Agency (DWA)
Indio Water Authority (IWA)
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD)
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC)
These agencies have historically collaborated on planning efforts related to water resources and their
efficient use in the Coachella Valley. Some previous planning efforts have involved some or all of the
agencies listed above, and some efforts have involved additional agencies, such as the Valley Sanitary
District (VSD). Relevant past and on-going efforts include:
2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update)
2013 Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan (2013 MC/GH WMP)
2015 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (2015 CV-SNMP)
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and Stormwater Resource
Plan (2018 IRWM/SWR Plan)
2021 CV-SNMP Development Workplan and Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
2022 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plan Update for the Indio
Subbasin (in progress)
2022 SGMA Alternative Plan Update for the Mission Creek Subbasin (in progress)
The RUWMP has been developed in coordination with the parallel planning efforts shown above. The
RUWMP reporting scope is limited to water delivered for urban use through the potable and recycled water
distribution systems operated by the six participating agencies. The Alternative Plan Updates for the Indio
Subbasin and the Mission Creek Subbasin have a broader scope, in that they consider all water uses in
the region, including uses of groundwater, imported water,and local surface water by agriculture, golf
courses, and other private pumpers. The Alternative Plan Updates also document how groundwater
supplies are anticipated to respond over time to changes in pumping, groundwater replenishment using
imported water, reductions in groundwater pumping through source substitution with non-potable sources,
and other management actions. The demand projections in this RUWMP were aligned with the projected
urban demand in the Alternative Plan Updates. The Alternative Plan Updates also consider supply
conditions under different scenarios, including the impacts of climate change on each source, while the
RUWMP presents a forecast of future supplies of groundwater and recycled water required to meet urban
demands. The Alternative Plan Updates are due to be submitted to DWR by January 1, 2022, while this
RUWMP is due to be submitted to DWR on July 1, 2021.
Purpose
The purpose of this RUWMP is to allow the six agencies to address Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) requirements. These requirements originated in California’s Urban Water Management Planning
Act of 1983 (Act), and the requirements have been expanded and updated with subsequent legislation.
Agencies are required to prepare an updated UWMP every five years and submit it to the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR then performs a review to verify that each UWMP addresses
the requirements of the California Water Code (CWC). The current round of UWMPs will report on water
use through 2020, and they are due to be submitted to DWR by July 1, 2021.
Although most agencies prepare an individual UWMP and submit it to DWR, the CWC allows agencies to
join together to prepare a RUWMP. The RUWMP must include all the same elements as an individual
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
1-2
UWMP. Jointly preparing a RUWMP presents an opportunity for agencies to coordinate their efforts on
demand projections, characterization of shared supplies, and planning for potential water shortages.
DWR has produced an Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020 (Guidebook) (Final March 2021)
to assist water suppliers in UWMP preparation. This Guidebook identifies several additional requirements
that have been added by new legislation since the 2015 UWMPs were prepared. Major new requirements
identified by DWR include:
Five Consecutive Dry-Year Water Reliability Assessment. The Legislature modified the dry-
year water reliability planning from a “multiyear” time period to a “drought lasting five consecutive
water years” designation. This statutory change requires a Supplier to analyze the reliability of its
water supplies to meet its water use over an extended drought period. Each agency addresses this
requirement in Section 7 of its individual chapter.
Drought Risk Assessment. The California Legislature created a new UWMP requirement for
drought planning, in part because of the significant duration of recent California droughts and the
predictions about hydrological variability attributable to climate change. The Drought Risk
Assessment (DRA) requires a Supplier to assess water supply reliability over a five-year period
from calendar years 2021 to 2025 that examines water supplies, water uses, and the resulting
water supply reliability under a reasonable prediction for five consecutive dry years. Each agency
addresses this requirement in Section 7 of its individual chapter.
Seismic Risk. The Water Code now requires Suppliers to specifically address seismic risk to
various water system facilities and to have a mitigation plan. Each agency addresses this
requirement in its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In 2018, the Legislature modified the UWMP laws to require
a WSCP with specific elements. The WSCP provides a Supplier with an action plan for a drought
or catastrophic water supply shortage. Each agency has prepared a WSCP and adopted it
alongside this RUWMP.
Groundwater Supplies Coordination. In 2014, the Legislature enacted the SGMA to address
groundwater conditions throughout California. Water Code now requires Suppliers’ 2020 UWMPs
to be consistent with Groundwater Sustainability Plans, in areas where those plans have been
completed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. In the Coachella Valley, SGMA requirements
are being met through the update of two Alternative Plans, one for the Indio Subbasin and one for
the Mission Creek Subbasin. The coordination with those efforts is described in Chapter 3 of the
RUWMP.
Lay Description. The Legislature included a new statutory requirement for Suppliers to include a
lay description of the fundamental determinations of the UWMP, especially regarding water service
reliability, challenges ahead, and strategies for managing reliability risks. This description is
included as Section 1.3.
The 2020 UWMPs will also require suppliers to document their compliance with Senate Bill (SB) X7-7, the
Water Conservation Act of 2009. This legislation required urban suppliers to reduce their per-capita water
use by 20 percent by the year 2020. This 2020 RUWMP demonstrates each supplier’s compliance with this
requirement.
RUWMP Organization
This report has been organized to reflect the agencies’ collaborative efforts in managing shared water
resources, while still allowing each agency to meet its individual reporting requirements.
1. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and reviews the purpose and organization of the RUWMP.
2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the participating agencies and their service areas.
3. Chapter 3 provides a narrative description of water sources used in the region.
4. Chapters 4 through 9 are individual agency chapters. Each agency’s individual chapter is
structured with the organization recommended in the Guidebook. For each agency, the elements
of the individual chapter include:
1. Introduction and Overview
2. Plan Preparation
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
1-3
3. System Description
4. Water Use Characterization
5. SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets
6. Water Supply Characterization
7. Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment
8. Water Shortage Contingency Plan
9. Demand Management Measures
10. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
5. Appendices provide supporting information and documentation used in preparation of the RUWMP.
6. Each agency has prepared a WSCP to be adopted by its governing board. These WSCPs are
attachments to the RUWMP.
Plain Language Summary
1. Introduction
This Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) has been prepared on behalf of six water
providers that serve customers in the Coachella Valley. The agencies include:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Coachella Water Authority (CWA)
Desert Water Agency (DWA)
Indio Water Authority (IWA)
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD)
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC)
These agencies work together on planning efforts related to water resources and their efficient use in the
Coachella Valley.
This report has two main parts. Chapters 1 through 3 are regional chapters which provide an overall
introduction, descriptions of the six participating agencies, and an overview of the water supplies used in
the Coachella Valley. Chapters 4 through 9 are individual agency chapters. Each agency chapter addresses
how that participating agency meets its reporting requirements under the Urban Water Management
Planning Act.
In addition to the RUWMP, each agency has prepared a WSCP. The WSCP is a document to describe how
each agency would respond to a water shortage. These WSCPs are attachments to the RUWMP.
2. Water Supplies
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is used by all six agencies as their primary source of supply for
meeting municipal water demands (water used for typical household, business, and local government use).
The basin provides storage to help meet demand even in dry years. In a typical year, groundwater pumping
is more than the amount of local rain and mountain snowmelt. CVWD and DWA replenish the basin with
water imported from outside the basin.
The two largest subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin used to meet municipal water
demands are the Indio Subbasin and the Mission Creek Subbasin. Subbasins are portions of a larger
groundwater basin – usually separated by faults. In both of these subbasins, water agencies are developing
updated plans to address long-term sustainable management of the groundwater basin. These plans were
approved by the California Department of Water Resources to meet planning requirements of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and are called the Alternative Plans. While the
RUWMP is focused on water used for municipal supply, the Alternative Plans address all water use in the
Valley, including golf course and agricultural irrigation.
In addition to groundwater, some of the water providers use local stream water, and some have recycled
water systems to provide highly treated wastewater for irrigation. Imported water is used for groundwater
replenishment and meeting nonurban demands.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
1-4
3. Water Demands
Each agency’s chapter provides a summary of their current water demands (the amount of water customers
are using) and their projected water use through 2045. These projections were developed considering
variables like climate, population growth, and customer behaviors. Each agency’s chapter also describes
the Demand Management Measures (DMMs) that encourage efficient water use by all customers. Through
these programs, the agencies have seen significant reductions in water use by customers since 2010 and
have complied with targets set by the State.
4. Drought Risk
Each agency’s chapter presents a comparison of expected supplies and demands under future conditions.
The agencies are committed to efficient water use and can implement their WSCPs to reduce demands if
needed. However, the agencies anticipate being able to meet all demands through 2045, even throughout
a five-year dry period.
Thanks to the storage capacity of the groundwater basin, supplies are very reliable from year to year
because the agencies can pump enough groundwater to meet demands. In the longer term, reliability
depends on the continued replenishment of the groundwater basin with imported water supplies. The
agencies are working together to continue and expand replenishment programs.
5. Contingency Planning
If an extended drought or sudden event (like an earthquake) impacted the region’s ability to replenish the
groundwater basin or the agency’s ability to provide enough water to meet all customer needs, the WSCP
may need to be implemented. Each agency’s WSCP defines six levels of shortage and outlines the actions
that will be required of customers during each level. The six agencies aligned the actions in their plans as
much as possible to maintain consistent requirements and messaging for customers throughout the Valley.
6. Preparation and Outreach
The agencies received feedback from the community in developing this RUWMP and the WSCPs. The
agencies hosted two public workshops and used an on-line collaboration portal to gather additional
feedback. Each agency also made the draft plans available for public review and held a public hearing to
consider input. If the WSCPs need to be implemented during a water shortage, the agencies will evaluate
how well they are working and consider making changes.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-1
The Coachella Valley lies in the northwestern portion of a great valley, the Salton Trough, which extends
from the Gulf of California in Mexico northwesterly to the Cabazon area. This area lies primarily in Riverside
County but also extends into northern San Diego County and northeastern Imperial County. The Colorado
River enters this trough, and its delta has formed a barrier between the Gulf of California and the Coachella
Valley. The Coachella Valley is ringed with mountains on three sides. On the west and north sides are the
Santa Rosa, San Jacinto, and San Bernardino Mountains, which rise more than 10,000 feet above mean
sea level (ft msl). To the northeast and east are the Little San Bernardino Mountains, which attain elevations
of 5,500 ft msl. The Whitewater River and its tributaries, including the San Gorgonio River, Mission Creek,
and Little and Big Morongo Creeks, and Box Canyon Wash, drain the major portion of the Valley.
The Coachella Valley is drained primarily by the Whitewater River that conveys flows southward along the
natural alignment to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC). The CVSC is a man-made channel
that conveys flows downstream of Point Happy to the Salton Sea. The Coachella Valley is characterized
by low precipitation and high summer daytime temperatures. Water bodies in the Coachella Valley include
the Salton Sea, a collection of small ephemeral streams and creeks, and the Whitewater River, an
ephemeral stream in the western Coachella Valley.
This chapter provides background information about the agencies participating in this RUWMP and other
agencies involved in water resource planning in the Coachella Valley.
Agencies Participating in RUWMP
The jurisdictional service areas of the six participating agencies are shown in Figure 2-1.
Background about these six agencies is presented in the following sections.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-2
Figure 2-1. Water Agencies Participating in Coachella Valley RUWMP
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-3
2.1.1 Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD was formed in 1918 under the County Water District Act provisions of the California Water Code
(CWC). In 1937, CVWD absorbed the responsibilities of the Coachella Valley Stormwater District that had
been formed in 1915. CVWD now encompasses approximately 640,000 acres, mostly within Riverside
County, but also extending into northern Imperial and northeastern San Diego Counties. CVWD is governed
by a board of five directors, elected by district voters to four-year terms. Each director lives in and represents
one of five directorial divisions in the district and is elected by voters who also reside in that division.
CVWD is a Colorado River water importer and a California State Water Project (SWP) contractor. The
water-related services provided by CVWD include:
Domestic water delivery
Irrigation water delivery and agricultural drainage
Wastewater reclamation and recycling
Stormwater protection
Groundwater replenishment
2.1.2 Coachella Water Authority
The City of Coachella was incorporated in 1946 and encompasses approximately 32 square miles in the
eastern Coachella Valley. The City’s sphere of influence encompasses 53 square miles.
CWA provides potable water service in the City of Coachella. The water-related services provided by the
City include domestic water delivery, wastewater collection and reclamation, and local drainage control.
The City also manages the Coachella Sanitary District (CSD), which operates a 4.5 MGD design capacity
wastewater treatment facility. Currently, CSD discharges treated wastewater to the Coachella Valley Storm
Channel. In addition, CSD participated in a regional feasibility study to determine the best available and
most cost-effective opportunity to implement a recycled water program and has plans to develop a water
reuse system in the future.
The Coachella Water Authority and the Coachella Sanitary District (CSD) are wholly owned component
units of the City with their own separate Boards of Directors.
2.1.3 Desert Water Agency
DWA is a public agency of the State of California and was formed in 1961 to import water from the State
Water Project in an effort to provide a reliable local water supply. In 1968, DWA entered the retail water
business by purchasing the Cathedral City and Palm Springs water companies. DWA covers an area of
about 325 square miles, including unincorporated Riverside County areas, part of Cathedral City, and most
of Palm Springs. DWA is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, elected by residents within DWA
boundaries.
DWA manages a domestic water system, a recycled water system, an irrigation water delivery system, a
wastewater collection system, and groundwater recharge facilities. Additionally, DWA produces electrical
power with two hydroelectric generating plants and two photovoltaic solar installations.
2.1.4 Indio Water Authority
Incorporated in 1930, the City of Indio was the first city in the Coachella Valley. The City encompasses
approximately 38 square miles with a sphere of influence that adds approximately 22 square miles north of
Interstate 10. The existing land uses include commercial, limited industrial, and residential. The majority of
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-4
land use can be classified as residential, varying in density from equestrian and country estates to high-
density multi-family dwellings. The proposed future land uses within the sphere of influence include open
space, residential, resource recovery, specific plans (assumed mixed use), business park, and a small
amount of community commercial.
IWA was formed as a Joint Powers Authority in 2000, wholly owned by the City and Indio Redevelopment
Agency, to be the legislative and policy entity responsible for delivering water to residents of the City for all
municipal water programs and services.
2.1.5 Mission Springs Water District
MSWD is a public water and wastewater agency organized under the County Water District Law, through
the California Water Code. MSWD began as a mutual water company in the late 1940s. By 1953, it had
evolved into an incorporated entity, the Desert Hot Springs County Water District. That name was changed
to Mission Springs Water District in 1987. MSWD’s service area consists of 135 square miles, including the
City of Desert Hot Springs, a portion of the City of Palm Springs, and ten smaller communities in Riverside
County, including North Palm Springs, West Palm Springs Village and Palm Springs Crest. MSWD is
governed by a five-member board, elected from five separate divisions, for a four-year term.
MSWD provides water services to more than 13,500 retail water customers through three independent
production and distribution systems; and provides wastewater service to more than 9,200 customers
through two independent wastewater collection and treatment systems. As a result of MSWD’s
Groundwater Quality Protection Program, a septic to sewer conversion program aimed at abating legacy
septic systems, MSWD will begin construction on a third treatment plant in 2021. In addition, MSWD
provides water conservation services. In 2019, MSWD completed a 1.0 mega-watt solar facility to help
offset approximately 25% of energy consumption for its water and wastewater operations.
2.1.6 Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
MDMWC is a retail urban water supplier that was established in 1953 to provide potable water service to
the community of Bermuda Dunes. MDMWC has grown over the years, seeing housing booms in the mid-
1980s, late 1990s, and mid-2000s, and it now provides service to more than 2,500 customers in the
Bermuda Dunes area. MDMWC is a mutual water company that is governed by a four-member Board of
Directors.
Other Agencies and Entities
2.2.1 Valley Sanitary District
The Valley Sanitary District (VSD) is a California Special District governed by a locally elected Board of
Directors. It was founded in 1925 and is governed by the California Sanitary Act of 1923. Although not a
water supplier, VSD provides wastewater collection and treatment service for the City of Indio and the
majority of IWA customers. Currently, VSD discharges treated wastewater to the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and provides a small amount of treated wastewater for on-site irrigation.
IWA is currently pursuing opportunities with VSD to inject recycled water at VSD’s plant in the future.
2.2.2 Agua Caliente Water Authority
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has established the Agua Caliente Water Authority (ACWA) to
manage and regulate the Tribe's groundwater. ACWA has established a system of permits and fees and
engages in monitoring activities.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-5
2.2.3 City of Palm Springs
The City of Palm Springs (CPS) operates a wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater collected
within the City. Approximately 75 percent of the treated effluent is sent to DWA’s Recycled Water Plant for
further treatment.
2.2.4 Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
The Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) is a collaborative effort between
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and VSD to implement an Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) Plan to address the water resources planning needs of the Coachella Valley. Following formation
of the CVRWMG and formal recognition of the Coachella Valley IRWM Region (Region) by DWR through
the Region Acceptance Process (RAP), the CVRWMG developed the first IRWM Plan in 2010. The
CVRWMG prepared updates to the IRWM Plan in 2014 and 2018. The 2018 IRWM plan also addressed
the requirements for a Stormwater Resource (SWR) Plan and therefore is referred to as the 2018
IRWM/SWR Plan. The IRWM/SWR Plan presents an integrated regional approach for addressing water
management issues through a process that identifies and involves water management stakeholders from
the Coachella Valley. The IRWM/SWR Plan:
Defines the Coachella Valley IRWM Region and water systems,
Identifies regional water management goals and objectives,
Establishes objectives and measurable targets for the Region,
Identifies water management issues and needs,
Identifies stakeholder involvement and agency coordination processes,
Identifies and evaluates resource management strategies,
Assesses the integration of projects based on objectives,
Establishes an IRWM and SWR Plan project evaluation and prioritization process based on
regional priorities, and
Establishes a framework for implementation of projects.
The IRWM program is a local water resources management approach directed by the California Department
of Water Resources (DWR). It is aimed at securing long-term water supply reliability within California by
first recognizing the inter-connectivity of water supplies, and then encouraging the development and
implementation of projects that yield combined benefits for water supplies, water quality, and natural
resources.
The Region is chiefly the same as the Whitewater River watershed, also known as the Coachella Valley.
The Region is about 65 miles long on a northwest-southeast trending axis and covers approximately 1,420
square miles. The Region currently faces multiple potential water supply and quality issues, including
increasing water demands, historical groundwater overdraft, stormwater capture and management,
groundwater quality, surface water quality, flooding, and regulatory constraints that may be associated with
any of these issues.
The Region boundary was recently expanded to include the unincorporated communities of Bombay Beach
and North Shore. This will facilitate integrated water resources management within the entire CVWD service
area and provide opportunities for Bombay Beach and North Shore to participate in IRWM-related activities.
2.2.5 Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
The four water agencies located within the Indio Subbasin are each exclusive Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSAs) that oversee and manage portions of the Indio Subbasin that overlay each of their
respective service areas. The agencies collaborated to submit the 2010 CVWMP Update as an alternative
to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The 2010 CVWMP Update was approved by DWR as a
functionally equivalent alternative to a GSP on July 17, 2019. These agencies are developing the Indio
Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, which needs to be submitted to DWR by January 1, 2022.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
2-6
The four Indio Subbasin GSAs include:
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
2.2.6 Mission Creek Subbasin Management Committee
The three water agencies located within the Mission Creek Subbasin have formed a Management
Committee. CVWD and DWA are each exclusive GSAs that oversee and manage portions of the Mission
Creek Subbasin that overlay each of their respective service areas. The three agencies collaborated to
submit the 2013 MC/GH WMP as an alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The 2010
CVWMP Update was approved by DWR as a functionally-equivalent alternative to a GSP on July 17, 2019.
The Management Committee is developing the Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, which
must be submitted to DWR by January 1, 2022.
The three agencies in the management committee include:
Coachella Valley Water District
Desert Water Agency
Mission Springs Water District
Outreach During RUWMP Preparation
The CWC requires agencies to perform outreach to cities and counties within their service area, the general
public, and other interested parties during preparation of the UWMP. In addition to the minimum
requirements defined by the CWC, the agencies held two public workshops to present information about
the RUWMP and gather input from stakeholders. These workshops were held in December 2020 and March
2021. Due to restrictions on in-person gatherings as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, and in compliance
with the Governor’s Executive Orders (EOs) related to public meetings (EO-N-25-20, EO-N-29-20, and EO-
N-33-20), the meetings were held virtually using an online collaboration platform. The agencies also
maintained an online social collaboration site during December 2020 and January 2021 where participants
could provide comments and input on the plan following the first public workshop. During the second
workshop in March 2021, breakout groups were used to facilitate public comments on key elements of the
plan. The concerns and comments received were used to guide the development of the final RUWMP.
In February 2021, formal notifications of RUWMP preparation were provided to the recipients identified in
Table 2-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-1
Each of the six agencies has its own portfolio of water sources that it uses to meet demands. The available
supplies fall into the major categories below:
Groundwater
Colorado River water imported through the Coachella Canal
State Water Project water exchanged for Colorado River water delivered by the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) of Southern California through the Colorado River Aqueduct
Local surface water
Recycled water
These sources are described in the following sections.
Groundwater
Groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 7-21) encompasses the entire floor of the Coachella Valley and
consists of four subbasins as identified in California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118:
Indio1
Mission Creek
Desert Hot Springs
San Gorgonio Pass
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recognizes a fault-bounded portion of the western end of the
Indio Subbasin as the Garnet Hill Subbasin. This area is referred to in this report as the Garnet Hill Subarea
of the Indio Subbasin, as designated in DWR Bulletin 118.
The agencies have groundwater wells that produce water from the Indio Subbasin, including the Garnet Hill
Subarea, the Mission Creek Subbasin, and the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin. Water from the Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin is higher in temperature and salinity, and is not used for potable purposes.
3.1.1 Basin Description
The Coachella Valley groundwater basin, as described by the DWR Bulletin 118, is bounded on the easterly
side by the non-waterbearing crystalline rocks of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains
and on the westerly side by the crystalline rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The trace
of the Banning fault on the north side of San Gorgonio Pass forms the upper boundary. At the west end of
the San Gorgonio Pass, between Beaumont and Banning, the basin boundary is defined by a surface
drainage divide separating the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin
of the Upper Santa Ana drainage area.
The southern boundary is formed primarily by the watershed of the Mecca Hills and by the northwest
shoreline of the Salton Sea running between the Santa Rosa Mountains and Mortmar. Between the Salton
Sea and Travertine Rock, at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the lower boundary coincides with the
Riverside/Imperial County Line. Southerly of the southern boundary, at Mortmar and at Travertine Rock,
the subsurface materials are predominantly fine grained and low in permeability; although groundwater is
present, it is not readily extractable. A zone of transition exists at these boundaries; to the north, the
subsurface materials are coarser and more readily yield groundwater.
1 The subbasin is identified as the Indio Subbasin in DWR Bulletin 118. However, the subbasin is identified
as the Whitewater River Subbasin by the USGS. This report identifies the subbasin as the Indio Subbasin.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-2
In 1964, DWR estimated that the Coachella Valley groundwater basin contained a total of approximately
39.2 million acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface; much of this water
originated as runoff from the adjacent mountains. Of this amount, approximately 28.8 million AF of water
was stored in the Indio Subbasin. However, the amount of water in the subbasin decreased over the years
because pumping to serve urban, rural, and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley withdrew
water at a rate faster than its rate of recharge. Over the last ten years, the subbasin has seen significant
groundwater level increases. These increases are the result of the high volumes of direct replenishment
that occurred at Groundwater Replenishment Facilities (GRFs), increased conservation, and projects that
provide imported water for irrigation to reduce groundwater pumping. Replenishment and conservation
have also resulted in increasing water levels over the last decade in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
Although there is interflow of groundwater throughout the groundwater basin, fault barriers, constrictions in
the basin profile and areas of low permeability limit and control movement of groundwater. Based on these
factors, the groundwater basin has been divided into subbasins and subareas as described by DWR in
1964 and the USGS in 1971.
The boundaries between subbasins are generally based upon faults that are effective barriers to the lateral
movement of groundwater. Minor subareas have also been delineated, based on one or more of the
following geologic or hydrologic characteristics: type of water bearing formations, water quality, areas of
confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater flow divides, and surface drainage divides.
The subbasins used for planning include:
Indio
Mission Creek
Desert Hot Springs
San Gorgonio Pass
The subbasins, with their groundwater storage reservoirs, are defined without regard to water quantity or
quality. They delineate areas underlain by formations which readily yield the stored water through water
wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies.
The planning subbasins are shown in Figure 3-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-3
Figure 3-1. Coachella Valley Groundwater Subbasins and Groundwater Replenishment Facilities
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-4
3.1.1.1 Indio Subbasin
The Indio Subbasin underlies the major portion of the Coachella Valley floor and encompasses
approximately 400 square miles. Beginning approximately one mile west of the junction of State Highway
111 and Interstate 10, the Indio Subbasin extends southeast approximately 70 miles to the Salton Sea. The
Indio Subbasin underlies the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian
Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms, Thermal,
Bermuda Dunes, Oasis, and Mecca.
The Indio Subbasin is divided for management into the West Valley and the East Valley. The East Valley
lies southeast of a line generally extending from Point Happy (a rocky outcrop of the Santa Rosa Mountains
near Washington Street and Highway 111) northeast to the Indio Hills near Jefferson Street, and the West
Valley is northwest of this line.
Generally, the West Valley, which includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage,
Indian Wells and Palm Desert, has a predominately resort/recreation-based economy that relies on
groundwater as its principal water source. In the West Valley portion of the Indio Subbasin, underlying
sediment profiles consist of coarse sand and gravel with minor amounts of clay. The aquifer in this area is
unconfined, allowing water that is applied on the ground surface to percolate directly into the underlying
aquifer system, making recharge simple and efficient.
CVWD and DWA collaborate to provide groundwater replenishment in the West Valley. Recharge activities
with SWP Exchange water commenced in 1973 at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment
Facility (WWR-GRF), north of Palm Springs. Recharge activities at this location have varied with the
availability of SWP Exchange water. Groundwater levels in the subbasin have increased or stabilized since
recharge commenced. Although some areas of the mid-valley are still experiencing a decline in
groundwater levels, the rates of decline have been generally decreasing and many areas have seen
increases. Recharge activities began at a newly completed facility, Phase 1 of the Palm Desert
Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF), in early 2019.
The East Valley includes the cities of Coachella, Indio and La Quinta and the communities of Bermuda
Dunes, Mecca, and Thermal. Much of the East Valley has an agricultural-based economy utilizing
groundwater and Colorado River water imported through the Coachella Canal. Some portions of the East
Valley are underlain by several impervious clay layers (an aquitard) that impedes groundwater recharge.
From about Indio southeasterly to the Salton Sea, the subbasin contains increasingly thick layers of silt and
clay, especially in the shallower portions of the subbasin. These silt and clay layers, which are remnants of
ancient lake bed deposits, impede the percolation of water applied for irrigation and limit groundwater
replenishment opportunities to the westerly fringe in this area of the subbasin.
The historical fluctuations of groundwater levels in the East Valley of the Indio Subbasin indicate a steady
decline in the levels throughout the subbasin prior to 1949. With the importation of Colorado River water
from the Coachella Canal after 1949, the demand on the groundwater basin declined in the East Valley,
and the groundwater levels rose sharply. Water levels in the deeper aquifers of the East Valley rose from
1950 to about 1980. However, in the early 1980s, water levels in the East Valley began declining again, at
least partly due to increasing urbanization and groundwater usage. In 2009, CVWD implemented large-
scale recharge activities in the East Valley at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility
(TEL-GRF) that have resulted in increasing water levels.
Conservation and source substitution with Canal water and recycled water are also ongoing strategies to
manage groundwater levels throughout the subbasin.
3.1.1.2 Mission Creek Subbasin
Water-bearing materials underlying the Mission Creek upland comprise the Mission Creek Subbasin. The
subbasin is bounded on the south by the Banning fault and on the north and east by the Mission Creek
fault. The subbasin is bordered on the west by non-water bearing rocks of the San Bernardino Mountains.
To the southeast of the subbasin are the Indio Hills, which consist of the semi water-bearing Palm Springs
Formation.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-5
Both the Mission Creek fault and the Banning fault are effective barriers to groundwater movement, as
evidenced by offset water levels, fault springs, and changes in vegetation. The wells drilled in this subbasin
pass thorough unconsolidated recent alluvium (sands and gravels forming the uppermost geologic
formation in the subbasin) and semi-consolidated and interbedded sands, gravels and silts. Although these
Pleistocene deposits are the main source of water, water also occurs in recent alluvium where the water
table is sufficiently shallow.
The Mission Creek Subbasin is considered an unconfined aquifer with a saturated thickness of 1,200 feet
or more and an estimated total storage capacity on the order of 2.6 million acre-feet (MAF). The subbasin
is naturally recharged by surface and subsurface flow from the Mission Creek, Dry, and Big Morongo
Washes, the Painted Hills, and surrounding mountain drainages. Irrigation return flows and discharges from
municipal and individual subsurface wastewater disposal systems also contribute to recharge.
Due to overdraft conditions in the Mission Creek Subbasin, CVWD and DWA began constructing facilities
to replenish the Mission Creek Subbasin in October 2001. Facilities were completed in June 2002 and in
December 2002, DWA and CVWD began recharge activities in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The current
replenishment program is effectively increasing water levels throughout most of the subbasin.
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD jointly developed a water management plan for this subbasin and the Garnet Hill
Subarea in 2013 pursuant to a 2004 settlement agreement (the 2013 Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Water
Management Plan). This agreement and the 2003 Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Agreement
between CVWD and DWA (amended in 2014) specify that the available SWP water will be allocated
between the Mission Creek and West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Areas in proportion to the
amount of groundwater produced or surface water diverted from the West Whitewater River Subbasin
management area (West Indio Subbasin Area) and the Mission Creek Subbasin Management Area during
the preceding year.
3.1.1.3 Desert Hot Springs Subbasin
The Desert Hot Springs subbasin is bounded on the north by the Little San Bernardino Mountains and to
the south by the Mission Creek and San Andreas faults. The San Andreas fault separates the Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin from the Indio Subbasin and serves as an effective barrier to groundwater flow. Due to
poor quality and low groundwater yields, all potable water demand overlying the subbasin is supplied by
wells in the Mission Creek Subbasin. However, wells in the Miracle Hill area produce geothermally heated
groundwater that supplies spa resorts in Desert Hot Springs. Private wells in the Fargo Canyon Subarea
have historically been used for agricultural irrigation.
3.1.1.4 Garnet Hill Subarea
The area between the Garnet Hill fault and the Banning fault, named the Garnet Hill Subarea of the Indio
Subbasin by DWR, was considered a distinct subbasin by the USGS because of the effectiveness of the
Banning and Garnet Hill faults as barriers to groundwater movement. The area is bounded on the north by
the Banning fault, on the south by the Garnet Hill fault, and on the east and west by non-water to semi-
water bearing rocks. DWR considers the area to be part of the Indio Subbasin.
MSWD constructed Well 33 in the Garnet Hill Subbasin with production since 2007. MSWD, CVWD and
DWA have jointly developed the 2013 Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan for this Subarea
along with the Mission Creek Subbasin. Currently, CVWD includes a portion of the Garnet Hill Subarea in
its West Whitewater Area of Benefit replenishment assessment program. Separately, DWA has a
replenishment assessment program in its portion of the Garnet Hill Subarea. For SGMA compliance, the
area is considered to be part of the Indio Subbasin.
3.1.1.5 San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin
A portion of the MSWD western service area and DWA jurisdictional area is underlain by the San Gorgonio
Pass Subbasin. The portion of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin that lies entirely within the San
Gorgonio Pass is described as the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin. This subbasin is bounded on the north
by the San Bernardino Mountains and by semi-permeable rocks, and on the south by the San Jacinto
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-6
Mountains. A surface drainage divide between the Colorado River and South Coastal Hydrologic Study
Areas bounds the subbasin on the west. The eastern boundary is formed by a bedrock constriction that
creates a groundwater cascade into the Indio Subbasin.
The main water bearing deposits in the subbasin are Holocene and Pleistocene age alluvium and Pliocene
to Pleistocene age San Timoteo Formation. Holocene alluvium is mostly gravel and sand and, where
saturated, would yield water readily to wells. Within the subbasin, these deposits lie largely above the water
table and contribute little water to wells. Holocene alluvium is found in the tributaries of the subbasin and
allows runoff to infiltrate and recharge the subbasin. Older, Pleistocene-age alluvium contains sand and
gravel, but also large amounts of clay and silt. These deposits yield moderate amounts of water to wells.
The San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin is subdivided into a series of storage units that include the Banning
Bench, Banning, Beaumont, and Cabazon storage units. The Cabazon storage unit is recharged naturally
with runoff from the adjacent San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains.
The Cabazon storage unit encompasses approximately 11 square miles. The Cabazon storage unit is
located near the western MSWD boundary. MSWD operates four wells in the Cabazon storage unit. Other
groundwater users in the Cabazon storage unit include Desert Hills Premium Outlets, Morongo Band of
Mission Indians, and Cabazon Water District.
3.1.2 Groundwater Management
Historically, groundwater overdraft was a concern for much of the Coachella Valley. CVWD and DWA jointly
operate groundwater replenishment programs (GRPs) in the West Whitewater River Subbasin and Mission
Creek Subbasin management areas, and CVWD operates a replenishment program in the East Whitewater
River Subbasin area of benefit (AOB). These programs have had a significant beneficial effect on overdraft.
To recover the cost of the GRP, a Replenishment Assessment Charge (RAC) is applied to all non-exempted
groundwater production. These RACs are calculated and managed separately by each agency for each of
the AOBs.
In 2002, CVWD adopted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) to address groundwater
overdraft and is working collaboratively with other agencies to implement that plan. An update to the
CVWMP was adopted in 2012 and a status report was prepared in 2014 and 2016. Projects constructed in
the past 12 years include the TEL-GRF in La Quinta, the PD-GRF, the Martinez Canyon Pilot Recharge
Facility in Oasis, and Phase I of the Mid-Valley Pipeline project, which conveys Coachella Canal water to
the mid-valley, where it can be delivered directly or mixed with recycled water from WRP-10 to meet
irrigation demands of golf courses in the Indian Wells-Palm Desert-Rancho Mirage area of the Valley.
As noted above, CVWD and DWA began recharge operations at the Mission Creek GRF (MC-GRF) in
2002. In addition, CVWD, DWA, and MSWD completed and adopted the 2013 Mission Creek/Garnet Hill
Water Management Plan to address groundwater overdraft and the agencies (collectively the Management
Committee) are implementing that plan. Projects constructed in the past eight years include septic to sewer
conversion projects, abating approximately 3,400 septic tanks, and installation of additional monitoring
wells. In addition, MSWD will begin construction of its Regional Water Reclamation Facility in 2021 to
provide the treatment capacity needed to complete removal of all legacy septic tank systems throughout its
service area.
Additional programs focusing on conversion of groundwater pumpers to recycled and imported Coachella
Canal water over the next ten years are intended to prevent future overdraft. During extended drought
periods when SWP Exchange water deliveries for replenishment are reduced, continued groundwater
pumping could result in short-term overdraft. Reduced replenishment could result in lower groundwater
levels, which are expected to recover when normal supply conditions resume. Short-term reductions in
replenishment due to droughts are not expected to affect long-term supply reliability.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-7
3.1.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), a
package of three bills (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319), that empowers local agencies to sustainably
manage groundwater resources. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the
management of groundwater supplies in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and
implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.
A local agency, combination of local agencies, or county may establish a GSA. It is the GSA’s responsibility
to develop and implement a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) that considers all beneficial uses and
users of groundwater in the basin. GSAs must develop GSPs with measurable objectives and interim
milestones that ensure basin sustainability by 2042. A basin may be managed by a single GSP or multiple
coordinated GSPs. A basin can be managed by an alternative to a GSP if approved by DWR.
SGMA compliance efforts are ongoing in three subbasins: Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio Pass.
DWA, CVWD, IWA, and CWA all filed to become GSAs and jointly manage the Indio Subbasin. The 2003
Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Agreement (amended in 2014) and 2004 Mission Creek
Settlement Agreement guide management of the Mission Creek Subbasin. CVWD and DWA filed for GSA
status in the Mission Creek Subbasin. The Mission Creek Subbasin Annual Report provides additional
information regarding the CVWD, DWA, and MSWD 2004 Settlement Agreement, the subsequent
Management Committee, and how the agencies are working together under SGMA. DWA is one of three
GSAs completing a GSP in the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin.
The agencies submitted the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and the 2013 Mission Creek
and Garnet Hill Water Management Plan as Alternative Plans under SGMA for the Indio and Mission Creek
Subbasins, respectively. The agencies prepared bridge documents to show how these alternative plans
met the requirements of SGMA for each subbasin. The Alternative Plans were accepted by DWR, and they
are currently being updated for submittal by January 1, 2022.
Through these SGMA planning efforts, the basins are being managed for long-term sustainability. Based
on the latest annual reports prepared for Water Year 2019-2020, the basins are not in a state of overdraft
(Todd, 2021 and Wood, 2021).
3.1.4 Groundwater Quality
According to the 2010 CVWMP, groundwater quality in the Coachella Valley varies with depth, proximity to
faults and recharge basins, presence of surface contaminants, and other hydrogeologic or human factors.
Ongoing basin-wide groundwater quality monitoring found that drinking water supplied from groundwater
wells complies with all state and federal drinking water quality standards, with the exception of arsenic and
the proposed chromium‐6 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb). Both
substances are naturally occurring in some portions of the groundwater basin.
Where it is an issue, suppliers are meeting the MCL for arsenic through a combination of treatment and
blending approaches.
Chromium-6, also known as Cr-6 and hexavalent chromium, is a natural element that occurs in groundwater
in the Coachella Valley due to the erosion of natural deposits. Cr-6 levels are controlled in California drinking
water by existing regulations that include a MCL of 50 parts per billion (ppb) for total chromium, which is
twice as stringent as the national MCL for total chromium of 100 ppb established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). California’s Senate Bill 351, adopted in 2001, required the state
to develop a drinking water standard for Cr-6. State health officials enacted the country’s first Cr-6 drinking
water standard or MCL in 2014. In May 2017, a judge invalidated the MCL because the state failed to
properly consider the economic feasibly of compliance. The State Water Resources Control Board is now
working on establishing a new Cr-6 MCL for drinking water.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) and salinity of the groundwater basin is also an important water quality
parameter. Efforts are being made to analyze this through the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt
and Nutrient Management Plan.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-8
Imported Water
The Coachella Valley has access to two sources of imported water:
1. CVWD has rights to receive Colorado River water delivered through the Coachella Canal, a branch
of the All-American Canal.
2. CVWD and DWA are SWP contractors. As such, they have rights to receive water from the State
Water Project, which conveys water from northern California south to Lake Perris and other
endpoints. There is no physical infrastructure to convey SWP water to the Coachella Valley.
Therefore, CVWD and DWA have entered into exchange agreements with MWD. MWD’s Colorado
River Aqueduct (CRA) conveys water from the Colorado River through the Coachella Valley and
eventually to Lake Mathews. The exchange agreements allow MWD to deliver Colorado River
Water to CVWD and DWA for use in groundwater recharge in the West Whitewater River Subbasin
Management Area and the Mission Creek Subbasin Management Area. In exchange, MWD
receives SWP water that would have gone to CVWD and DWA.
The imported water sources and conveyance infrastructure are shown in Figure 3-2.
3.2.1 Colorado River Water
Colorado River water has been a major source of supply for the Coachella Valley since 1949 with the
completion of the Coachella Canal. The Coachella Canal (Canal) is a branch of the All-American Canal that
brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The Canal originates at Drop 1 on the
All-American Canal and extends approximately 122 miles, terminating in CVWD’s Lake Cahuilla. This water
is used for agricultural, golf course, and landscape irrigation purposes, as well as groundwater recharge.
The Colorado River is managed and operated in accordance with the Law of the River, the collection of
interstate compacts, federal and state legislation, various agreements and contracts, an international treaty,
a U.S. Supreme Court decree, and federal administrative actions that govern the rights to use of Colorado
River water within the seven Colorado River Basin states. The Colorado River Compact, signed in 1922,
apportioned the waters of the Colorado River Basin between the Upper Basin (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah,
and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (Nevada, Arizona, and California). The Colorado River Compact
allocates 15 million AFY of Colorado River water: 7.5 million AFY to the Upper Basin and 7.5 million AFY
to the Lower Basin, plus up to 1 million AFY of surplus supplies. In addition to those allocations, Mexico
was allocated 1.5 million AFY. The Lower Basin’s water was further apportioned among the three Lower
Basin states by the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 and the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona
v. California. Arizona’s basic annual apportionment is 2.8 million AFY, California’s is 4.4 million AFY, and
Nevada’s is 0.3 million AFY.
California’s apportionment of Colorado River water is allocated by the 1931 Seven Party Agreement. The
parties involved include:
Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
CVWD
MWD
City of Los Angeles
City of San Diego
County of San Diego
The allocations of the City and the County of San Diego and the City of Los Angeles are now incorporated
into MWD’s allocations. The allocations defined in the Seven Party Agreement are shown in Table 3-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-9
Figure 3-2. Sources of Imported Water Supply
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-12
conditions. The 2019 Second Amendment to the Delivery and Exchange Agreement with MWD allows
CVWD to receive 15,000 AF of the 20,000 AF 1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement water at the WWR-GRF
through 2026.
3.2.1.2 Canal Water Deliveries
CVWD manages the Coachella Canal and associated water delivery system used to irrigate over 60,000
acres of farmland in the ID-1 Service Area. The Coachella Canal was built during the period from August
1938 to June 1948, with construction halted during World War II. Construction of the underground
distribution system was initiated in 1948 and completed in 1954. The Canal distribution system was
constructed and engineered to follow the natural slope of the land to allow the free flow of water using the
force of gravity. Irrigation pumps are used to deliver water to elevated areas within the availability zones.
This lateral distribution system delivers water to farmers at the highest point of every 40 acres of eligible
land within the District's service area.
In addition to agricultural irrigation, Canal water is currently delivered to 30 golf courses and an additional
9-holes on another course in the Indio Subbasin in-lieu of groundwater to reduce groundwater pumping.
Golf courses served with Canal water are required to meet at least 80 percent of their water needs with
Colorado River water. CVWD is working with one additional golf course to connect it to the Canal water
distribution system.
3.2.1.3 Mid-Valley Pipeline
The Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP) is a pipeline distribution system to deliver Canal water to the mid-Valley
area for golf course and landscape irrigation. Some customers receive only Canal water, while others
receive a blend of Canal water and recycled water from WRP-10. This source substitution project reduces
groundwater pumping for these uses.
Construction of the first phase of the MVP from the Coachella Canal in Indio to CVWD’s WRP-10 in Palm
Desert (6.6 miles in length) was completed in 2009. Currently, six golf courses receive Canal water directly
from the MVP. An additional 15 golf courses receive a blend of Canal water from the MVP blended with
recycled water from CVWD’s WRP-10.
Implementation of later phases will expand the non-potable system to be able to serve approximately 38
golf courses in the Rancho Mirage-Palm Desert-Indian Wells area that currently use groundwater as their
primary source of supply with Canal water or a blend with recycled water. Golf courses connected to the
MVP or non-potable system are required to meet at least 80 percent of their water needs with non-potable
water.
A total of six homeowner’s associations (HOAs) and municipal buildings also receive a blend of recycled
water and Canal water from the MVP. The MVP and WRP-10 non-potable system currently serves
approximately 12,000 AFY of Canal water and 7,000 AFY of CVWD’s WRP-10 recycled water.
3.2.1.4 Oasis In-Lieu Recharge Project
The Oasis In-Lieu Recharge Project is an in-lieu source-substitution project identified in the 2010 CVWMP
Update that will supply approximately 32,000 AFY to offset groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation.
System improvements required to convey water to these lands include construction of gravity and
pressurized pipelines, surface reservoirs, pump stations, and related modifications and connections to the
existing irrigation system. The project will be constructed, owned, and operated by CVWD. It will be
connected to the existing water delivery system (Lateral 97.1) that serves the Oasis Area. This lateral serves
one of the six distinct service zones within Improvement District No. 1 (ID-1). Its headworks is a turnout
from the Coachella Canal and it heads southwesterly across the Coachella Valley to the Oasis Tower
location at the intersection of Avenue 70 and Polk Street.
Phase I of the project included two reservoirs to provide additional storage and operational improvements
and flexibility in the Oasis area. Construction on Phase I of the project was completed in December 2020.
The construction of Phase II is scheduled to be completed by 2023. Connections to the distribution system
are expected to be phased in between 2023 and 2028.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-14
The amount of water that has been pre-delivered is accounted for and reported annually in the Engineer’s
Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment prepared by CVWD and DWA. As of December 31, 2020,
the advance delivery account balance was 313,400 AF.
MWD and CVWD have a separate agreement for delivery and exchange of 35,000 AF. This agreement
was first created in 2003, amended in 2015, and amended for the second time in 2019. The 2019
amendments provided for an exchange of additional water and streamlined provisions of the agreement
related to delivery, billing, and payments.
3.2.2.2 SWP Reliability
DWR prepares a biennial report to assist SWP contractors and local planners in assessing the availability
of supplies from the SWP. DWR issued its most recent update, the 2019 DWR State Water Project Delivery
Capability Report (DCR), in August 2020. In this update, DWR provides SWP supply estimates for SWP
contractors to use in their planning efforts, including the 2020 UWMPs. The 2019 DCR includes DWR’s
estimates of SWP water supply availability under both existing (2020) and future (2040) conditions.
DWR’s estimates of SWP deliveries are based on a computer model that simulates monthly operations of
the SWP and Central Valley Project systems. Key inputs to the model include the facilities included in the
system, hydrologic inflows to the system, regulatory and operational constraints on system operations, and
contractor demands for SWP water. In conducting its model studies, DWR must make assumptions
regarding each of these key inputs.
In the 2019 DCR for its model study under existing conditions, DWR assumed: existing facilities, hydrologic
inflows to the model based on 82 years of historical inflows (1922 through 2003), current regulatory and
operational constraints including 2018 Addendum to the Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA), 2019
biological opinions and 2020 Incidental Take Permit, and contractor demands at maximum Table A
Amounts. The long-term average allocations reported in the 2019 DCR for the existing conditions study
provide an appropriate estimate of the SWP water supply availability under current conditions.
To evaluate SWP supply availability under future conditions, the 2019 DCR included a model study
representing hydrologic and sea level rise conditions at 2040. The future condition study used all of the
same model assumptions as the study under existing conditions, but reflected changes expected to occur
from climate change, specifically, projected temperature and precipitation changes centered around 2035
(2020 to 2049) and a 45-centimeter sea level rise. The long-term average allocations reported for the future
conditions study from the 2019 DCR are 58 percent for existing conditions through 2039, and 52 percent
for future conditions beginning in 2040.
As part of other on-going planning efforts, the RUWMP participating agencies are evaluating potential future
scenarios that include lower reliability values that reflect recent historical average reliability. These
scenarios also incorporate potential climate change impacts and are being analyzed in the Alternative Plan
Updates currently under development.
Each year by October 1, SWP contractors submit their requests for SWP supplies for the following calendar
year. By December 1, DWR estimates the available water supply for the following year and sets an initial
supply allocation based on the total of all contractors’ requests, current reservoir storage, forecasted
hydrology through the next year, and target reservoir storage for the end of the next year. The most
uncertain of these factors is the forecasted hydrology. In setting water supply allocations, DWR uses a
conservative 90% hydrologic forecast, where nine out of ten years will be wetter than the assumed forecast
and one out of ten years drier than the assumed forecast. DWR re-evaluates its estimate of available
supplies throughout the runoff season of winter and early spring, using updated reservoir storage and
hydrologic forecasts, and revises SWP supply allocations as warranted. Since most of California’s annual
precipitation falls in the winter and early spring, by the end of spring the supply available for the year is
much more certain, and in most years DWR issues its final SWP allocation by this time. While most of the
water supply is certain by this time, runoff in the late fall remains somewhat variable as the next year’s
runoff season begins. A drier than forecasted fall can result in not meeting end-of-year reservoir storage
targets, which means less water available in storage for the following year.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-15
DWR’s 2019 DCR indicates that the modeled single dry year SWP water supply allocation is 7% under the
existing conditions. However, historically the lowest SWP allocations were at 5% in 2014 and initial
allocations in 2021. The circumstances that led to these water supply allocations were unusual, and
although possible, have a low probability of frequent occurrence. The assumption for SWP contractors such
as CVWD and DWA is that a 5% allocation represents the “worst-case” scenario.
3.2.2.3 Yuba Accord
In 2008, CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase and conveyance
of supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water Purchase Program (Yuba
Accord). This program provides dry year supplies through a water purchase agreement between DWR and
Yuba County Water Agency, which settled long-standing operational and environmental issues over
instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River. Yuba Accord water transfers could include both
surface water and groundwater substitution transfers for an estimated total of up to 140,000 AFY. The
amount of water available for purchase varies annually and is allocated among participating SWP
contractors based on their Table A amounts.
3.2.2.4 Rosedale – Rio Bravo Transfers
In 2008, CVWD entered into an agreement with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District (Rosedale Rio-
Bravo) for a one-time transfer of 10,000 AF of Glorious Lands Company (GLC) water intended for a property
development located in Riverside County within CVWD’s boundary. In 2012, CVWD entered into an
Assignment Agreement with GLC to take over GLC’s water rights for the term of the 2005 Water Supply
Agreement between GLC and Rosedale Rio-Bravo. The Assignment Agreement provides a total of
252,500 AF to CVWD from Rosedale Rio-Bravo through 2035. CVWD also entered into a letter agreement
with MWD in 2012 for the delivery and exchange of up to 16,500 AFY of non-Table A SWP water that
Rosedale Rio-Bravo provides to CVWD. The water from Rosedale Rio-Bravo is delivered to CVWD as
exchange water from MWD at the WWR-GRF.
In 2020, CVWD finalized a supplemental letter agreement with Rosedale Rio-Bravo and a Point of Delivery
Agreement with DWR that increased the limit on the amount Rosedale Rio-Bravo can deliver to CVWD in
any one year (from 16,500 to 20,000 AFY), but does not change the total volume delivered during the life
of the agreement through 2035.
3.2.2.5 Delta Conveyance Facility Project
The Delta Conveyance Facility Project (DCFP) is a State project that would improve SWP reliability and
result in increased deliveries in the future. The existing SWP water conveyance facilities in the Delta, which
include Clifton Court Forebay and the Banks Pumping Plant, enable DWR to divert water to the California
Aqueduct. The DCFP would construct and operate new conveyance facilities in the Delta, primarily a new
tunnel to bypass existing natural channels used for conveyance. New intake facilities would be located in
the north Delta along the Sacramento River between Freeport, CA and the confluence with Sutter Slough.
A new tunnel would convey water from the new intakes to the existing Banks Pumping Plant and potentially
the federal Jones Pumping Plant, both in Byron, CA in the south Delta. The new facilities would provide an
alternate location for diversion of water from the Delta and would be operated in coordination with the
existing south Delta pumping facilities.
Construction of the DCFP will improve water supply reliability for State Water Contractors by addressing
in-Delta conveyance, with its myriad of constraints. Because the SWP currently relies on the Delta’s natural
channels to convey water, it is vulnerable to earthquakes, climate change, and pumping restrictions
established to protect in-stream species and habitats. Certain pumping restrictions in the south Delta can
prevent the SWP from reliably capturing water when it is available, especially in wet weather. The DCFP
would add new diversions in the north Delta to promote a more resilient and flexible SWP in the face of
unstable future conditions. Combined with the current through-Delta method, the addition of DCFP is
referred to as the “dual conveyance” system.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-16
CVWD and DWA have approved an agreement to advance their share of funding for DCFP planning and
design costs, and will consider approval of an Agreement in Principle for the Delta Conveyance Facility in
2021.
3.2.2.6 Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project
In 2017, MWD and DWR began preliminary planning for recovery of seepage below the Lake Perris Dam
and delivery of the recovered water to MWD in addition to its current allocated Table A water. The project
is composed of installing a series of five pumps placed down-gradient from the face of the Lake Perris Dam
that will pump water that has seeped from the lake into the groundwater. The recovered water will be
pumped into a collection pipeline that discharges directly into MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct south of
Lake Perris. CVWD and DWA were invited to partner in the project with MWD, and the parties have signed
an agreement with DWR for funding of environmental analysis, planning, and preliminary design.
3.2.2.7 Sites Reservoir
The Sites Reservoir Project would capture and store stormwater flows from the Sacramento River for
release in dry years. Sites Reservoir would be situated on the west side of the Sacramento Valley,
approximately 10 miles west of Maxwell, CA. When operated in coordination with other Northern California
reservoirs such as Shasta, Oroville, and Folsom, which function as the backbone to both the SWP and the
Central Valley Project, Sites Reservoir would increase flexibility and reliability of statewide water supplies
in drier periods. In 2019, CVWD and DWA both entered into an agreement with the Sites Project Authority
for the next phase of planning for the Sites Reservoir.
3.2.2.8 Potential Risks to SWP Supplies
The quantities of SWP water delivered to state water contractors in a given year depends on the demand
for supply; amounts of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, and water in storage; pumping capacity from the Delta;
and legal constraints on SWP operations.
Higher sea levels as a result of climate change would threaten the existing levee system in the Delta. Most
of the Delta is below sea level and is vulnerable to flooding. Salinity intrusion into the Delta may require
increased releases of freshwater from upstream reservoirs to maintain compliance with water quality
standards. For the SWP, climate change has the potential to affect the availability of its supply, and its
ability to convey water.
The Delta's levee system is also susceptible to sudden failures as a result of seismic events. California is
subject to frequent earthquakes with potentially high magnitudes that can cause serious damage to
structures and levees. As mentioned earlier, in the event of levee failure, water quality would be at risk from
saltwater intrusion into the Delta. Such conditions would significantly affect water supply reliability by limiting
pumping.
Local Surface Water
The Coachella Valley drainage area is approximately 65 percent mountainous and 35 percent typical desert
valley with alluvial fan topography buffering the valley floor from the steep mountain slopes. The mean
annual precipitation ranges from 44 inches in the San Bernardino Mountains to less than 3 inches at the
Salton Sea. Three types of storms produce precipitation in the drainage area: general winter storms,
general summer storms and local thunderstorms. Longer duration, lower intensity rainfall events tend to
have higher recharge rates, but runoff and flash flooding can result from all three types of storms.
Otherwise, there is little or no flow in most of the streams in the drainage area.
The Mission Creek runs from the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino mountains in the northwest and
flows southeast to the Whitewater River. Mission Creek flows to the valley floor on a consistent basis, but
the stream usually disappears underground a short distance from its entrance into the greater Mission
Creek Subbasin near Highway 62. While the principal surface water features in the Mission Creek and
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-17
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin areas directly contribute to groundwater recharge, they are not sufficiently
reliable to be used directly for municipal, industrial, or agricultural uses.
The Whitewater River runs through the Coachella Valley from the northwest to the southeast. Many portions
of the main channel and its tributaries have been channelized to convey flood flows. The upper reach of
the main channel is referred to as the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel (WRSC), and the lower reach
is referred to as the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC).
DWA and CVWD both hold State of California surface water rights. CVWD’s rights total up to 328,591 AFY
for the Whitewater River and multiple tributaries, which exceeds the long-term average watershed runoff.
These rights allow CVWD to capture available watershed runoff for replenishment of the groundwater basin.
DWA’s rights total up to 13,308 AFY for Chino, Snow, Falls Creek, and Whitewater River. DWA acquired
the water rights of the Whitewater River Mutual Water Company for 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) from
Whitewater Canyon in 2008. Local surface water is diverted by DWA for urban and agricultural demands.
Because surface water supplies are affected by variations in annual precipitation, however, the annual
supply is highly variable. Since 1960, the historical surface water diversions have ranged from
approximately 1,400 to 8,500 AFY. For the period 2010-2019, DWA’s average annual surface water
diversions from all sources totaled 1,832 AFY. The remaining undiverted surface water is recharged into
the Indio Subbasin through the natural streambed near Snow Creek Road/Highway 111, Chino Canyon,
and the Whitewater River Channel.
Recycled Water
Recycled water is a significant potential local resource that can be used to help reduce overdraft.
Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other
purposes. An overview of water recycling programs is included here, and each agency’s chapter has more
detailed information about their facilities.
CVWD started recycling wastewater for irrigation of golf courses and landscaping in the Coachella Valley
in the late 1960s. CVWD operates five WRPs, two of which (WRP-7 and WRP-10) generate recycled water
for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas. WRP-7 is located in north Indio and is a 5.0 MGD
secondary treatment facility with current tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 MGD (2,800 AFY). The tertiary
treated wastewater is used for irrigation of golf courses at Sun City in north Palm Desert and Shadow Hills
in north Indio. WRP-10 is located in the City of Palm Desert and is an 18.0 MGD secondary treatment
facility with a current tertiary treatment capacity of 15 MGD (16,800 AFY). WRP-10 delivers recycled water
for irrigation of golf courses, municipal, and HOA landscaping. CVWD is also planning to add tertiary
treatment at WRP-4, in the unincorporated community of Thermal. CVWD’s remaining two plants, WRP-1
and WRP-2, are smaller facilities with no current plans for water recycling.
CWA serves the City of Coachella, which through its Coachella Sanitary District (CSD) owns and operates
a 4.5 MGD (5,040 AFY) secondary treatment wastewater facility utilizing activated sludge and oxidation
ditch processes. The plant currently discharges treated effluent to the CVSC. CSD participated in a regional
feasibility study to determine the best available and most cost-effective opportunity to implement recycled
water.
DWA began operating a Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) in the 1980s that treats effluent from the City of
Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. The WRP has a tertiary treatment capacity of 10 MGD (11,200
AFY). DWA delivers recycled water to golf courses, parks, and other landscapes in the Palm Springs area,
and also utilizes recycled water for irrigation at its operations center and WRP. Beginning in 2014, DWA
equipped two shallow groundwater wells to augment the non-potable supply for peak demands (typically
summer). These shallow wells pump non-potable groundwater adjacent to the DWA Recycling Plant into
the recycled water distribution system.
IWA serves the City of Indio, where wastewater treatment is provided by Valley Sanitary District (VSD).
VSD owns and operates an 11 MGD (12,320 AFY) capacity wastewater treatment facility that serves most
of the City of Indio. The City of Indio and the VSD have formed a Joint Powers Authority to plan, program,
finance, design and operate a Reclaimed Water Facility. This facility would provide advanced treatment for
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-18
effluent from VSD’s plant and create a new sustainable source of supply. Initial planning for the first phase
is currently underway.
MSWD operates two wastewater treatment facilities and will begin construction of the Regional Water
Reclamation Facility this year. While all plants currently or will provide secondary treatment, MSWD has
completed a recycled water feasibility study and plans to implement advanced treatment and recycled water
recharge in the Mission Creek Subbasin in the next 5 to 10 years.
MDMWC does not provide wastewater treatment services, and coordinates with regional agencies on
potential uses of recycled water within its service area.
Two small facilities in the southern portion of the study area are operated by the Salton Community Services
District (SCSD). The Salton City WWTP and the Desert Shore WWTP dispose of effluent through
evaporation and percolation, and there are no current plans for water recycling.
Wastewater treatment and recycled water facilities are shown in Figure 3-3.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-19
Figure 3-3. Wastewater and Recycled Water Facilities
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
3-21
and changes in precipitation patterns. This impact has not been explicitly quantified but has been
considered as part of the range of uncertainty in future demand estimates.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-1
Introduction
This chapter presents information specific to CVWD’s reporting requirements under the Urban Water
Management Planning Act (UWMP Act). As an urban water supplier, CVWD is required to prepare an Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years in response to the requirements of the UWMP Act,
California Water Code Sections (CWC) 10610 through 10656. This Regional UWMP (RUWMP) serves to
meet the UWMP Act requirements for the six participating agencies, and this chapter contains information
specific to CVWD.
Background about the preparation of the RUWMP and the changes in the CWC requirements is presented
in Chapter 1 of the RUWMP. The relation of the RUWMP to other planning efforts is described in Chapter
3 of the RUWMP.
4.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized to follow the structured recommended in the Guidebook.
Section 4.1 - Introduction and Overview. Provides a discussion on the importance and extent of
CVWD’s water management planning efforts.
Section 4.2 - Plan Preparation. Provides information on CVWD’s process for developing the
UWMP, including efforts in coordination and outreach.
Section 4.3 - System Description. Includes maps of the service area, a description of the service
area and climate, public water systems, and CVWD’s organizational structure and history.
Section 4.4 - System Water Use. Describes and quantifies the current and projected urban water
uses within CVWD’s service area.
Section 4.5 - Baselines and Targets. Describes CVWD’s methods for calculating baseline and
target urban water consumption. Demonstrates achievement of the 2020 water use target.
Section 4.6 - System Supplies. Describes and quantifies current and projected sources of urban
water available to CVWD. Includes discussion of potential recycled water uses and supply
availability.
Section 4.7 - Water Supply Reliability. Describes the reliability of CVWD’s water supply and projects
the reliability for the next 25 years. Includes an analysis for normal years, single dry years, and
multiple dry years.
Section 4.8 - Water Shortage Contingency Planning. Provides CVWD’s staged plan for dealing with
water shortages, including a catastrophic supply interruption.
Section 4.9 - Demand Management Measures. Describes CVWD’s efforts to promote conservation
and to reduce demand through demand management measures.
Section 4.10 - Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation. Describes the steps taken by CVWD
to adopt and submit the UWMP and to make it publicly available. Includes a discussion of CVWD’s
plan to implement the UWMP.
4.1.2 RUWMP in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-3
The UWMP Act allows water agencies to prepare their plans either individually or by participation in an area
wide, regional, watershed, or basin-wide urban water management plan. CVWD is participating in the
Coachella Valley RUWMP.
4.2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 allows agencies to report progress toward achieving water
conservation targets on an individual or regional basis. The agencies have not created a Regional Alliance
for the purposes of measuring and reporting water conservation targets.
4.2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure
This UWMP reports water use on a calendar year basis, and all volumes are expressed in units of acre-
feet (AF), unless otherwise indicated. CVWD is a retail agency and does not currently sell wholesale water.
4.2.6 Coordination and Outreach
According to CWC §10631, an urban water supplier that relies on water from a wholesaler must provide
the wholesaler with water use projections for that supplier for the next 20 years. However, CVWD does not
receive water from a wholesale supplier and meets all its water demands through its own supplies.
CVWD does not currently provide wholesale water to other water agencies.
CWC §10620 requires urban water suppliers to coordinate their plans with other appropriate agencies in
the area. Outreach and coordination during RUWMP preparation are described in Chapter 2 of the
RUWMP.
CWC §10621 requires the urban water supplier to notify the cities and counties that are within their service
area 60 days before the public hearing of the UWMP. The notices are described in Chapter 2 of the
RUWMP.
System Description
This section describes the CVWD urban water service area and population.
4.3.1 General Description
CVWD was formed in 1918 under the County Water District Act provisions of the CWC. In 1937, CVWD
absorbed the responsibilities of the Coachella Valley Stormwater District that had been formed in 1915.
CVWD now encompasses approximately 640,000 acres, mostly within Riverside County, but also extending
into northern Imperial and northeastern San Diego counties.
CVWD is governed by a board of five directors, elected by district voters to four-year terms. Each director
lives in and represents one of five directorial divisions in the district and is elected by voters who also reside
in that division.
CVWD is a Colorado River water importer and a California State Water Project contractor. The water-
related services provided by CVWD include:
Domestic water delivery
Irrigation water delivery and agricultural drainage
Wastewater reclamation and recycling
Stormwater protection
Groundwater replenishment
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-4
CVWD is the largest urban water supplier in the Coachella Valley with over 100,000 municipal connections.
4.3.1.1 Domestic Water Delivery
CVWD’s domestic water system has 64 pressure zones and consists of approximately 97 groundwater
production wells, 2,000 miles of pipe, and 133 million gallons of storage in 65 enclosed reservoirs.
4.3.1.2 Irrigation Water Delivery and Agricultural Drainage
CVWD’s irrigation system provides Colorado River water to over 1,200 customers covering over 75,000
acres via the 123-mile, concrete-lined, Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal. The irrigation
distribution system consists of 485 miles of buried pipe, 16 pumping plants, and 1,300 AF of storage.
Due to a high perched groundwater table and concentration of salts in irrigated soils within CVWD’s service
area, an agricultural drainage system is necessary. CVWD operates and maintains an agricultural drainage
system consisting of 166 miles of buried pipe ranging in size from 18 inches to 72 inches in diameter and
21 miles of open channels to serve as a drainage network for irrigated lands. The system receives water
from on-farm drainage lines. In most areas, the drainage system flows to the Coachella Valley/Whitewater
River Stormwater Channel. However, in areas near the Salton Sea, a number of open channels convey
flows directly to the sea.
4.3.1.3 Wastewater Reclamation and Recycling
CVWD’s wastewater reclamation system collects and treats approximately 17 million gallons per day (MGD)
from approximately 95,000 user accounts. The system consists of approximately 1,100 miles of collection
piping and five wastewater reclamation plants (WRPs). Some areas within the CVWD service area remain
on septic systems.
Two of the plants, WRP 7 and 10, recycle an average of about 8 MGD for golf course and municipal
irrigation. The recycled water distribution systems serve a total of 20 customer accounts through 31 miles
of pressurized distribution pipelines. The main focus of the recycled water system is to provide non-potable
water to golf customers, but also serve non-potable water to HOAs for landscape irrigation.
4.3.1.4 Stormwater Protection
CVWD provides regional flood protection for its stormwater unit within the Coachella Valley. CVWD’s
stormwater unit extends from the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF) to
Salton City, encompassing approximately 380,000 acres. CVWD’s regional flood control system consists
of a series of debris basins, levees, and stormwater channels that divert floodwaters from the canyons and
alluvial fans surrounding the Coachella Valley to the 50-mile Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel (CVSC) that flows to the Salton Sea.
4.3.1.5 Groundwater Recharge
CVWD operates and maintains groundwater recharge facilities at three locations in the Coachella Valley:
the WWR-GRF, the Thomas E. Levy GRF (TEL-GRF), and the Palm Desert GRF (PD-GRF). Desert Water
Agency (DWA) shares in the operation and maintenance cost at the WWR-GRF. CVWD and DWA also
share costs of the operation and maintenance of the Mission Creek GRF (MC-GRF) to replenish the aquifer
underneath the Mission Creek Subbasin.
CVWD has operated and maintained recharge facilities at the WWR-GRF (formerly referred to as the
Whitewater Spreading Area) since 1919, first with local surface runoff and, since 1973, with imported State
Water Project Exchange water. The WWR-GRF has a series of 19 ponds covering 700 acres adjacent to
the Whitewater River. Local runoff and State Water Project Exchange water deliveries are transported to
the ponds via the Whitewater River channel, and then diverted into the recharge ponds at two locations by
diversion structures. Since its introduction in 1973, over 3.8 million acre-feet of water have been recharged
at this facility.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-5
CVWD began recharging Colorado River water from the Coachella Canal at the TEL-GRF in 2009. The
facility consists of 39 ponds covering 163 acres with a design capacity of 40,000 AFY. The facility is located
on the western slope of the East Coachella Valley.
The PD-GRF (Phase I) began operation in Palm Desert in February 2019. It is supplied by Colorado River
water delivered through the Mid-Valley Pipeline. The facility consists of five ponds covering 20 acres with
a maximum design capacity of 10,000 AFY. Phase II of the project will consist of three ponds covering 25
acres in the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel with a maximum design capacity of 15,000 AFY.
4.3.2 Jurisdictional Boundary
The CVWD jurisdictional boundary and current service area are shown in Figure 4-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-6
Figure 4-1. CVWD Jurisdictional Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-18
4.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use
CVWD calculated its permanent 2020 service area population by uploading a GIS shapefile of its water
service area (WSA) to the DWR Population Tool. The tool used 2010 census data and the number of
connections in 2010 and 2020 to estimate the population in 2020. CVWD then added the estimated
seasonal population of “snow birds” and visitors.
The methodology for estimating population in seasonal housing units consists of the following steps:
1. The number of housing units in each Census block was obtained from Census data. The Census
blocks were intersected with the supplier boundaries to calculate the number of housing units.
2. The portion of housing units that are for seasonal use was determined from Census data. The
2010 Census data indicated that 23.4% of the total housing units in Palm Springs were for
seasonal use.
3. The number of seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the number of housing units
by the portion of housing units that are for seasonal use.
4. The annual average occupancy rate for seasonal housing units was estimated from data provided
by the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau (GPSCVB). These data showed a
62% occupancy rate in Palm Springs from July of 2017 to July of 2018.
5. The number of occupied seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the number of
seasonal housing units by the annual average occupancy rate of 62%.
6. Census data was used to calculate a number of persons per household.
7. The number of people in occupied seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the
number of occupied seasonal housing units by the number of persons per household.
A separate methodology was used for estimating population in RV and mobile home parks, consisting of
the following steps:
1. Data was collected from managers of RV and mobile home parks for the number of spaces that
are occupied seasonally. Spaces that are occupied permanently were not included, since those
residents should be included in the Census data for permanent population.
2. The annual average occupancy rate for seasonally occupied RV spaces was assumed to be the
same as the GPSCVB occupancy rate.
3. The number of occupied seasonal RV spaces was calculated by multiplying the number of
seasonal RV spaces by the annual average occupancy rate of 62%.
4. Census data was used to calculate a number of persons per household.
5. The number of people in occupied seasonal RV spaces was calculated by multiplying the number
of occupied seasonal RV spaces by the number of persons per household.
This methodology was reviewed and approved in advance by DWR.
CVWD’s gross water use was determined from annual production records. Meter adjustments, exported
water, distribution system storage, recycled water, and process water were not applicable to CVWD’s
distribution system.
Allowable adjustments to the 2020 gross water include extraordinary events, weather normalization, and
economic adjustments. No adjustments were made to CVWD’s 2020 water use.
4.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use
CVWD’s average use during the baseline period and confirmed 2020 target are shown in Table 4-13.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-21
4.6.2.3 Surface Water
CVWD does not currently use or intend to use any local surface water as part of its urban water supply.
Local runoff is captured and used for groundwater recharge.
4.6.2.4 Stormwater
CVWD does not use stormwater directly as a source of supply. Through the IRWM process, CVWD and
other local agencies are evaluating opportunities to capture stormwater for groundwater recharge.
4.6.2.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
CVWD provides both water and wastewater services in its service area. CVWD provides wastewater
collection and treatment services for all or part of the cities of Cathedral City, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Palm
Desert, and Rancho Mirage, as well as unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By agreement, a small
portion of flow from DWA’s service area is sent to CVWD’s WRP-10.
Recycled water is a significant potential local resource that can be used to help reduce overdraft.
Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other
purposes; however, the current level of wastewater treatment does not yield water suitable for direct potable
use. Valley golf courses are not connected to CVWD’s urban water but instead rely on private groundwater
wells to meet their irrigation needs. To manage groundwater overdraft, CVWD started recycling wastewater
for irrigation of golf courses and landscaping in the Coachella Valley in the late 1960s. As growth occurs in
the Valley, the supply of recycled water is expected to increase creating an additional opportunity to
maximize local water supply.
CVWD’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 1,160 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch
diameter sewers, and includes 28 sewage lift stations and associated force mains. The system contains
trunk sewers, generally 10 inches in diameter and larger, that convey the collected wastewater flows to the
District’s treatment facilities. CVWD operates five WRPs, two of which (WRP-7 and WRP-10) generate
recycled water for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas. Brief descriptions of CVWD’s
WRPs are presented here.
WRP-1 serves the Bombay Beach community near the Salton Sea. WRP-1 has a design capacity of
150,000 gallons per day (gpd), and currently all of the effluent from this facility is disposed by evaporation-
infiltration. CVWD has no plans to recycle effluent from this facility because of the low flow and lack of
potential uses near the plant.
WRP-2 serves the nearby North Shore community. WRP-2 has a treatment capacity of 33,000 gpd and can
provide additional capacity when flows exceed this value. WRP-2 discharges treated secondary effluent
into four evaporation-infiltration basins for final disposal. CVWD has no plans to recycle effluent from this
facility because of the low flow and lack of potential uses near the plant.
WRP-4 is a 9.9 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity treatment facility located in Thermal. WRP-4 became
operational in 1986 and serves communities from La Quinta to Mecca. WRP-4 provides secondary
treatment consisting of pre-aeration ponds, aeration lagoons, polishing ponds, and disinfection. The treated
effluent is discharged to the CVSC pursuant to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Effluent from WRP-4 is not currently recycled. CVWD plans to add tertiary treatment and reuse
effluent from this plant in the future primarily for agricultural irrigation. CVWD has filed a Change Petition
(WW0093) with the SWRCB to move forward with recycling at WRP-4.
WRP-7 is located in North Indio and has a capacity of 5.0 MGD. The design capacity of the tertiary treatment
system at WRP-7 is 2.5 MGD. The off-site pumping capacity of the WRP-7 recycled water pump is
approximately 4,500 gpm. In the summer, peak demands exceed the pumping capacity of 4,000 gpm, which
typically serves Sun City and 500 gpm which serves Shadow Hills.
WRP-10 is located in Palm Desert. WRP-10 began delivering recycled water in 1987. The design capacity
of the tertiary treatment system at WRP-10 is 15 MGD. Since 2009, WRP-10 is also capable of serving
canal water from the MVP blended with tertiary water to non-potable water customers.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-22
WRP-10 has two distribution systems. One is a low-pressure system, with recycled water and/or canal
water delivered by the MVP leaving the plant in this system at 85 psi. The other system is a high pressure
system which pumps recycled water and/or canal water delivered by the MVP out at 135 psi. Because the
winter demand for recycled water is less than the available supply, a portion of the plant flow is disposed
through on-site percolation-evaporation ponds. As more golf courses are connected to the WRP-10
recycled water distribution system, CVWD plans to eliminate percolation of recycled water.
The wastewater collected and treated in the service area is shown in Table 4-16. The recycled water
produced is shown in Table 4-17.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-24
The existing recycled water customers are not part of CVWD’s urban potable water system, but are private
groundwater producers that purchase recycled water. It is expected that golf course irrigation will remain
the largest use of recycled water in the future. Although CVWD’s urban water demand is not offset by
recycled water use, the Coachella Valley’s water supply is indirectly increased by transitioning private
groundwater producers to recycled water. Table 4-18 summarizes the current and projected uses of
recycled water within CVWD’s service area.
The 2015 UWMP projected recycled water uses for 2020 are presented in Table 4-19 compared with actual
recycled water use.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-27
Where practical, CVWD requires new developments to use recycled or non-potable water as a condition of
receiving domestic and sanitation services from CVWD. The developments will then use the recycled or
non-potable water as it becomes available. CVWD also has a policy of requiring that new golf courses either
use recycled water or canal water where it is available. CVWD is committed to maximizing the use of non-
potable water for non-potable uses by investing in infrastructure improvements as discussed previously.
4.6.2.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
CVWD has evaluated the use of desalinated shallow groundwater as part of its water supply portfolio
through desalination of shallow saline groundwater. At this time this opportunity has been deferred due to
slower than anticipated growth.
4.6.2.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
This section describes opportunities for water exchanges and transfers, including existing emergency
interconnections between CVWD and adjacent water agencies.
SWP Exchange water is a significant supply for groundwater recharge in the Coachella Valley. This supply
is described in Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
Water transfers involve the temporary or permanent sale or lease of a water right or contractual water
supply between willing parties. Water can be made available for transfer from other parties through a variety
of mechanisms:
Transferring imported water from storage that would have otherwise carried over to the following
years
Pumping groundwater instead of imported water delivery and transferring the imported water
Transferring previously stored groundwater either by direct pumping or exchange for imported
water
Reducing consumptive use through crop idling/shifting or implementing water use efficiency
measures
Reducing return flows or conveyance losses
The ability to successfully execute a water transfer depends upon a number of factors including:
Water rights (pre- vs. post-1914 rights) and place of use requirements
Regulatory approval (SWRCB, DWR, Reclamation)
Ability to convey the transferred water
Delta carriage water and conveyance losses
Environmental impacts (CEQA/NEPA compliance)
Third-party impacts
Supply reliability
Cost
CVWD continues to evaluate potential transfers as a way to increase supply reliability. At this point, no
specific new transfer projects have been identified.
CVWD currently has emergency interties with IWA, Mission Springs Water District, and Desert Water
Agency. The combined capacities of these connections is in excess of 20 million gallons per day.
4.6.2.8 Future Water Projects
CVWD recognizes the need to obtain additional water supplies to meet projected water demands and
prevent groundwater overdraft. CVWD is investigating several programs to obtain additional supply or
improve the reliability of SWP supplies. These programs are described below.
Delta Conveyance Facility Project
The Delta Conveyance Facility Project (DCFP) would construct and operate new conveyance facilities in
the Delta, primarily a new tunnel to bypass existing natural channels used for conveyance. New intake
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-34
4.7.3 Management Tools and Options
CVWD was formed in 1918 with the purpose of protecting the water supplies of the Coachella Valley.
CVWD has acquired imported water supplies to replenish local groundwater supplies and continues to
evaluate additional opportunities to increase supply reliability. Significant investments have been made to
implement water conservation programs, acquire additional SWP Table A allocations, construct
groundwater replenishment facilities to recharge the groundwater basin, and convert groundwater users to
Canal water and recycled water. These programs have had a significant effect on stabilizing groundwater
levels and eliminating overdraft.
CVWD is acting as a GSA in both the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins to help manage the groundwater
basin and implement the Alternative Plans. CVWD has implemented a number of programs to maximize
the use of local water supplies and reduce demands including significant recycled water and water
conservation programs; see Section 4.9 for demand management measures currently in place by CVWD.
CVWD has also participated in the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) with
other public water agencies in the Coachella Valley; more information about this group’s activities to
increase supply reliability is included in Chapters 2 and 3 of the RUWMP.
4.7.4 Drought Risk Assessment
A new reporting requirement for the 2020 UWMP is a five-year Drought Risk Assessment (DRA). The DRA
is based on projections of demand and available supply for the next five years.
The data and methodologies used to identify a potential shortage are described in the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan. Based on the reliability analysis in Section 4.7, the supply of groundwater is fully reliable
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 4-28.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-36
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
CVWD has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to meet the requirements of this section
of the Guidebook. The WSCP is included as an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
This section describes CVWD water conservation goals, its existing and proposed conservation programs,
and addresses the requirements of the UWMP relative to demand management.
4.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
CVWD does not receive or currently provide wholesale water. This section is not applicable to CVWD’s
service area.
4.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
CVWD implements the demand management measures (DMMs) identified in CWC §10631 in addition to
other DMMs. The following subsections summarize the current DMMs in place and implementation over
the past five years.
4.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
CVWD has implemented water waste restrictions through its ordinance imposing mandatory restrictions on
water use. CVWD’s current ordinance is 1422.5 and includes prohibitions on inefficient water use. Some
measures are in effect at all times, and some are implemented at different shortage levels of the WSCP.
CVWD’s ordinance also describes recommended activities for customers and Homeowners Associations
(HOAs).
In addition, provisions of CVWD’s landscape ordinance 1302.5 (revised July 2020) include specific
prohibitions and penalties for water waste. These provisions from Section 3.15.040, Part C are provided
below:
1. Water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation including runoff, low-head drainage,
overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas,
walks, roadways, or structures is prohibited. All broken heads and pipes must be repaired within 72
hours of notification. Penalties for violation of these prohibitions are established in Section 3.15.070.
2. Customers who cause water waste may have their service discontinued.
3. Customers who appear to be exceeding the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) may be
interviewed by the District Water Management Department to verify customer water usage to ensure
compliance.
4.9.2.2 Metering
One hundred percent of CVWD’s urban water customers are metered. The meters are billed based on
volume of use. CVWD has mixed use meters serving both domestic use and landscape irrigation. The
landscape ordinance Section 3.15.030, Part D specifies:
Separate landscape water meters shall be installed for all projects except single family homes with a
landscape area less than 5,000 square feet. Landscape meters for single family homes with a landscape
area over 5,000 square feet may be served by a permanent service connection provided by the District or
by a privately owned submeter installed at the irrigation point of connection on the customer service line.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-37
4.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to reduce average or peak use, or both. CVWD uses
water commodity rates for its domestic water, non-potable (including Canal and recycled) water, and
groundwater replenishment services. For its urban water system, CVWD has used a water budget-based
tiered rate structure that discourages wasteful water use since 2009.
Every residential customer is given a personalized water budget based on the number of people living in
the home, the size of the home’s landscaped area (budgeting more water to those with larger landscapes),
and daily weather (budgeting more water during hotter months). Customers pay the tier rate for all water
used within that tier.
CVWD is currently in the process of updating water rate studies for its domestic water, Canal water, and
replenishment assessment charges. The domestic water rates are proposed to be adjusted to continue to
encourage additional water conservation and generate the revenue required to meet District expenses,
consistent with cost of service principles and legal requirements.
4.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
There are several public information programs being operated presently by CVWD. The purpose of these
programs is to educate the public on conservation programs being planned and/or implemented by CVWD,
as well as educational tips that customers can use to lower their water usage.
4.9.2.5 Publications – Lush and Efficient
CVWD publishes a comprehensive book on water-efficient landscaping in the Coachella Valley titled Lush
and Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley. The guide draws on the expertise of local
irrigation and landscaping specialists to provide users with step-by-step instructions and techniques for
creating and maintaining water-efficient landscapes, plus hundreds of low-water using plants that thrive in
the desert. First published in 1988, the popular book is available for free from CVWD’s website. Hard copies
are also readily available for free at special events and for purchase for a nominal fee. In 2016, an updated
version showcasing new plant materials and the latest irrigation tools and techniques, was debuted. The
measurement of interest and success of this program will be to show an increase in the number of hard
copies distributed and the number of page views the online version receives.
4.9.2.6 Demonstration Gardens
The majority of urban potable water distributed by CVWD is used outside, with about 70-80 percent being
used to maintain landscapes. Since CVWD’s boundaries fall within the California Department of Water
Resources’ highest ET zone (18), it takes more water to grow landscapes here than in any other portion of
California. The Coachella Valley shares this highest water use designation with the Palo Verde Valley,
Imperial Valley, and Death Valley.
One way to reduce landscape water requirements is to use native desert plants in landscaping. Desert
native plants have evolved both anatomical and physiological mechanisms that allow them to survive on
annual rainfall alone.
Within the Coachella Valley, which is one of the lowest annual rainfall areas in the state, desert plants from
other, wetter deserts can be utilized with a minimum amount of irrigation. CVWD has identified and
illustrated these plant choices in its publication Lush and Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the Coachella
Valley. CVWD’s two demonstration gardens, one at its headquarters in Coachella and the other at its office
in Palm Desert, provide the landscape industry and the general public an opportunity to observe the plants
in a landscape setting.
The objective measurements of interest and success of this program will be attendance at the gardens and
subjective measurements achieved through the feedback from visitor surveys.
Additionally, a new demonstration garden is planned for the Palm Desert Campus using grant funding.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-38
4.9.2.7 Landscape and Leak Detection Workshops
CVWD started offering an annual horticultural workshop more than 20 years ago with about 30 people
attending a half-day session at College of the Desert. This program steadily grew over the years to a
culmination of 220 people participating in 2010. In order to make the workshop more manageable, the
structure was changed, and workshops are now held throughout the year with different topics continually
being introduced.
Speakers include CVWD staff and community members who are experts in various fields related to
landscaping. Participants are given a free copy of Lush and Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the
Coachella Valley and other xeriscape information. Attendance at each event ranges from 50-75 people.
The measurement of interest and success of this program will be through stable or increased attendance
for the course offered under this program.
4.9.2.8 Community Outreach
Outreach events in 2020 were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, however CVWD developed virtual
resources that could be accessed online. These resources include virtual workshops, CVWD staff
presenting at virtual meetings, and current development of virtual tours.
CVWD’s marketing/advertising program includes print, radio, billboards, social media, and TV ads primarily
focused on water conservation, CVWD services, and promotion of workshops.
4.9.2.9 Water Conservation Website, E-notifications, and Facebook
CVWD has a large section on its website (www.cvwd.org/conservation) devoted to water conservation and
education. Started in 2005, the webpage provides information on all of the agency’s conservation programs,
including conservation rebate programs, current water-use restrictions, upcoming workshops, conservation
tips (in the form of videos, fact sheets and guides), a guide for proper irrigation, and a link to download
CVWD’s landscaping book, Lush and Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley. In addition,
regional daily and monthly weather and reference evapotranspiration rate information is provided to guide
water users. The conservation section received 39,953 page views in 2020. The measurement of interest
and success of this program will be to show stable or increasing page views to the section.
In addition, CVWD partners with four other public water agencies in the region to maintain a cooperative
educational website at www.cvwatercounts.com. This site also provides water conservation tips and links
to the five agencies.
CVWD’s e-notification program began in 2014 to provide a voluntary email subscription service to
customers. As of January 2021, email notification subscriptions include the following topics and number of
subscribers:
Board meetings - 517
Events & workshops - 917
News releases - 1,997
Tours – 1,113
Water quality reports – 1,956
The District launched its Facebook page in 2014, its Twitter page in 2017, and its Instagram account in
2018. As of January 2021, these social media pages had 2,044 followers on Facebook, 563 on Twitter and
965 on Instagram.
Social media posts include information about services, construction projects, milestones, employee
highlights, conservation tips, traffic advisories for construction work and announcements of new policies
and programs.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-39
4.9.2.10 School Education Program
CVWD has an established school education program which began in 1992. The agency has two full-time
teachers on staff implementing the program. Presently, there are four components to the program. The first
is classroom presentations on a variety of water-related topics with an emphasis on water conservation.
The second component is facility tours, the third is science fair promotion and sponsorship and the fourth
is a newsletter targeted to teachers. CVWD’s teachers make audience-specific water education
presentations to students at every level from pre-school to college. All school lesson plans are developed
using California State Board of Education Standards and Frameworks. In addition to classroom
presentations, CVWD’s teachers host several tours of water-related facilities and judge science fairs for the
public and private schools within the agency’s service area. A quarterly newsletter, The Water Wheel was
targeted specifically to teachers to promote the other three components of the program and provide
valuable information to assist teachers in incorporating water-related topics into their lesson plans. That
newsletter is currently being revised into an e-newsletter and will likely be renamed.
4.9.2.11 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
CVWD’s water loss program evaluates both apparent and real water loss. The programs and practices
listed below constitute water loss reduction efforts:
Production Well Meter Testing: This consists of CVWD testing all our production well meters twice
per year. This is to ensure meter accuracy and data validity to accurately calculate our water loss
when performing water loss audits. If the meter is not within the acceptable tolerance, it is replaced.
Customer Meter Testing: CVWD tests a random representative sample of our customer meter
population. The testing process includes minimum, intermediate, and maximum flow rates. All
tested meters are required to be within a range based on the AWWA M6 standard for “accuracy
limits” for size and type of meter; if a meter fails one of these flow rates, the meter is replaced. Test
data is used in the AWWA Water Loss Audit Software to calculate customer meter inaccuracy.
Proactive Meter Replacement: Based on meter failures and industry data, CVWD currently replaces
meters after 20 years of service as an ongoing preventative maintenance program. This program
is to ensure accurate data in regards to customer billing and water loss due to meter inaccuracy.
Leak Detection: CVWD’s leak detection program surveys 80-110 miles of main a month, the goal
is to proactively find and fix unreported non-surfacing leaks in the distribution system. The leak
detection crew surveys the entire distribution system for leaks over an approximately two-year
period.
Leak Repair: CVWD fixes surfacing and non-surfacing leaks within five days for non-emergency
leaks. Five days is generally the time between the notification of the leak and the fixing of the leak.
Emergency leaks are prioritized and fixed within one day of notification. Non-surfacing/unreported
leaks are scheduled and fixed accordingly.
District Site Use Water Meters: CVWD has installed meters at all of its domestic sites to accurately
track site usage. This data helps provide consumption data that is entered into the AWWA Water
Loss Audit Software.
Meter Reading: CVWD’s meter reading system identifies meters with no/low consumption. Staff is
also trained to identify potential faulty meters. A work order is entered for replacement if the meter
is not operating correctly. Comparison reading is also conducted to compare Automatic Meter
Reads to their actual read. This practice can help identify faulty electronics or set up errors in the
metering system.
Meter Repair Work Order Prioritization: Work orders that negatively impact billing and/or contribute
to water loss are considered “priority” and are completed as soon as possible. It is typical to have
less than a two week backlog on these type of priority work orders. Making these a priority
minimizes water loss.
Billing Reports: Billing runs exceptions reports to identify low or zero consumption anomalies.
These reports can help locate a potential problem in the billing system or the meter, which can be
investigated and repaired.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-40
4.9.2.12 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
CVWD currently has a full-time water conservation manager as well as support staff for CVWD’s
conservation programs. Supporting positions include a water management supervisor, lead water
management specialists, water management specialists, water management technicians, and water
management aides. Beginning in 2001 with a staff of only two people, the section has now grown to a staff
of 15 people tasked with carrying out the agency’s various conservation programs.
4.9.2.13 Other Demand Management Measures
CVWD has several other DMMs including landscape conservation and incentive programs, residential
efficiency programs, and golf and agricultural conservation programs. These are described briefly in the
following subsections.
4.9.2.14 Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives Program
There are two principal groups of large landscape customers within the CVWD service area – those with
separate irrigation meters on the urban water system, and those with private wells for golf course or other
large landscape irrigation. Irrigation accounts for approximately 75-80 percent of total urban water usage.
Consumption by users with separate irrigation meters represents over 20 percent of total CVWD domestic
water consumption. There are also many golf course irrigation users, who are not CVWD urban water users,
but produce groundwater from private wells. One of CVWD’s goals is to reduce water use by these large
landscape pumpers.
4.9.2.15 Water Management Seminar for Landscape Professionals (English and Spanish)
Commercial and recreational landscape irrigation systems are often improperly installed, poorly maintained,
and inefficiently scheduled by transitory landscape maintenance personnel who are often unskilled and
uneducated in the science and practice of landscape irrigation efficiency. Career landscape maintenance
professionals have little or no in-valley irrigation science educational opportunities.
Starting in September 2009, CVWD began offering a water landscape workshop specifically aimed at
landscape professionals. The 6-hour workshop was designed to help local landscape professionals
efficiently irrigate their clients’ lawns and gardens without wasting water. Certified water conservation
managers and turf and irrigation experts gave presentations on Coachella Valley soils, drip irrigation, smart
controllers, water pressure regulation, and irrigation scheduling. At the conclusions of each workshop, all
participants received a certificate of completion. Participants with professional landscape companies were
listed on CVWD’s website (www.cvwd.org).
The program has since been replaced by a combination of the public Landscape Workshop Series (hosted
in the spring and fall) and the Landscaper Certification Program (see below).
4.9.2.16 Landscaper Certification Program
CVWD hosts a Landscaper Certification Program (LCP) for professional landscapers that focuses on water
use efficiency. The class was modeled after an existing course focused on air quality in relation to lawn
scalping and re-seeding practices. The certification is a requirement in order to obtain or renew a
professional landscaping business license in any city or county area within the Coachella Valley.
CVWD partnered with College of the Desert (COD), a local community college with an established
Landscape Management Program, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the cities,
county and neighboring water districts to implement the course and establish certification criteria for
incorporation into each city's business license qualification requirements.
CVWD developed the curriculum of the LCP using existing staff that hold licenses and certifications in
irrigation efficiency, plant water use, horticultural practices, arboriculture, and landscape/golf course
irrigation auditing. CVWD ensures the curriculum is high quality by asking for review from industry educators
such as COD instructors and industry professionals. CVWD and COD worked together to create the course
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-41
and certification based on the developed curriculum. CVWD and CVAG worked with the cities on an
amendment to existing ordinances to establish the business license requirement.
4.9.2.17 Water Audits for Large Water Users
The purpose of the Large Landscape Irrigation Audit Program is to assist users in maximizing the efficient
operation of their irrigation system by measuring performance, generating irrigation schedules, and
recommending improvement actions.
The goals of this audit program are to determine the irrigation uniformity, efficiency and application rate of
each audited site, suggest modifications in design, operation, maintenance and scheduling and estimate
the water and energy savings associated with the suggested modifications. A report summarizing the audit’s
findings and recommendations is sent to the irrigation manager.
Audit sites are chosen based on excessive water consumption, or in response to a request for audit
services. CVWD’s Water Management Specialist evaluates and approves each site. All auditors must take
the Irrigation Association’s Landscape Irrigation Auditor course and pass the Certified Landscape Irrigation
Auditor examination, or equivalent.
Once a site is approved for audit, the owner or operator of the facility is contacted and an appointment is
made to conduct the audit. After measurements and calculations are completed, a summary report and
recommendations are delivered and explained to the site operator by the auditor. The large landscape audit
program operates continuously, and completes approximately 20 landscape audits per year. The success
of this program will be measured by the annual water reduction achieved by large water users participating
in the program. A study in 2005 found that the average HOA saved 3.1 AFY as a result of implementing
some of the audit recommendations.
CVWD contracted Proteus Consulting to conduct large scale comprehensive water audits for 13 commercial
customers with water use in Tier 5. The program was designed to educate, train, and promote water
conservation. The consultant firm conducted a water conservation review at each property to identify
excessive water use. The chosen customer received a final report that included implementation advice and
a return-on-investment calculation. This program ran from 2016 to 2018.
4.9.2.18 Adoption of Model Landscape Ordinance by Coachella Valley Cities to Establish
Water Budget and Landscaping Criteria for New Development
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird) required cities and counties
to adopt water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010. In accordance with the law, the DWR prepared
an updated Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). For all cities and counties that do not adopt
their own conservation ordinances, DWR’s updated MWELO would apply within their jurisdiction by January
1, 2010.
In response to this law, CVWD worked with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Coachella
Valley cities, Riverside County, other water agencies, and the Building Industry Association for the
acceptance of CVWD’s Landscape and Irrigation System Design Ordinance No. 1302.5. The most recent
revisions to this ordinance were adopted in July of 2020.
4.9.2.19 Plan Checking for Compliance with Landscape Ordinance
New and rehabilitated landscape sites are required to submit water efficient landscape plans to CVWD’s
Water Management Department for a plan check prior to construction. The plan check is conducted to
ensure that the water efficiency features of the new landscape meet the provisions of CVWD’s Landscape
and Irrigation System Design Ordinance No. 1302.5. Each proposed site is given an annual maximum water
allowance based on landscaped area, plant water use zone, low-moderate landscape plant water use rates
and high irrigation system application efficiency. The landscape designer must utilize a combination of plant
choice and irrigation system choice such that the estimated annual water use of the finished landscape
does not exceed the annual maximum water allowance assigned. In addition, certain irrigation system
design practices are mandated, such as setting sprinkler irrigated areas at least 24 inches back from street
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-42
curbs, or prohibited, such as overhead sprinkling of street median strips. Since 2010, CVWD has performed
926 landscape plan checks for new and rehabilitated landscape sites.
4.9.2.20 Random Inspections of Landscape Projects for Compliance with Landscape Ordinance
As mentioned in the previous section, all new and rehabilitated landscape sites are required to submit water
conserving landscape plans to CVWD’s Water Management Department for a plan check prior to
construction. The plan check is conducted to ensure that the water efficiency features of the new landscape
meet the provisions of CVWD’s Landscape and Irrigation System Design Ordinance.
In order to ensure that contractors are installing plan-checked, water efficient landscapes as approved,
CVWD has implemented a random inspection program. The inspections signal to the landscape
construction industry that CVWD is spot checking completed landscape irrigation systems for plan-check
compliance and will require errors and omissions to be corrected or face the possibility of discontinued
water service.
4.9.2.21 Smart Controller Rebate Program
Beginning in 2005, CVWD instituted a smart irrigation controller rebate program to financially assist large
water users in reducing landscape irrigation water consumption by purchasing an advanced irrigation
controller capable of synchronizing their landscape irrigation schedules with seasonal variations in
Coachella Valley reference evapotranspiration (ETo) rates.
ETo is a scientific description of the rate at which plant water use varies with the weather. Since the weather
changes from season-to-season, week-to-week and even day-to-day, programming irrigation controllers
frequently and efficiently remains one of the landscape industry worker’s most neglected tasks. CVWD’s
program is specifically aimed at encouraging the use of “smart” irrigation clocks that reprogram themselves
according to periodic variations in ETo after the initial calibrating program has been professionally installed.
CVWD initially offered this program to residential customers in November 2005 and expanded the program
to large landscape customers in March 2008. For residential customers, CVWD staff will install and program
the “smart” controller at no cost to the customer. For large landscape customers, CVWD will rebate 75% of
the cost of the controller. Since 2010, CVWD has installed 3,262 smart controllers for residential customers
and has issued 1,659 rebates to large landscape customers that installed smart controllers.
The measurement of success of this program will be documenting water reduction by each participating
user, as well as showing an annual increase in applications for the rebate as the region grows.
4.9.2.22 Landscape Conversion Rebate Program
Since 2007, CVWD has offered a rebate to its customers for converting their outdoor grass landscaping to
desert-friendly landscaping, which requires less irrigation. CVWD’s landscaping guide, Lush & Efficient:
Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley, provides guidelines on which plants work best in the hot,
arid climate. The rebate consists of $2 per square foot of landscaping or turf, up to $20,000 per project.
Since 2010, 4,245 residential and 1,291 commercial/HOA rebates have been issued, amounting to a total
of 16,648,202 square feet of turf conversion.
The measurement of the success of this program will be the number of rebates issued per year and a
marked reduction in a participating customer’s water consumption. CVWD performed a study of smart
controllers using actual customers after having converted their landscaping and found that, on average,
water savings amounted to 36% as a result of landscape conversion.
4.9.2.23 Residential Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Replacement Rebate Program
Ultra-low-flush toilets (ULFT) conserve water by utilizing far less water than older, less efficient toilets. An
ULFT uses less than 1.6 gallons per flush. In addition to direct conservation benefits, the promotion and
use of these toilets has social value as it brings conservation products, literally, in direct contact with area
users, thereby raising awareness of water conservation efforts. Furthermore, the use of these products has
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-43
the potential to reduce customer water and electric bills. The use of these products provides no direct health
benefit or detriment.
CVWD has had a toilet rebate program since 2011. The agency provides a rebate of $100 for each toilet
replacement plus $10 for reimbursement of any recycling fees, which will cover approximately half the cost
of purchasing and installing a ULFT. Since 2010, a total of 9,445 rebates have been issued for ULFT
replacements.
In addition to the rebate program, ULFTs are required for all new construction per plumbing code
requirements. ULFTs were first introduced to the U.S. market in 1980, and the manufacturing of older, less
efficient toilets designs was halted shortly thereafter. Industry estimates are that natural replacement of
residential toilets occurs every 20-30 years or at a rate of about 3-5 percent per year. Using this
methodology, approximately 25 percent of the toilets from pre-1980 houses would still be installed in 2025.
4.9.2.24 Residential High-Efficiency Washing Machine Replacement Program
As of 2018, clothes washers that have earned the ENERGY STAR certification use 14 gallons of water per
load, compared to the 20 gallons used by a standard machine. CVWD now provides a high-efficiency
washing machine rebate, offering a maximum of $150 rebate per installed washing machine. Washing
machine must be ENERGY STAR certified with an Integrated Water Factor of 4.5 or less.
The promotion and use of high-efficiency washing machines has social value as it brings conservation
products, literally, in direct contact with area users, thereby raising awareness of water conservation efforts.
Furthermore, the use of these products has the potential to reduce customer water, wastewater, gas and
electric bills. The use of these products provides no direct health benefit or detriment. The indirect benefits
of this are that less energy and detergents are used to operate the machines. This would reduce the need
for groundwater pumping and replenishment, collection, treatment and the subsequent reuse or disposal
of wastewater, as well as the numerous environmental benefits of reducing energy consumption.
4.9.2.25 Hot Water Recirculating Pump Rebate Program
CVWD offers a rebate program for residential customers who install a Hot Water Recirculating Pump in
their home. Hot water recirculating pumps save water and energy by reducing the wait time for hot water
to arrive at the faucet or shower. Research shows that hot water recirculating pumps can save anywhere
from 3,000 to 12,000 gallons of water per year. CVWD will offer a maximum $125 rebate, or the cost of the
recirculating pump, whichever is less.
4.9.3 Implementation
DMM implementation over the past five years is summarized in Table 4-29.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
4-46
4.10.5 Public Availability
The RUWMP and CVWD’s WSCP will be available on the CVWD website for public viewing within 30 days
of filing the plans with DWR.
4.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
This section is not applicable because CVWD is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
4.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If CVWD identifies the need to amend the adopted RUWMP or CVWD’s WSCP, each of the steps for
notification, public hearing, adoption, and submittal will also be followed for the amended plan.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-1
Introduction
The Coachella Water Authority (CWA) has participated in the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP) to meet its reporting requirements for 2020. This chapter describes
information specific to CWA and its water use efficiency programs.
Updates to the California Water Code (CWC) for the 2020 reporting cycle are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
RUWMP.
5.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized into the sections recommended by the Guidebook prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
Sub-Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the chapter.
Sub-Chapter 2 shows details about the preparation of this RUWMP.
Sub-Chapter 3 presents information about the service area.
Sub-Chapter 4 presents information about current and projected future water demands.
Sub-Chapter 5 documents compliance with SB X7-7 through a reduction in per-capita water use.
Sub-Chapter 6 presents the current and planned future water supplies.
Sub-Chapter 7 assesses the reliability of supplies and presents a comparison of projected future
supplies and demands.
Sub-Chapter 8 discusses the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that will help guide
actions in case of a future water shortage.
Sub-Chapter 9 presents information about Demand Management Measures (DMMs) being
implemented to encourage efficient water use.
Sub-Chapter 10 presents information about the adoption and submittal process for this RUWMP
and the WSCP.
5.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
5.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
The CWC requires urban water suppliers to have a current UWMP, deemed sufficient at addressing the
CWC requirements by DWR, on file with DWR in order for the urban water suppliers to be eligible for any
water management grant or loan administered by DWR. In addition, the UWMP Act requires a retail water
agency to meet its 2020 Compliance Urban Water Use Target and report compliance in the 2020 UWMP.
5.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions
The participating agencies’ approach to demonstrating reduced reliance on the Delta is discussed in
Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-3
System Description
This section provides information on CWA’s service area, population and demographics.
5.3.1 General Description
The City of Coachella is a desert community of approximately 44,000 people located at the eastern end of
the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is located southeast of the San Gorgonio
Pass, east of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains, and north of the Salton Sea. The current City
limits encompass over 20,000 acres, and the sphere of influence encompasses approximately 13,000
additional acres around the City.
Existing land uses within the City consists primarily of single and multi‐family homes. There is a
commercial/light industrial zone along the freeway corridor, agricultural zone east of Highway 86/111, and
a heavier industrial zone in the southern part of the City. Full buildout of the City’s sphere of influence (SOI),
for a total service area of approximately 53 square miles, is not anticipated until sometime after 2050.
The City of Coachella provides the following water‐related services: domestic water delivery, wastewater
collection and reclamation, and local drainage control. In addition, the City manages the Coachella Sanitary
District, which operates a wastewater treatment facility. The City also may develop a recycled water system
in the future.
CWA’s current water supply source is groundwater from the Indio Sub‐basin produced from CWA owned
and operated wells. Currently, the City limits extend beyond CWA’s current water distribution service area.
However, this study takes into account the entire City limits and its sphere of influence when considering
potential growth and demand.
CWA’s existing water system consists of different pressure zones, groundwater wells, storage reservoirs,
booster pumping stations, and distribution facilities. The current water system is divided into two pressure
zones, the Low Zone and the 150 Zone. The Low Zone Area is generally south of 48th Avenue, bounded
by Van Buren on the west, the Coachella Valley Storm Channel on the east, and 54th Avenue on the south.
The Low Zone provides water service to the majority of the City and as the City continues to grow, the Low
Zone will extend further east. The 150 Zone service area is generally north of 48th Avenue and supplies
primarily commercial and light industrial users along the Interstate 10 freeway corridor.
CWA has one principal source of water supply, local groundwater pumped from the CWA ‐owned wells.
There are currently six wells within the City’s distribution system. The total pumping capacity of active wells
is approximately 11,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 16.5 million gallons per day (MGD).
There are three storage reservoirs within the City, the 1.5 million gallon (MG) Dillion Road Reservoir, the
3.6 MG Mecca Reservoir, and the 5.4 MG Well 18 Reservoir. CWA has a total reservoir storage capacity
of approximately 10.5 MG; of which, approximately 1.5 MG lies within the 150 Zone.
CWA operates two booster pumping stations, the Mecca Reservoir booster pump station (Well 12 Booster)
and the Well 18 Reservoir booster pump station (Well 18 Booster). The Well 12 Booster supplies the Low
Zone and takes suction from the Mecca Reservoir, and the Well 18 Booster supplies both the 150 Zone
and Low Zone, and takes suction from the Well 18 Reservoir.
CWA’s distribution system network consists of approximately 120 miles of pipeline, which range from 4‐
inches to 36‐inches in diameter. It is estimated that a majority of pipes in the City’s water distribution system
network were installed between the year 1940 and year 1990. The older pipes reside in the southerly section
of the lower zone, and the newer pipes are in the northerly section. Asbestos cement (AC) is the most
common pipeline material in the City, according to operations staff; with the remaining pipelines being either
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or ductile iron (DI) and lined steel.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-4
5.3.2 Service Area Boundary Map
The City is not near built out, with large undeveloped parcels and agricultural areas, mostly east of Highway
86. Agricultural areas are not served by CWA’s water system and rely on Coachella Canal water and
privately owned and operated wells. As undeveloped and agricultural lands are developed into residential
or other land uses, they will be served by CWA and become part of CWA’s service area. For the purpose
of developing baselines and targets, CWA delineated the existing water service area based on the existing
distribution system. Figure 5-1 shows the existing boundary.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-5
Figure 5-1. CWA Service Area Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-9
5.3.5.3 Brandenburg Butters Specific Plan
The Brandenburg Butters project provides for 71.5 acres of commercial uses and 1,381 dwelling units. The
project has been approved by City Council and Planning Commission; however, no units have been
constructed to date. This development is centrally located, east of State Route 86.
5.3.5.4 Eagle Falls
The Eagle Falls Specific Plan resides in both Coachella (60 acres) and Indio (30 acres) on a 90‐acre site.
The project includes 295 units, of which 202 units will be within the City of Coachella. The Specific Plan
provides for a gated golf course community and is included as a part of the Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians Fantasy Springs Master Plan. Rough grading has been completed for the Eagle Falls development;
however, no units have been constructed to date.
5.3.5.5 Shadow View
The Shadow View Specific Plan provides for a single‐family residential community consisting of 1,600
dwelling units on 380 acres, a mixed‐use commercial center on 100 acres, and a 37‐acre park. The
commercial site has a residential overlay that provides an option to construct up to 1,000 high ‐density
residential units. The Shadow View development has been approved by City Council.
Water Use Characterization
This section describes the current and projected water uses within CWA’s service area.
5.4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use
CWA produces all of its water supplies from the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, specifically, the East
Indio Subbasin, which is continuously replenished at the local and regional level pursuant to a variety of
water supply projects and programs. The East Indio Subbasin is regionally managed by CVWD, CWA, and
IWA within the jurisdictional boundaries.
Currently, CWA does not produce or use recycled water or raw water in its service area; however, the City
is considering a recycled water system in the future. It should be noted that raw water, via the Coachella
Canal, is used within the City limits, but by the agricultural community and not as a part of the CWA system.
Per CVWD Ordinance No. 1428, CWA has opportunity to receive canal water for additional potable water
supply when available. As the water becomes available, CWA may work with CVWD to pursue those
opportunities to supplement its water portfolio.
5.4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
CWA maintains records of total water production and water consumed by its customers. Water use is
tracked by customer type, using CWA’s billing system.
The difference between water production and metered water deliveries (billed to customers) is defined as
non-revenue water. Non-revenue water includes authorized non-billed use (such as firefighting or flushing),
and it includes losses from the system. CWA has completed annual water audits using the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) Water Audit Software. The results are summarized in Table 5-5. The
completed audits are included in Appendix G of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-17
The City currently does not have recycled water use within its service area. While the City plans to use
recycled water in some capacity in the future, additional information related to a potential recycled water
system is being developed as part of regional planning efforts.
Potential uses of recycled water could be implemented, including non‐potable water systems for larger
developments. In addition, requiring new developments to include a “non ‐potable” water distribution system
could help offset much of the costs associated with delivering recycled water system‐wide.
5.6.2.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
CWA does not anticipate the future use of desalinated water within its service area, as the backbone
facilities and infrastructure needed for desalination are not economically feasible.
5.6.2.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
Water transfers involve the temporary or permanent sale or lease of a water right or contractual water
supply between willing parties. Water can be made available for transfer from other parties through a variety
of mechanisms.
CWA is exploring opportunities to exchange non ‐potable groundwater for water from the Coachella Canal.
Certain groundwater in the East Coachella Valley has higher levels of dissolved solids and fluoride, and
thus is not suitable for potable purposes. However, that supply may be suitable for irrigation and other non ‐
potable uses. In turn, Canal water that is currently used only for irrigation purposes could be treated for
potable use or left untreated and used for non‐potable urban uses.
In September 2009 CVWD and the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding (2009 MOU) to assist in
ensuring a sufficient and reliable water supply for development projects within the City and a major portion
of its sphere of influence (SOI). Under the terms of the 2009 MOU, various means are identified by which
the City can mitigate impacts associated with development projects, such as:
Source Substitution not identified in the current Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
(CVWMP). For example, using recycled wastewater effluent of the City’s Wastewater Treatment
Plant for landscape irrigation instead of using groundwater.
Acquire supplemental water supplies sufficient to offset the impacts of new water demands within
the City or supplied by the City’s water system.
Participate in funding CVWD’s acquisition of supplemental water supplies sufficient to offset the
impacts of new water demands approved by the City or supplied by the City’s water system.
In February 2013, CVWD and the City executed an additional Memorandum of Understanding (2013 MOU)
regarding implementation of the 2009 MOU.
5.6.2.8 Future Water Projects
CWA understands the need to develop additional sources of supply to meet demands associated with
projected growth. CWA continues to work with CVWD and other regional partners on potential projects to
increase water supply. CWA will continue to evaluate the use of Canal Water as a source substitution for
drinking water supplies obtained from groundwater.
Per CVWD Ordinance No. 1428, CWA has the opportunity to receive canal water for additional potable
water supply when available. As the water becomes available, CWA may pursue those opportunities to
supplement its water portfolio. As part of its planning process, the City will continue to design water system
improvements to enhance conservation, identify additional water supplies and potential source
substitutions, and enhance local groundwater recharge.
5.6.2.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
CWA currently receives 100 percent of its water supply from groundwater, and does not currently participate
in water recycling, water desalination, water exchanges or transfers, or purchase imported water supplies.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-23
Additionally, CWA has committed sufficient resources to further implement the primary elements of the
regional planning efforts, including source substitution, water conservation, and purchases of additional
water supplies.
5.7.3 Drought Risk Assessment
A new reporting requirement for the 2020 UWMP is a five-year Drought Risk Assessment (DRA). The DRA
is based on projections of demand and available supply for the next five years.
Demands are expected to increase to the projected demands for 2025. It is expected that conservation
messaging and programs will prevent any significant increase in demands due to dry conditions. The
groundwater supply is reliable for a five-year dry period as the volume in storage can be drawn down during
a dry period.
The data and methodologies used to identify a potential shortage are described in the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan. Based on the reliability analysis in Section 5.7, the supply of groundwater is fully reliable
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 5-22.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-25
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
CWA has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to help manage potential future water
shortages. The WSCP is being adopted separately from the RUWMP and may be modified as needed
based on changing conditions. The WSCP is an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
The goal of the Demand Management Measures (DMM) section is to provide a comprehensive description
of the water conservation programs that the City of Coachella has implemented, is currently implementing,
and plans to implement in order to encourage efficient water use. The City of Coachella is committed to
conservation as a means to provide a sustainable supply of water to its service area, and plans to continue
its conservation program during the next five years. The City’s DMM implementation efforts are described
in the following sections.
5.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
CWA is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
5.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
The City recognizes water use efficiency as an integral component of its current and future water strategy
for the service area. Demand Management Measures (DMM) refer to policies, programs, rules, regulation
and ordinances, and the use of devices, equipment, and facilities that, over the long term, have been
generally justified and accepted by the industry as providing a “reliable” reduction in water demand. This
means providing education, tools, and incentives to help the homeowner, apartment owner and business
owner reduce the amount of water used on their property. Demand management is as important to ensuring
water supply reliability as is providing a new water supply. The City of Coachella has aggressively pursued
conservation in an effort to reduce demand.
The following DMMs include technologies and methodologies that have been sufficiently documented in
multiple demonstration projects that result in more efficient water use and conservation.
5.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
The City has a prohibition for wasting water in Municipal Code Section 13.03.044 which states it is unlawful
for any person to willfully or neglectfully water waste in any manner whatsoever. In addition, the City has
adopted CVAG’s Landscape Ordinance which has specific penalties for water waste.
The measurement of success for this program is a reduction in water waste violations in the future.
Additionally, the City has mandatory prohibitions on water wasting that they enforce during a water
shortage. These prohibitions include voluntary and mandatory provisions, audits, and fines than can be
imposed.
5.9.2.2 Metering
The City bills its customers according to meter consumption. In addition, the City encourages the installation
of dedicated landscape meters, which allows the City to recommend the appropriate irrigation schedules
through future landscape programs.
Meter calibration and periodic replacement help verify that customers are paying for all of the water they
consume, and therefore encourages conservation. The City replaced all existing meters prior to 2000 to
upgrade the older meters to obtain an accurate measure of water usage. In 2015, the City completed the
process of metering its past unmetered accounts including parks and other accounts, which has further
enhanced the effectiveness of measuring consumption.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-26
5.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
The City has a tiered rate structure for water service within its service area. The City’s water rates include
a variable commodity charge (monthly charge based on the amount of water used or consumed by the
customer in hundreds of cubic feet (HCF)) and a fixed metered account charge (basic monthly rate by meter
size). The rates have been designed to recover the full cost of water service in the commodity charge, while
discouraging wasteful water use, and will continue to be implemented into the future. Tiered rates are
designed to incentivize customers to be proactive in reducing water use.
5.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
The City recognizes the continued need for a public information program to maintain and increase the
public’s awareness of water and the need to use it wisely. The City promotes water conservation and other
resources.
The City distributes public information through bill inserts, brochures, and community events. The City also
has the opportunity to provide public information on conservation measures through television advertising
on public access channel in conjunction with the City Council meeting broadcasts. The City also maintains
a web page, www.conservecoachella.com, which provides water conservation information, ideas, and
frequently asked questions. The City will continue to work on providing public information and materials to
remind the public about water and other resource issues, and will track commentary regarding the
information provided. There is no reliable method to quantify the savings of this management measure;
however, the City will monitor the number of public announcements, television advertisements, brochures
and bill inserts distributed throughout the service area. An increase in distribution of materials will indicate
heightened public water conservation awareness and may correlate with decrease water demand.
The City supports school education programs provided to the schools within the City. The education
programs include water conservation, water quality and pollution prevention. The program has provided
educational programs predominately for elementary age children throughout the service area. School
education helps future water users realize that water in the State is a precious commodity that cannot be
taken for granted. The program educates school children about where water comes from, how it is used,
that it is a precious resource, and ways to conserve water. The children are also taught about the
importance of recycled water, where it comes from, and how it is used.
5.9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Losses
The City generally performs system water audits on an as‐needed basis. Although leak and/or line break
repairs are performed expediently (within 24 hours) by the City, no records of these activities, including
system audits or leak detection program data are available.
The City does monitor the difference between the water pumped into the distribution system compared to
the amount billed annually, which is considered “non‐revenue” water. Non‐revenue water may be attributed
to “apparent losses” or “real losses.” Apparent losses are paper losses that occur in utility operations due
to customer meter inaccuracies, billing system data errors and unauthorized consumption. In other words,
this is water that is consumed but is not properly measured, accounted or paid for. Real losses are the
physical losses of water from the distribution system, including leakage. These losses inflate production
costs and stress water resources since they represent water that is extracted and treated, yet never reaches
beneficial use. Real losses also include other events causing water to be withdrawn from the system and
not measured, such as hydrant testing and flushing, street cleaning, new construction line draining and/or
filling and draining and flushing, and firefighting.
5.9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
The City’s Utilities General Manager serves the City as its water conservation coordinator along with the
staff Environmental/Regulatory Program Manager. They work closely with agencies in the region,
particularly through the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) and CV
Watercounts, to implement and provide successful execution of water conservation programs in the City.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-27
The City continues to investigate Federal, State, and local funding to develop new programs throughout its
service area.
5.9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
The City of Coachella has developed several other demand management measures to support
consumption reduction and promote efficient water use. They are described in the following subsections.
5.9.2.8 Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family Residential and Multi‐Family Residential
Customers
The City conducts water audits at the request of water customers. The City has identified its largest water
users and work with these users in hopes of developing a site-specific water conservation program. The
City believes that identifying and reducing water uses of their largest water consumers provides the largest
benefit to the City.
5.9.2.9 Residential Plumbing Retrofit
The City has adopted the latest version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which requires the installation
of water efficient fixtures. The City, through the Redevelopment Agency, provides assistance for low ‐income
families to retrofit older houses with newer water efficient fixtures. Measuring reductions in water usage
from implementation of the UBC is not achievable.
5.9.2.10 Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
Typically, the large landscape areas such as golf courses and large common areas are required to provide
landscape irrigation with non‐potable water such as Canal water, non‐potable groundwater, or recycled
water and will not be allowed to connect to the City’s domestic water system, unless no other water source
is available. In addition to negotiating agreements for additional Canal water to serve large landscapes, the
City negotiated additional rights to Canal water supplies that may be treated to drinking water standards
with the implementation of a new treatment facility. The City does not currently operate a tertiary ‐treatment
plant and does not have infrastructure in place to deliver recycled water.
In 2000, the City adopted a landscape ordinance for single family and multi‐family residences and large
landscape areas. The new ordinance encourages limited use of turf areas and reduces landscape irrigation
consumption by mandating high efficiency irrigation systems and low water use landscaping. The City
conducts plan checking for compliance with the landscape ordinance prior to the construction of new and/or
rehabilitated landscape sites.
Further, in response to the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird),
requiring cities and counties to adopt water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010, CVWD worked
with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Coachella Valley cities, Riverside County,
other water agencies, and the Building Industry Association to develop a Regional Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance. The Regional Landscape Ordinance not only meets the state requirements, but
also is tailored specifically to the unique climate and water conservation needs of the Coachella Valley,
including the City of Coachella. The City has adopted the model landscape ordinance by CVAG.
In addition, the City of Coachella Utilities Department offers a turf removal rebate program for residents
who want to reduce outdoor water use by converting their front lawn to desert‐friendly landscaping. The
program aims to provide examples of water wise planting alternatives to turf in parkways and front yards.
Residents who chose to replace their grass with beautiful, desert‐friendly landscaping can get up to a
$1,000 rebate.
Furthermore, the City instituted a Smart Controller Rebate Program. The program is designed to financially
assist water users in reducing landscape irrigation water consumption by purchasing an advanced irrigation
controller capable of synchronizing their landscape irrigation schedules with seasonal variations in local
reference evapotranspiration (ETo) rates. These “smart” irrigation clocks reprogram themselves according
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-28
to periodic variations in ETo after the initial calibrating program has been professionally installed. The City
will perform installation and follow‐up work for all customers at a reduced rate of $50.00.
5.9.2.11 Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts
The amount of water used in commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) within the City is a small
percentage of the overall water usage. CII user demand makes up approximately 15 percent of the City’s
total water deliveries. The City does, however, incorporate into its planning review process, a review of
water uses for a specific development and how it has incorporated water conservation measures. This is
an ongoing procedure as part of the development approval process. A majority of existing passive
conservation by CII customers is due to current plumbing codes.
5.9.2.12 Residential ULFT Replacement Programs
The City has adopted the Uniform Building Code that requires ultra‐low flush toilets (ULFT) (1.2 gallons per
flush) be used in all new construction. Most of the population is projected into the future with new
developments. These developments will be required to install ULFT toilets under current Building Code
provisions. For existing houses, the City of Coachella is offering its single‐family residence and multi‐ family
residence the opportunity to receive a rebate of up to $100 for exchanging a non‐efficient toilet that uses
3.5 gallons per flush (GPF) for an ULFT that uses less than 1.2 GPF and is a qualifying WaterSense model.
Currently toilets using 3.5 GPF or more account for roughly 26% of a home’s indoor water use. The use of
these WaterSense ULFT will not only conserve water but they also have the potential to reduce customer
water and electric bill. To date, the City has successfully replaced several non‐efficient toilets with the
program. The City plans to continue the program into the foreseeable future.
5.9.3 Implementation
The City of Coachella is committed to conservation as a means to provide a sustainable supply of water to
its service area, and plans to continue its conservation program during the next five years. The conservation
program was initiated in 2012. The following represents the City’s best understanding of the nature and
extent of these programs over the past five years.
5.9.3.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinance
As mentioned before, the measurement of success for this program is a reduction in water waste violations
in the future. Since 2014, 444 water waste reports have been investigated by the City. Additionally, the City
has mandatory prohibitions on water wasting that they enforce during a water shortage. These prohibitions
include voluntary and mandatory provisions, audits, and fines that can be imposed.
5.9.3.2 Metering
One hundred percent of the City of Coachella’s urban water customers are metered. The City completed
the process of metering its past unmetered accounts including parks and other accounts, which has further
enhanced the effectiveness of measuring consumption. Meter calibration and replacement ensures that
customers are paying for all of the water they consume, and therefore encourages conservation.
5.9.3.3 Conservation Pricing
The City implemented a tiered water rate system that went into effect for residential customers in mid‐2010.
While no study has been completed to verify its effectiveness, the City has seen a decline in water demand
that can be partly attributed to conservation pricing.
5.9.3.4 Public Education and Outreach
There is no reliable method to quantify the savings of this management measure. The City has continued
to promote public awareness of water consumption reduction in the past five years through several public
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
5-31
5.10.5 Public Availability
No later than 30 days after filing a copy of its Plan with DWR, the City will make the plan available for public
review during normal business hours by placing a copy of the RUWMP and CWA’s WSCP at the front desk
of the City’s office, and by posting the RUWMP and CWA’s WSCP on the City’s website for public viewing.
5.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
Because CWA is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, this section is not applicable.
5.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If the City amends the adopted RUWMP or CWA’s WSCP, each of the steps for notification, public hearing,
adoption, and submittal will also be followed for the amended plan.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-1
Introduction
The Desert Water Agency (DWA) collaborated with five other water supply agencies in the Coachella Valley
to prepare the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) to meet reporting
requirements for 2020. This chapter presents information specific to DWA and its water use efficiency
programs.
Updates to the California Water Code (CWC) for the 2020 reporting cycle are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
RUWMP.
6.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized into the sections recommended by the Guidebook prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
Sub-Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the chapter.
Sub-Chapter 2 shows details about the preparation of this RUWMP.
Sub-Chapter 3 presents information about the service area.
Sub-Chapter 4 presents information about current and projected future water demands.
Sub-Chapter 5 documents compliance with SB X7-7 through a reduction in per-capita water use.
Sub-Chapter 6 presents the current and planned future water supplies.
Sub-Chapter 7 assesses the reliability of supplies and presents a comparison of projected future
supplies and demands.
Sub-Chapter 8 discusses the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that will help guide
actions in case of a future water shortage.
Sub-Chapter 9 presents information about Demand Management Measures (DMMs) being
implemented to encourage efficient water use.
Sub-Chapter 10 presents information about the adoption and submittal process for this RUWMP
and the WSCP.
6.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
6.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
The CWC requires urban water suppliers to have a current UWMP, deemed sufficient at addressing the
CWC requirements by DWR, on file with DWR in order for the urban water suppliers to be eligible for any
water management grant or loan administered by DWR. In addition, the UWMP Act requires a retail water
agency to meet its 2020 Compliance Urban Water Use Target and report compliance in the 2020 UWMP.
6.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan
The participating agencies’ approach to demonstrating reduced reliance on the Delta is discussed in
Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-3
6.3.1 General Description
DWA was formed in 1961 to ensure an adequate water supply for the northwestern portion of the Upper
Coachella Valley. In 1962, DWA entered into a water supply contract with the State of California through
DWR. In 1968, DWA purchased the Palm Springs Water Company and Cathedral City Water Company
systems to provide domestic and municipal water service (hereafter municipal water service) to Palm
Springs and vicinity.
DWA is responsible for water supply management within its Institutional Boundary, which encompasses
325 square miles including the City of Palm Springs (CPS), the southwestern portion of the City of Cathedral
City (CCC), the City of Desert Hot Springs (CDHS), essentially all of Mission Springs Water District
(MSWD), and some unincorporated areas within Riverside County.
DWA's management of the water supply within its Institutional Boundary includes artificial groundwater
replenishment to augment natural replenishment as part of a joint groundwater basin management
agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in the Indio Subbasin and with a management
committee in the Mission Creek Subbasin. CVWD and DWA augment local groundwater supplies via
groundwater replenishment, using imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) exchanged for
Colorado River Water supplies by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
DWA provides water service through two separate systems (potable and recycled) within its service area,
which includes the CPS, the southwestern portion of the CCC, and some unincorporated areas within
Riverside County. DWA's service area does not include the MSWD service area, which is generally north
of Interstate 10 and includes DHS and its surroundings. MSWD provides municipal water service throughout
its service area.
DWA's water service area is generally bounded on the north (from west to east) by Interstate 10 to Highway
111, to Chino Canyon and the Whitewater River, on the east by the Whitewater River and CVWD, on the
south by the rugged Santa Rosa Mountains, and on the west by the rugged San Jacinto Mountains.
6.3.2 Institutional Boundary Map
The DWA institutional boundary is shown in Figure 6-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-4
Figure 6-1. DWA Institutional Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-7
DWA has developed estimates of seasonal population using demographic data and reports the total
population as the sum of the permanent population (counted by the census) and the equivalent seasonal
population.
The permanent year-round population projection for future years is based on data and projections from the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan forecast of
population, households, and employment. The Regional Transportation Plan adopted by SCAG in 2020 is
referred to as Connect SoCal.6 As part of that effort, SCAG performed a detailed evaluation of current and
projected future demographics throughout Southern California, including the study area for the RUWMP.
The Connect SoCal analysis included forecasts for employment, population, and households within cities
and unincorporated areas. This demographic information was used to prepare projections of future water
demands.
The U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG projections do not count non-permanent residents. The methodology
for estimating population in seasonal housing units consists of the following steps:
1. The number of housing units in each Census block was obtained from 2010 Census data. The
Census blocks were intersected with the supplier boundaries to calculate the number of housing
units.
2. The portion of housing units that are for seasonal use was determined from Census data. The
2010 Census data indicated that 23.4% of the total number of housing units in Palm Springs was
for seasonal use.
3. The number of seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the number of housing units
by the portion of housing units that are for seasonal use.
4. The annual average occupancy rate for seasonal housing units was estimated from data provided
by the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau (GPSCVB). These data showed a
62% occupancy rate in Palm Springs from July of 2017 to July of 2018.
5. The number of occupied seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the number of
seasonal housing units by the annual average occupancy rate of 62%.
6. 2010 Census data was used to calculate a number of persons per household.
7. The number of people in occupied seasonal housing units was calculated by multiplying the
number of occupied seasonal housing units by the number of persons per household.
The calculation can be shown in the following equation:
Seasonal
Population
= Housing
Units
* Portion for
Seasonal Use
* Average
Occupancy Rate
* Persons per
Housing Unit
A separate methodology was used for estimating population in RV parks, consisting of the following steps:
1. Data was collected from managers of RV parks for the number of spaces that are occupied
seasonally. Spaces that are occupied permanently were not included, since those residents
should be included in the Census data for permanent population.
2. The annual average occupancy rate for seasonally occupied RV spaces was estimated using the
GPSCVB occupancy rate.
3. The number of occupied seasonal RV spaces was calculated by multiplying the number of
seasonal RV spaces by the annual average occupancy rate of 62%.
4. 2010 Census data was used to calculate a number of persons per household.
6 More information about Connect SoCal is available at https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-
plan.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-13
Residential sector water use projections herein include all households, regardless of income level, and
residential accounts are not subdivided into income-specific categories.
DWA does not give priority to one residential area over another; therefore, all residential customers are
served equally during water shortage emergencies in terms of service and delivery. DWA does not deny
service to non-delinquent accounts. Additionally, DWA has established a fund to assist low-income
customers in paying their water bills.
The water use projections set forth in Table 6-7 include projected water use for lower-income households.
Water use priority does not differ based on income level but is classified by the type of use.
6.4.5 Climate Change Considerations
A discussion of potential climate change impacts on demands is presented in Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets
DWA’s methods for calculating baseline and target water consumption values are described in this section.
This section also documents DWA’s compliance with the 2020 Urban Water Use Target.
6.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers
DWA is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
6.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables
DWA calculated baseline water use and targets in its 2015 UWMP. Since that time, DWA has obtained
more accurate information to estimate its service area population. Therefore, DWA is recalculating its
baseline water use and compliance target in this plan.
6.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs
DWA calculated service area population for its baseline period and calculated an updated compliance target
for 2020. The calculations are documented on the standard DWR SB X7-7 tables included in Appendix E
and are summarized here.
6.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use
DWA calculated permanent population within its service area using the DWR population tool. DWA then
added an equivalent population to represent the seasonal population of “snow birds” and visitors.
The methodology for estimating seasonal population is described in Section 6.3. This methodology was
reviewed and approved in advance by DWR.
DWA’s gross water use was obtained from water production records.
6.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
The average use during the baseline period and the confirmed target are shown in Table 6-10.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-16
from Chino Creek North now infiltrates the creek bed below the diversion, recharging the groundwater
basin. DWA continues to monitor the water quality of Chino Creek North to determine when it may be put
back into service.
Average annual surface water diversions are assumed to increase from 2,630 AFY in 2020 to 6,000 AFY
in 2035.
6.6.2.4 Stormwater
DWA is involved in regional efforts to identify opportunities to cost-effectively capture stormwater for
potential beneficial use.
6.6.2.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
The City of Palm Springs maintains a sanitary sewer collection system consisting of approximately 250
miles of gravity sewer pipe within city limits. DWA is responsible for providing wastewater collection service
within portions of Cathedral City and unincorporated Riverside County.
The use of recycled water plays a key role in DWA’s resource management as it serves to conserve and
protect the valuable groundwater and surface water supplies for potable uses. In 1988, DWA and the City
of Palm Springs (CPS) entered into an agreement to treat wastewater. Under the agreement, the City
provides primary and secondary treatment at the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant (CPS
WWTP), after which the secondary effluent is piped to DWA’s Recycled Water Treatment Facility for tertiary
treatment or to a collection of percolation ponds for recharge back into the groundwater basin.
In 1989, DWA constructed its Recycled Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) with an initial capacity of 5.0
million gallons per day (MGD). The facility was expanded in 1995 to its present capacity of 10.0 MGD
(ultimate capacity of 15.0 MGD). DWA’s recycled water system facilities consist of the RWTF, two booster
pumping plants, and transmission pipelines.
When secondary effluent is available to the RWTF, DWA treats it to tertiary standards and delivers it to
existing customers. At times of high demand, particularly in the summer months, DWA has the ability to
supplement the recycled water supply with non-potable water from shallow groundwater wells, and/or
potable water in rare circumstances. Secondary effluent from the CPS WWTP that is not needed to meet
recycled water demands is diverted to percolation ponds, where it infiltrates back into the groundwater
subbasin at an average rate of approximately 2,000 AFY. Presently, DWA’s RWTF treats over half of the
secondary effluent available from the CPS WWTP in the winter months and all of the secondary effluent
available during the summer. DWA’s current recycled water customer base does not require the full capacity
of the CPS WWTP to meet their recycled water demands during the winter months.
The supply of recycled water is limited by the quantity of raw wastewater flowing into the CPS WWTP.
Water conservation appears to have impacted the quantity of wastewater generated within DWA’s service
area. Also, the City is near buildout and future quantities of wastewater are unlikely to exceed current
quantities by any significant margin. With limited wastewater available for treatment and use as recycled
water, there is limited potential for expanding recycled water use within DWA’s service area.
Portions of DWA’s wastewater collection system within areas of Cathedral City that have been developed
since 1980 are located at a lower elevation than the CPS WWTP; therefore, wastewater from these areas
must be pumped and piped to the neighboring CVWD wastewater collection system for treatment and
disposal. Both DWA and the City of Cathedral City are involved in planning for wastewater collection
systems to serve any remaining areas that are currently served by septic systems.
In 2014, DWA constructed two non-potable, shallow groundwater wells (1,200 gallons per minute [gpm]
capacity each) that are intended to extract shallow, low-quality groundwater to supplement recycled water
demands in the summer months in-lieu of potable water. Production at these two wells began in early 2015
and has completely replaced potable water as a supplement to meet recycled water demands within DWA’s
service area. It is estimated that approximately 500 AFY of supplemental water is required to meet existing
recycled water demands, primarily in the summer. Production from the shallow groundwater wells can
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-17
potentially recover 100 percent of the 2,000 AFY of secondary effluent that is discharged to the percolation
ponds.
The recycled water produced by DWA’s RWTF is approved for all uses, except drinking, by the State Water
Resources Control Board. To help demonstrate the positive effects of using recycled water, DWA’s
Operations Center and RWTF are both irrigated with recycled water. The CPS Demuth Park and several
Palm Springs golf courses are also irrigated with recycled water, among other locations within DWA’s
service area.
Currently, all recycled water produced by DWA’s facility is utilized for non-potable irrigation purposes. Other
uses for recycled water could be developed; however, due to the large quantities of water required for
irrigation within DWA’s boundaries, it is prudent to assume that the predominant use will continue to be for
irrigation. Irrigation use also has the highest potential for conserving valuable groundwater.
Due to the fact that the use of recycled water does not change the nature of consumptive water use, use
of recycled water is considered herein to have a negligible effect on the assumed rate of non-consumptive
return to the aquifer based on the total groundwater and surface water production. However, increased
recycled water use can help offset the use of other sources (such as pumped groundwater) to meet total
demand and improve water quality. DWA is active exploring new recycled water connections.
Information about wastewater collected within the DWA service area is summarized in Table 6-13, and
information about treatment is provided in Table 6-14.
The 2020 use of recycled water and projected future use is presented in Table 6-15. The actual use in 2020
is compared to the projections from the 2015 UWMP in Table 6-16.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-24
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) requires urban water suppliers to assess water
supply reliability that compares total projected water use with the expected water supply over the next 20
to 25 years in five-year increments. The Act also requires an assessment for a single dry year and multiple
dry years. This chapter presents the reliability assessment for DWA’s service area.
6.7.1 Reliability Overview
It is the goal of DWA to deliver a reliable and high-quality water supply to its customers, even during dry
periods.
Several of DWA's surface water diversions are occasionally taken out of service due to water quality. In the
summer months Snow and Falls Creeks are subject to high levels of coliform bacteria and therefore require
additional disinfection. In 2020, DWA completed construction of a surface water filtration plant to filter water
from Snow and Falls Creek.
Constraints on DWA's groundwater supplies resulting from water quality include those that could result from
high concentrations of nitrate and uranium in the groundwater. DWA's Well 19 was taken out of service as
a result of high nitrate concentrations in the underlying groundwater, which are caused by discharges from
septic systems in the area. As a result of the high nitrate concentrations, Well 19 remains inoperable, and
groundwater in the vicinity of the well is unusable.
Additionally, several of DWA's wells, namely Wells 9, 14, 16, and 43, are intermittently inoperable due to
high levels of uranium in the groundwater.
6.7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment
Water has played, and will continue to play, a vital role in the development of the Palm Springs area, a
world-renowned resort destination community. A reliable, abundant, high-quality water supply is the most
important factor in the economic sustainability and growth of the Palm Springs area. DWA's goal is to
provide its customers with an adequate and reliable supply of high-quality water to meet present and future
needs in an environmentally and economically responsible manner.
Since 1973, DWA has been using Colorado River water exchanged for SWP water to replenish groundwater
in the Indio Subbasin. As a state water contractor, DWA is susceptible to the uncertainty of supply and
delivery from the SWP and the Delta due to legal, environmental, and climatic restrictions.
Due to DWA's reliance on local groundwater sources and its ability to secure imported water for storage
within the Indio Subbasin, short-term drought situations have historically had a negligible effect on DWA's
ability to supply water to its customers. DWA will continue to request the maximum allocation from the SWP
and will obtain and store as much available water as possible to prevent supply deficiencies and to preserve
the groundwater basin.
The majority of DWA's service area depends exclusively on groundwater, while the northwestern portion of
the service area is supplied by a mix of groundwater and surface water. Since the surface water sources
are fed with water originating in the local mountains, they are inherently more susceptible to seasonal
variation and drought conditions. A small group of relatively isolated single-family, minimally-landscaped
residences (i.e., Snow Creek Village) are supplied solely with surface water. If delivery of surface water to
these residences was interrupted or reduced, demand could be met in the interim through stored water in
reservoirs dedicated to those areas. In the unlikely event that water became unavailable in those areas, a
water supply would have to be trucked in from elsewhere within DWA's water system.
DWA's water system has the potential to be affected by earthquakes, power outages, floods, and other
potentially devastating occurrences; therefore, emergency preparedness planning is a key part of DWA's
operations. DWA has coordinated internally with all departments and with other local entities to formulate
an Emergency Response Plan. The Emergency Response Plan outlines specific courses of action DWA
personnel will follow in the event of a disaster or a breach in facility security. In the Emergency Response
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-25
Plan, all areas of emergency preparedness are addressed, with emphasis on employee response and
delivering safe water to DWA's customers as quickly as possible.
Additionally, many of DWA's 26 aboveground steel reservoirs are equipped with earthquake valves to
conserve stored water supply in the event of a pipeline break resulting from an earthquake. Additional
earthquake valve installations will be constructed as funds become available. Aging pipelines are also
replaced as part of an ongoing mainline replacement program to further enhance the reliability of the
system. All new facilities are designed taking into consideration the potential for earthquakes, power
shortages, and flooding potential.
As required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the tables below describe DWA's supply
reliability and vulnerability during an average (normal) water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry
water years. For purposes of this section, a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a multiple dry
year period are defined below:
Normal Water Year is defined as a year in the historical sequence that most closely represents
median runoff levels and patterns.
Single Dry Water Year is defined as the lowest annual runoff for a watershed.
Multiple Dry Water Year Period is defined as the lowest average runoff for a consecutive multiple
year period (five years or more).
DWA's water supply is not directly affected by short-term fluctuations in hydrology (i.e. drought conditions),
since approximately 95 percent of DWA's water supply consists of groundwater and recycled water. The
challenges that DWA faces are long-term in nature, as opposed to short-term shortage situations, due to
the large supply of stored ("banked") groundwater. While there is sufficient groundwater in storage to
weather short-term droughts, it will not sustain the current population indefinitely due to the limited quantities
of natural recharge. Continued water importation, water recycling, water conservation, and long-range
planning are necessary to meet current and future water demands without depleting the groundwater in
storage.
6.7.2.1 Water Quality Impacts on Reliability
DWA exchanges its Table A allocations of State Water Project water with MWD for Colorado River water
to augment the Indio Subbasin. Colorado River water is generally of good quality; however, Colorado River
water has a higher total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration (greater than 500 milligrams per liter) than
native groundwater (less than 500 milligrams per liter).
TDS consist of minerals and salts dissolved in water, typically resulting from the erosion of natural deposits,
and TDS concentration is often viewed as an indicator of water quality. The Division of Drinking Water has
established a secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 1,000 milligrams per liter for TDS, with a
recommended level of 500 milligrams per liter. The MCL for TDS concentration is a secondary drinking
water standard, meaning that TDS is regulated on the basis of customer acceptance rather than on the
basis of public health. Regulations of TDS concentrations could affect the reliability of DWA's water supply.
DWA is working with other parties to update the regional Salt-Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for
Regional Water Quality Control Board approval. Through this collaboration, DWA hopes to achieve long-
term salinity management strategies that are protective of both water quality and quantity.
Due to ammonium perchlorate contamination from manufacturing facilities in Nevada, perchlorate has been
detected in Colorado River water. Perchlorate is a substance that can be either naturally occurring or man-
made. Currently, perchlorate is a regulated contaminant with a State MCL of 6 micrograms per liter. Within
DWA's service area, very low levels of perchlorate (<1 microgram per liter) have been detected in nearly
every well; however, perchlorate concentrations are well below the MCL and are expected to continually
decrease over time. Capture and treatment of perchlorate contamination began in 1999, and concentrations
of perchlorate in the Colorado River have been decreasing ever since. The presence of perchlorate in
Colorado River water is not expected to affect the reliability of DWA's water supply.
The base years for reliability assessment are shown in Table 6-21.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-28
The data and methodologies used to identify a potential shortage are described in the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan. Based on the reliability analysis in Section 6.7, the supply of groundwater is fully reliable
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 6-25.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-30
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
DWA has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to help manage potential future water
shortages. The WSCP is being adopted separately from the RUWMP and may be modified as needed
based on changing conditions. The WSCP is an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
This section describes the Demand Management Measures (DMMs) implemented by DWA to help increase
water use efficiency. The sections of this chapter have been arranged to follow the organization
recommended in the DWR Guidebook 2020.
6.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
Since DWA is not a wholesale supplier, this section is not applicable.
6.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
As part of its comprehensive water conservation program, DWA has implemented the DMMs described in
the following sections.
6.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
On March 1, 2016, DWA adopted Ordinance No. 65: Ordinance of Desert Water Agency Establishing a
Water Conservation Plan and Restricting the Use of Water During Threatened or Existing Water Shortage
Conditions, referred to herein as Ordinance No. 65, a copy of which is attached to DWA’s WSCP.
Ordinance No. 65 was adopted by DWA in response to the continued state of emergency issued by
Governor Brown resulting from ongoing severe dry conditions throughout California. The provisions of
Ordinance No. 65 were developed in accordance with the emergency regulations for urban water suppliers
due to continuing water shortage conditions, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on
March 17, 2015 and May 5, 2015. Water use prohibitions set forth in DWA's Ordinance No. 65 are
summarized as follows:
Washing hardscape, such as driveways, parking lots, and walkways;
Vehicle washing without the use of buckets and shut off nozzles on hoses;
Serving water in restaurants unless requested;
Outdoor irrigation between 7 AM and 7 PM, and on specified days of the week;
Use of non-recirculating fountains;
Outdoor irrigation of newly constructed homes and buildings without drip or micro-spray systems;
Use of potable water to irrigate turf within street medians or public street rights-of-way.
Additionally, DWA has water waste reporting mechanisms in place by phone and on its website at
www.dwa.org.
DWA is developing an updated ordinance to reflect the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
6.9.2.2 Metering
DWA meters 100 percent of the service connections within its service area and will continue to meter all
future new connections. Additionally, the Agency is rolling out an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
program over the next several years. DWA hopes to have at least hourly water use data available to
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-31
customers by 2030. In 2021, the US Bureau of Reclamation awarded DWA a $500,000 grant for one phase
of its AMI rollout.
6.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
Desert Water Agency does not implement conservation or tiered rates for water consumption. Water
charges consist of monthly water rates based on the meter size and a flat water rate per each 100 cubic
feet. There are currently no plans to implement a tiered rate structure, although the Agency is undergoing
a new rate study in 2021. The Agency does have a drought rate surcharge that is triggered by a drop in
overall water consumption and a vote of the Board of Directors. The surcharge applies to every unit of
water.
While the Agency has not implemented conservation pricing, it has updated bills with graphics that more
easily allow a customer to compare their current use to prior use and to understand how their use compares
to other customers with meters the same size. This information is provided in order to nudge customers
into more water conscious behavior.
6.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
Desert Water Agency hosts a monthly information session for customers on a variety of topics, oftentimes
related to its incentive programs or water saving tips.
The Agency also has an advertising budget, is active on social media and invests in the regional CV Water
Counts conservation outreach program. Part of the regional program also includes a “Water Counts
Academy,” which affords local residents an opportunity to learn more about water in our community.
Desert Water Agency offers classroom curriculum that can be offered in class or remotely for grades 4, 6
and 10. Additionally, the Agency offers presentations by its staff.
DWA conducts water audits for large water users, such as homeowners associations and commercial
properties, at no charge. Audits can be scheduled virtually. Water audits are aimed at providing customers
with an optimum irrigation schedule, identification of system deficiencies, and suggestions for improving
system efficiency.
DWA has several incentive programs in place to encourage installation of water-saving fixtures and
features. DWA's Smart Irrigation Controller program has been implemented since 2011 and, through
December of 2020, has resulted in the installation of 2,572 Smart Irrigation Controllers. Smart Irrigation
Controllers allow customization of watering times based on climate, temperature, and evapotranspiration
rates. DWA provides the Smart Irrigation Controllers upon request at no cost to the customer; however,
some customers have chosen to pay for their own controllers.
DWA launched its turf buy-back program in August 2014. The program was extremely popular during the
drought and has experienced a resurgence in popularity among single-family residents in 2020. To date,
the program has issued nearly $3 million in incentives to homeowners associations, businesses and
residents for replacing grass with a more water savvy option. The program continues to evolve as demands
and community expectations shift. One key example is allowing back yard and private areas to be converted
through the program. Additionally, though it was not allowed at the inception of the program, artificial turf is
now permitted.
In 2017, Desert Water Agency began an efficient nozzle program. The Agency has incentivized more than
9,200 efficient nozzles since that time. The efficient rotary nozzles replace traditional spray sprinklers for
grass areas. Customers can also replace water intensive adjustable bubblers for pressure compensating
bubblers for trees and shrubs.
In September of 2019, DWA launched a residential washing machine incentive to replace its popular toilet
rebate program. The reason for ending the toilet program was that nearly every toilet model available on
the market met efficiency standards so the savings opportunities were limited. The conservation team saw
an opportunity to realize savings by encouraging consumers to select water-efficient washing machines
since there were still more water-intensive, less expensive models readily available. From when the
program began through 2020, the Agency has provided incentives for more than 200 washing machines.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-32
6.9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Losses
DWA informs customers of possible leaks at their properties when there is excessive consumption
compared to prior use. DWA meters all customer connections and water used for construction purposes
through fire hydrants. DWA also keeps records of water used for other purposes, such as city street washing
and firefighting. These are all components of annual Water Loss Reports submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board.
DWA funds an aggressive water main replacement program. Leaks are repaired as soon as they are
discovered in order to prevent damage and waste of water. All leaks are tracked on maps and through a
pipeline inventory computer program. Mains with a history of leaks are prioritized and budgeted for
replacement.
In addition, DWA has instructions and videos on its website (at www.dwa.org/checkforleaks) showing
customers how to check for leaks on their properties by turning off all water fixtures and reading their water
meters.
6.9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
DWA's Outreach & Conservation Department is responsible for public education and outreach. Outreach &
Conservation Department staff create and distribute digital and printed materials, such as bill inserts and
fliers that educate and inform the public about water conservation methods and current incentives and
programs. Staff also manage DWA's conservation programs, including incentives, school curriculum, public
educational programs, and continuous dialog with community stakeholders.
6.9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
DWA's Hospitality Conservation Program is aimed at helping local hotels reduce their water use. This
program is free for hotels and provides room cards, door hangers, and pillow cards that allow guests to
voluntarily reuse towels and choose when to have their sheets changed. Additionally, there is water
conservation material in the “house guidebooks” for many of the vacation rental properties.
6.9.3 Implementation of DMMs
The details of implementation over the past five years are discussed in the previous sections for the
applicable DMMs.
Due to our community’s continued investment in using less water with the help of DWA programs, the 2020
water use target set forth in its 2010 UWMP was achieved ahead of schedule. The water use targets are
described in further detail in Section 5. DWA plans to maintain, or further reduce, its per capita water use
through the continued implementation of its existing and potential future water conservation programs.
6.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)
Updated water use objectives are being developed for water suppliers to meet the requirements of the
CWC. The final water use objectives for DWA have not yet been determined. The DMMs described in this
section are expected to align with DWA’s efforts to comply with these objectives when they are finalized.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
This section includes a discussion of DWA’s process for adopting, submitting, and implementing the
RUWMP and DWA’s WSCP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
6-34
6.10.5 Public Availability
The Draft RUWMP and DWA’s Draft WSCP were made available to the public for review and comment
prior to Plan adoption. Within 30 days after adoption, the Final RUWMP and DWA’s WSCP were provided
to the City of Palm Springs, City of Cathedral City, and County of Riverside and was made available for
public review online at www.dwa.org/uwmp.
Final copies of this UWMP, as well as any adopted amendments, are available for public review online at
www.dwa.org/uwmp.
6.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
DWA is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and therefore is not required to
submit this Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to the CPUC.
6.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If DWA amends the adopted RUWMP or DWA’s WSCP, each of the steps for notification, public hearing,
adoption, and submittal will also be followed for the amended plan. DWA will also notify the other parties to
this RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-1
Introduction
The Indio Water Authority (IWA) has participated in the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP) to meet its reporting requirements for 2020. This chapter describes
information specific to IWA and its water use efficiency programs.
Updates to the California Water Code (CWC) for the 2020 reporting cycle are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
RUWMP.
7.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized into the sections recommended by the Guidebook prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
Sub-Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the chapter.
Sub-Chapter 2 shows details about the preparation of this RUWMP.
Sub-Chapter 3 presents information about the service area.
Sub-Chapter 4 presents information about current and projected future water demands.
Sub-Chapter 5 documents compliance with SB X7-7 through a reduction in per-capita water use.
Sub-Chapter 6 presents the current and planned future water supplies.
Sub-Chapter 7 assesses the reliability of supplies and presents a comparison of projected future
supplies and demands.
Sub-Chapter 8 discusses the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that will help guide
actions in case of a future water shortage.
Sub-Chapter 9 presents information about Demand Management Measures (DMMs) being
implemented to encourage efficient water use.
Sub-Chapter 10 presents information about the adoption and submittal process for this RUWMP
and the WSCP.
7.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
7.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
The California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers to have a current UWMP, deemed
sufficient at addressing the CWC requirements by DWR, on file with DWR in order for the urban water
suppliers to be eligible for any water management grant or loan administered by DWR. In addition, the
UWMP Act requires a retail water agency to meet its 2020 Compliance Urban Water Use Target and report
compliance in the 2020 UWMP.
7.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions
The participating agencies’ approach to demonstrating reduced reliance on the Delta is described in
Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-3
System Description
This section includes a description of the IWA service area including climate and population demographics.
7.3.1 General Description
Incorporated in 1930, the City of Indio (City) was the first city in the Coachella Valley. The City
encompasses approximately 38 square miles with a sphere of influence that adds approximately 22 square
miles north of Interstate 10. The existing land uses include commercial, limited industrial, and residential.
The majority of land use can be classified as residential, varying in density from equestrian and country
estates to high-density multi-family dwellings. The proposed future land uses within the sphere of influence
include open space, residential, resource recovery, specific plans (assumed mixed use), business park,
and a small amount of community commercial.
The Indio Water Authority (IWA) was formed as a Joint Powers Authority in 2000, wholly owned by the City
and Indio Redevelopment Agency, to be the legislative and policy entity responsible for delivering water to
residents of the City for all municipal water programs and services. The City Council serves as the IWA
five-member Board.
Since the establishment of IWA, service connections have increased from approximately 12,100 to over
23,000 active meter accounts, with the majority of the new growth occurring north of Interstate 10. In 2020,
IWA supplied approximately 20,000 AF of water to businesses and residents. As one of the fastest growing
municipal utilities in the Coachella Valley, IWA is committed to maintaining a sustainable water supply for
its residential and commercial customers.
IWA extracts groundwater to meet the needs of its existing customer. The groundwater is drawn from the
Indio Subbasin and is delivered to the service area via a pressurized distribution system of 326 miles of
pipe supplied by 20 active wells. IWA also has emergency intertie connections with Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD) and the City of Coachella.
Since 2005, IWA has established active water conservation, water reuse, and groundwater recharge
planning efforts to ensure adequate water availability and system capacity to meet the growing needs of
the City. These planning efforts include: residential and commercial landscape and irrigation upgrade
rebates, water audits, water conservation kits, washing machine and toilet rebates, water waster mobile
app and hotline, budget-tiered rate structure, water conservation workshops, water misuse program, and a
Memorandum of Understanding between IWA and Valley Sanitation District (VSD) to collaborate in the
construction of capital improvement projects that support groundwater recharge efforts.
7.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
IWA’s service area boundary is shown in Figure 7-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-4
Figure 7-1. IWA Service Area Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-16
The Indio Water Authority and the Valley Sanitary District formed the East Valley Reclamation Authority
(EVRA) in 2013. EVRA is a Joint Powers Authority created to develop an indirect potable reuse project, to
supplement a sustainable water supply. The existing VSD WWTP facilities consist of primary and
secondary treatment facilities, which discharge to the CVSC. Development of a new recycled water supply
would require the addition of tertiary treatment facilities, and potentially advanced treatment, depending on
the ultimate use of the recycled water.
IWA’s 2016 Recycled Water Feasibility Study evaluated a proposed recycled water system. However, due
to lack of irrigation customers, a purple pipe system is not feasible.
The projected uses of recycled water are shown in Table 7-16. The 2015 UWMP projected recycled water
uses for 2020 are compared with actual recycled water use in Table 7-17.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-25
Demands are expected to increase to the projected demands for 2025. It is expected that conservation
messaging and programs will prevent any significant increase in demands by existing customers due to dry
conditions. The groundwater supply is reliable for a five-year dry period as the volume in storage can be
drawn down during a dry period.
The data and methodologies used to identify a potential shortage are described in the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan. Based on the reliability analysis in Section 7.7, the supply of groundwater is fully reliable
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 7-27.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-27
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Water supplies may be interrupted or reduced significantly in a number of ways, such as a drought which
limits supplies, an earthquake which damages water delivery or storage facilities, a regional power outage,
or a toxic spill that affects water quality.
IWA has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to help manage potential future water
shortages. The WSCP is being adopted separately from the RUWMP and may be modified as needed
based on changing conditions. The WSCP is an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
Establishing goals and choosing water conservation measures is a continuing planning process. Goals are
developed, adopted, and then evaluated periodically. Specific conservation measures are phased in and
then evaluated for their effectiveness, achievement of desired results, and customer satisfaction. Water
conservation can achieve a number of goals such as:
Reducing groundwater overdraft
Reducing average annual potable water demands
Reducing urban runoff
Reducing demands during peak seasons
Meeting drought restrictions
This section describes Demand Management Measures (DMMs) implemented by IWA to encourage
efficient use of water.
7.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
IWA does not receive or provide wholesale water. This section is not applicable to IWA’s service area.
7.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
Compliance with water savings goals can be accomplished by implementing the specific measures laid out
in each DMM,
7.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
A Water Waste Prohibition is an important component for any conservation plan and refers to enactment
and enforcement measures that prohibit gutter flooding, single pass cooling system in new connections,
non-recirculation system in all new conveyer car washes and commercial laundry systems, and non-
recycling decorative water fountains.
The City of Indio has already passed Ordinance No. 1662 prohibiting water wasting which results in flows
onto roadways, adjacent property, or non-irrigated property. In addition, the City has also passed
Ordinance No. 257, which states: “Chapter 54.050 It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or
neglectfully waste in any manner, any person having knowledge of any conditions whereby water is being
wasted, shall immediately notify the Water Department of that fact.”
IWA enforces local ordinances regarding sprinklers which could include a temporary shut-off of water
service upon receipt of a complaint of a broken sprinkler head. IWA is addressing nuisance water through
this ordinance. However, IWA has addressed nuisance water more specifically in its landscaping ordinance
(54.054).
The public is able to report water wasters online at IWA’s “Report Water Wasters!” site. IWA has developed
a “Water Waster Notice” to notify the property owner of the violation and corrective actions to be taken
when over-irrigation or water wasting is reported on the property. IWA has developed a form for calculating
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-28
the amount of water being wasted and can inform the property owner. With documentation of wasted water,
specifically by photos of the violation and “Water Waster Notice”, IWA can enforce its regulations and
educate the public.
The effectiveness of this DMM is currently determined by how many revisits are made to a site and by
tracking the number of total complaint calls received in the database.
7.9.2.2 Metering
Currently, 100 percent of IWA’s customers are metered for water use and meters are required for any new
service connections. This DMM enables IWA to meter and bill customers based on their actual volume of
use. Industry organizations estimate that metered accounts along with volumetric rates can result in a 20
percent reduction in demand. IWA has likely already realized the savings associated with metering all
accounts. A tiered rate structure would be necessary to reduce further usage under this DMM.
IWA’s meter change-out program has been fully implemented with Advanced Metering Infrastructure and
Automated Meter Reading system.
7.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
Retail conservation pricing provides economic incentives to customers to use water efficiently. The goal of
this DMM is to recover the maximum amount of water sales revenue from volumetric rates that is consistent
with utility costs, financial stability, revenue sufficiency, and customer equality. IWA’s Board has approved
a new allocation-based rate structure that went into effect on January 1, 2014. The new rate structure
alone will change customer behaviors, resulting in conservation. The revenue for the rate structure will also
off-set the costs of the conservation program.
7.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
IWA’s public education and outreach includes the following programs: public information and school
education.
A public information program for IWA’s customers is a critical aspect of the conservation plan. IWA has
been proactive and implemented a public information program. Through the program, IWA can assist
customers in identifying opportunities for conservation via brochures, media events, service
announcements, workshops, and other means. Savings could be significant if the program targets
residential outdoor use, including demonstration gardens for re- landscaping away from turf. IWA’s current
public information program includes:
Public service announcements
Bill inserts, newsletters, and brochures
Special events and media events
Speakers bureau
A school education program contributes to the long-term reduction in water use as a result of actual changes
to water use behaviors in City of Indio’s youth. IWA has presented to classes in the Desert Sands Unified
School District as well as provided calendars promoting efficient water use to several elementary schools.
Each year the IWA offers school presentations free of charge to any interested school or class.
Presentations include information about water conservation, water quality and information about where the
water comes from.
Costs for this program have been estimated as $10 per year per student reached.
7.9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
IWA conducts a program for system water audits, leak detection, and repair.
IWA reported a water loss of 1,378 AF in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. For that reporting year, 19,171 AF of
water was produced resulting in a water loss of 7.2 percent. Non-revenue water in the FY2019-2020
calendar year was 8.6 percent suggesting that IWA has already achieved the goal of less than 10 percent
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-29
unaccounted-for water losses in its system. IWA would like to further reduce this to between 3 and 5
percent. Such a reduction could result in additional water savings of approximately 800 to 1,100 AFY by
2025.
IWA expects that the program will be further expanded. Non-revenue water will be determined by reviewing
monthly and annual water consumption and production data, which is currently being tracked. Expansion
of this program will enhance IWA’s knowledge and awareness of its system, which will allow for more
accurate targeting of problem areas for future maintenance or replacement. Areas of expansion currently
in effect are:
Changing the way IWA performs fire flows, utilizing hydraulic modeling software to predict the
available fire flow without using any water.
IWA has had its own inspector since mid-2007 to monitor water use at construction sites and ensure
all flows are being monitored.
IWA acquired an electronic leak-detection device in 2008, which was the first step in implementing
its leak detection/prevention program.
7.9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
IWA has conservation programs for CII and a dedicated Conservation Coordinator in charge of
implementation of the conservation programs.
A Conservation Coordinator provides oversight of conservation programs and DMM implementation, as
well as communicating and promoting water conservation issues. The Coordinator oversees not only water
conservation, but also other environmental programs within the City of Indio. IWA plans on maintaining a
Conservation Coordinator and Manager on staff at all times.
7.9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
IWA’s other DMMs include: water survey programs for residential customers, landscape conservation
programs and incentives, high efficiency washer incentives, and low flush toilet replacement programs.
7.9.2.8 Water Survey Programs for Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential
Customers & Residential Retrofits
A water survey program for residential customers is a key component of IWA’s conservation plan. Through
the survey program, residents can request that IWA staff visit their homes and identify opportunities outside
the residence or business to reduce consumption, such as landscaping conversions or the installation of
more efficient irrigation heads. IWA has been performing outside surveys for residents and businesses
since 2008. Over 2,000 landscape conversions have been performed.
IWA may be able to expand this program to include indoor surveys as well. IWA may consider requiring
in-home surveys for any residents interested in participating in its Smart Controller and/or Re- landscape
Rebate programs.
This part of the program is still in the planning phase and has not yet been implemented. The IWA is
continually working to improve and expand conservation plans through partnerships and additional funding
opportunities. In 2011 IWA signed an MOU with the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to provide
Indio residents who are served by CVWD equal opportunities to receive smart controller rebates or convert
lawns to desert landscape.
A residential plumbing retrofit program can also contribute to the overall reduction in indoor water use in
the residential customer class. This program targets residences constructed prior to 1992. IWA should
market this program to the North Indio and Central zones of the City, where pre-1992 construction accounts
for 97 percent and 77 percent of residences, respectively.
Other utilities implement residential plumbing retrofit programs through the actual distribution of retrofit kits
to their residential customers, at no cost to the customers. The kit should include a minimum of one new
showerhead and two aerators (one kitchen and one bathroom). The estimated cost of such a kit is $10.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-30
The Gas Company distributes these kits and in partnership with the Gas Company, IWA helps promote the
program to Indio residents. The IWA promotes the program through the website and supplying information
during residential audits.
The IWA may expand this program and possibly add toilet retrofit kits dependent on future funding.
7.9.2.9 Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
A large landscape water conservation program with incentives for IWA’s CII and irrigation customers could
be an important component of its long-term conservation plan. IWA should strive to provide educational
opportunities to these clients about the benefits and opportunities for reducing their outdoor water usage.
An important aspect of this program will be surveys and water audits of landscaping water usage.
The cost for each CII survey has been estimated as twice that of a residential survey or $220 per survey,
which accounts for the time spent by IWA staff to perform surveys and track program implementation.
This program is still in the planning phase and has not yet been implemented. Implementation goals were
established in the conservation master plan. IWA continues to seek partnerships and additional funding to
implement and expand conservation programs including this DMM.
7.9.2.10 High Efficiency Clothes Washing Machine Financial Incentive Programs
A high-efficiency clothes washing machine (HECW) financial incentive program will contribute to the overall
reduction in indoor water use by the residential customer class. A Coverage Goal (CG) system was
developed to more easily determine coverage progress and allow agencies to obtain credit for promoting
ultra-high efficiency machines. The annual CG is calculated as:
CG = Total Dwelling Units x 0.0768
Total dwelling units (DUs) are estimated to be approximately 25,860 at implementation. The calculated
coverage goal would be 1,986 HECWs installed over the 2.5 year program, or 794 units per year. IWA may
want to consider developing a tiered incentives program with the largest incentives for washing machines
with a water factor equal to or less than 6.0. Each replaced machine could save approximately 120,000
gallons of water over the life of the machine (estimated as 14 years).
The HECW Machine Financial Incentives Programs can be implemented by supplying rebates to customers
for the purchase of approved HECW machines. A rebate of $100/HECW is being considered at this time.
This program is still in the planning phase and has not yet been implemented. IWA continues to form
partnerships and additional funding to expand conservation programs.
7.9.2.11 Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts
Conservation programs for IWA’s CII customers could play a significant role in its long-term conservation
plan. Under this DMM, IWA will need to identify and rank CII customers by their water use, develop an Ultra
Low-Flow Toilet (ULFT) program, and either implement a CII water use survey and incentives program or
establish and meet CII conservation performance targets.
If IWA chooses to pursue a CII Survey and Customer Incentives Program, then it should work to supply
surveys to 10 percent of its CII customers within 10 years. However, if IWA pursues a CII Conservation
Program, then that program should achieve a 10 percent reduction in the CII baseline water use within 10
years. Some utilities have achieved this by supplying one-time grants to CII customers for both indoor and
outdoor water conserving measures. This program is still in the planning phase and has not yet been
implemented. IWA continues to seek new partnerships and additional funding to expand conservation
programs.
7.9.2.12 Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Programs
A residential ULFT replacement program seeks to replace high consuming toilets (greater than three
gallons per flush) with the more efficient ULFTs that use 1.6 gallons or less per flush in both single-family
and multifamily residences. At a minimum, the program should replace as many toilets as would be
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
7-31
replaced under a City ordinance that required ULFT retrofits on resale for all homes older than 1992. The
program may achieve these water savings through financial incentives or rebates. Under the residential
ULFT replacement program, some agencies provide rebates for the purchase of ULFT toilets while others
actually supply and install the toilets themselves. IWA can consider either approach for implementation of
this program. An estimated cost of $150 per ULFT replaced is assumed for this DMM.
This program is still in the planning phase and has not yet been implemented. IWA continues to seek
partnerships and additional funding to expand conservation programs.
7.9.3 Implementation
IWA’s Conservation Program was initiated in 2008. In developing its water Conservation Program, IWA
utilized many DMMs as guidelines. IWA continues to seek new partnerships and addition funding to expand
conservation programs. IWA will continue to implement water conservation practices and enforce
requirements of City ordinances to maintain lower than historic per capita water use.
7.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)
Updated water use objectives are being developed for water suppliers to meet the requirements of the
CWC. The final water use objectives for IWA have not yet been determined. The DMMs described in this
section are expected to align with IWA’s efforts to comply with these objectives when they are finalized.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
This section addresses the CWC requirements for a public hearing, the process for adopting the RUWMP
and IWA’s WSCP, submitting the adopted plans, and plan implementation.
7.10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data
IWA is reporting on a calendar year basis. This plan includes water production and use data for all of
calendar year 2020.
7.10.2 Notice of Public Hearing
The CWC requires several notifications regarding the preparation and adoption of the RUWMP and IWA’s
WSCP. The CWC states that cities and counties must be notified that the supplier will be reviewing the
UWMP and considering amendments to the Plan. IWA sent a notification to cities and counties within its
service area informing them of IWA’s intent to update the UWMP. These notices are described in Chapter
2 of the RUWMP and are included in Appendix B. The cities and counties in IWA’s service area are
identified in Table 7-28.
IWA provided notice to the cities and counties of the public hearing, including the time and place and the
location where the draft RUWMP and IWA’s draft WSCP were available for review.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-1
Introduction
The Mission Springs Water District (MSWD or District) has participated in the Coachella Valley Regional
UWMP to meet its reporting requirements for 2020. This chapter describes information specific to MSWD
and its water use efficiency programs.
Updates to the California Water Code (CWC) for the 2020 reporting cycle are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
RUWMP.
8.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized into the sections recommended by the Guidebook prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
Sub-Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the chapter.
Sub-Chapter 2 shows details about the preparation of this RUWMP.
Sub-Chapter 3 presents information about the service area.
Sub-Chapter 4 presents information about current and projected future water demands.
Sub-Chapter 5 documents compliance with SB X7-7 through a reduction in per-capita water use.
Sub-Chapter 6 presents the current and planned future water supplies.
Sub-Chapter 7 assesses the reliability of supplies and presents a comparison of projected future
supplies and demands.
Sub-Chapter 8 discusses the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that will help guide
actions in case of a future water shortage.
Sub-Chapter 9 presents information about Demand Management Measures (DMMs) being
implemented to encourage efficient water use.
Sub-Chapter 10 presents information about the adoption and submittal process for this RUWMP
and the WSCP.
8.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
8.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
The CWC requires urban water suppliers to have a current UWMP, deemed sufficient at addressing the
CWC requirements by DWR, on file with DWR in order for the urban water suppliers to be eligible for any
water management grant or loan administered by DWR. In addition, the UWMP Act requires a retail water
agency to meet its 2020 Compliance Urban Water Use Target and report compliance in the 2020 UWMP.
8.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions
The participating agencies’ approach to demonstrating reduced reliance on the Delta is discussed in
Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-3
8.2.6 Coordination and Outreach
MSWD has coordinated with other agencies in the development of this plan. This coordination is described
in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
MSWD meets demands with its own groundwater supplies and does not purchase wholesale water from
any wholesale supplier. Therefore no coordination with wholesale suppliers was necessary. MSWD did
coordinate with Desert Water Agency (DWA) on plans for continued replenishment of the groundwater
basin with imported water.
System Description
This section provides information about MSWD’s service area, climate, and population.
8.3.1 General Description
MSWD was established in 1953 and was formerly known as Desert Hot Springs County Water District. The
District’s water service area consists of 135 square miles including the City of Desert Hot Springs, 10
smaller communities in Riverside County, and communities in the City of Palm Springs. The District’s water
supply source is 100 percent groundwater produced from District-owned and operated wells. The District
provides water service to approximately 43,000 people in its water service area. The District also provides
sewer service to approximately 26,000 people in Desert Hot Springs, Desert Crest Country Club and Dillon
Mobile Home Park.
MSWD offices are located in Desert Hot Springs, California. MSWD water supply and distribution system
includes three separate and distinct water supply and distribution systems with the largest of the three
systems serving the community of Desert Hot Springs; the surrounding communities of West Garnet
(located south of Interstate 10 and West of Indian Avenue); and North Palm Springs. The two smaller
systems, Palm Springs Crest System and West Palm Springs Village System, are located approximately
five miles west of Desert Hot Springs. These two communities are located on the north side of Interstate
10 (I-10) abutting the Morongo Indian Reservation.
MSWD currently receives 100 percent of its water supply from groundwater produced from subbasins within
the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which underlies the District’s water service area. MSWD primarily
produces groundwater from the Mission Creek Subbasin via eight active wells. To a lesser extent, the
District also produces groundwater from the Indio Subbasin (including the Garnet Hill Subarea) via three
active wells; and the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin via two active wells.
The existing MSWD distribution system consists of three independent water distribution systems: 1) Desert
Hot Springs and surrounding area system – encompasses the City of Desert Hot Springs, a portion of the
City of Palm Springs and surrounding unincorporated areas of Riverside County including Desert Edge
community, 2) Palm Springs Crest System, and 3) West Palm Springs Village System.
The existing Desert Hot Springs and surrounding area water distribution system serves up to 16 different
pressure service zones through either a primary pressure zone or a reduced pressure service zone. In
general, the MSWD standard pressure zones are reflective of existing storage tank overflow (or high water)
elevations, i.e. the 913 Zone has a water storage tank high water elevation of 913 feet above mean sea
level. As development of MSWD occurred, numerous storage tanks were constructed at varying elevations
to provide adequate pressure throughout its service area.
8.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
The service area boundary is shown in Figure 8-1.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-4
Figure 8-1. MSWD Service Area Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-12
The lower income households total 1,646 units for the City of Desert Hot Springs. The estimated water
demand increase for these 1,646 lower income housing units is estimated at 1,055 AFY, which is included
in the District’s demand projections.
8.4.5 Climate Change Considerations
Potential impacts of climate change on water use in the region are discussed in Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets
This section describes MSWD’s compliance with SB X7-7 and documents MSWD’s reduction in per-capita
water use below its 2020 Urban Water Use Target.
8.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers
MSWD is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
8.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables
MSWD has completed the SB X7-7 2020 Compliance Form and included it in Appendix E.
8.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs
MSWD calculated its baselines and targets for its 2015 UWMP and has not re-calculated its baselines or
targets for the 2020 RUWMP.
8.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use
MSWD has calculated its 2020 service area population using the DWR Population Tool. MSWD uploaded
a GIS boundary of its service area to the DWR Population Tool. The Tool used the census data for 2000
and 2010 to calculate population per residential service connection. The tool then used the number of
connections to estimate the population in 2020.
MSWD’s gross water use was determined from the annual production and storage records. Meter
adjustments, exported water, distribution system storage, recycled water, and process water were not
applicable to MSWD’s distribution system.
8.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
MSWD’s average use during the baseline period and confirmed 2020 target are shown in Table 8-10.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-15
8.6.2.4 Stormwater
The District is currently not using stormwater to meet local water supply demands. At this time, there are
no plans to utilize stormwater, but that could change in the future.
8.6.2.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
The existing wastewater collection system for the water service area, which is operated and maintained by
MSWD, consists of a network of approximately 45 miles of sewers, which are concentrated in the central
portion of the study area where the majority of the populace and businesses reside. The Desert Crest
Country Club community first received sewer service in the early 1960s with the outlying tracts established
later in the early 1970s. Most of the MSWD sewer pipelines were constructed in the early 1970s and include
lines along Ocotillo Road, Palm Drive, and Mission Lakes Boulevard. In the early 1980s, improvements to
the pipeline system were added to tracts west of West Drive.
MSWD has an ongoing program to connect existing residences currently on septic systems to sewer
collectors that have been constructed or are in the process of being constructed. Since 2005, 3,520 parcels
have been converted from septic to sewer service for a total of 7,700 parcels.
MSWD operates two wastewater treatment plants. The Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant (Horton
WWTP), located on Verbena Drive about a half mile south of Two Bunch Palms Trail, has a capacity of 2.3
million gallons per day (MGD). The plant uses an extended aeration process for treatment and disposes
of the secondary wastewater, which is not disinfected, in adjacent percolation/evaporation ponds. The
sludge generated from the treatment process is run through a dewatering sludge filter press and then
trucked offsite to proper disposal areas. The average daily flow metered to the plant in 2020 was 2.0 MGD.
The Desert Crest Wastewater Treatment Plant, located about a half mile southeast of the intersection of
Dillion Road and Long Canyon Road, has a capacity of 0.18 MGD and serves a country club development
and mobile home park. The facility operates similarly to the Horton WWTP using an aeration basin for
treatment and disposes of the secondary wastewater, which is not disinfected, by way of
percolation/evaporation ponds. The sludge generated from the treatment process is dried in on-site beds
and then trucked offsite to proper disposal areas. The average daily flow to the plant in 2020 was metered
at 0.05 MGD.
Both District wastewater treatment plants uses an extended aeration process for treatment and dispose of
the secondary wastewater, which is not disinfected, in adjacent percolation/evaporation ponds located
within the plant on the southwest (potable water) side of the Mission Creek Fault. In addition, effluent is
used for irrigation and maintenance at the treatment plants.
Information about wastewater collected within the District’s service area is provided in Table 8-13.
Information about wastewater treated and discharged in the District’s service area is provided in Table 8-14.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-17
MSWD’s 2004 Water Conservation Master Plan outlines various planned and implemented activities to
ensure water use efficiency throughout the District’s service area. Under System Reliability Initiatives,
Initiative No. 2 calls for total management of water resources to ultimately include developing recycled water
for appropriate beneficial uses. The District’s Water Efficient Landscaping Guidelines identifies the
installation of recycled water irrigation systems (dual distribution systems) as required to allow for the future
use of recycled water, unless a written exemption has been granted.
The District prepared a Recycled Water Program Development Feasibility Study in 2018 in which treatment
and distribution alternatives and recycled water demands were identified. It was determined that recycled
water infrastructure could feasibly be implemented for groundwater recharge, and, subsequently, to supply
existing and future irrigation demands and offset a portion of potable water demands. Recycled water can
be used for groundwater basin replenishment and favorably impacts water balance calculations.
Approximately 30 percent of the potable water demand (after water losses) is typically conveyed to the
District’s wastewater collection system and ultimately to the Horton WWTP and Desert Crest WWTP for
treatment, as there are still many customers on septic systems. As the District continues its program to
convert existing septic systems to the wastewater collection system and connects to new customers, the
percentage is envisioned to increase to approximately 55 percent by 2040. The 55 percent projection for
wastewater generation (interior water use) from potable water demand is based on recent studies in
Southern California (approximately 45 percent) and the projection of increased exterior landscape irrigation
conservation in the future.
Due to the success of its septic to sewer program, the District is constructing the MSWD Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (RWRF) to meet increasing wastewater demands. In its initial phase, the RWRF will
use a sequence batch reactor process for treatment and disposal of the secondary wastewater, which is
not disinfected, in adjacent percolation/evaporation ponds located within the plant over the Garnet Hill
Subarea. The District plans to produce recycled water meeting Title 22 standards with tertiary treatment
facilities in the subsequent phase. The primary recycled water demands are foreseen to be replenishment
of the Mission Creek Subbasin and public green areas, golf courses and playing fields that were identified
as part of the 2018 study. Consistent with recycled water demands that have been identified and estimated
system wastewater flows, it is envisioned that the recycled water system including the RWRF will be
expanded to accommodate a system recycled water system demand of 5,000 AFY by 2045.
Estimates of future recycled water use are shown in Table 8-15. The District’s projection from its 2015
UWMP is shown in Table 8-16. The projection from the 2015 UWMP was not met because the regional
WWTP project has progressed more slowly than originally planned.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-26
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 8-26.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-28
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
MSWD has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to help manage potential future water
shortages. The WSCP is being adopted separately from the RUWMP and may be modified as needed
based on changing conditions. The WSCP is an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
The goal of the Demand Management Measures (DMM) section is to provide a comprehensive description
of the water conservation programs that the District has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans
to implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets.
8.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
MSWD is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
8.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
The District has made the State-mandated DMMs a key element in the overall water resource management
strategy. The District is dedicated to implementing water conservation measures, as demonstrated in the
District’s adopted (September 2004) Water Conservation Master Plan. The Water Conservation Master
Plan defines a series of sensible water conservation activities that complement the unique water resource
characteristics of the District’s service area. The Plan represents a qualitative effort at identifying and
screening potential conservation initiatives appropriate for implementation in the District’s service area. The
data will assist the District in determining which initiatives should be continued to meet long-term
conservation objectives.
As part of the Water Conservation Master Plan, the District identified factors affecting water conservation
within the District. Significant factors are impacting water use within the District and include the following:
Limited availability of water as a resource in Coachella Valley; the District’s 100 percent dependency on
groundwater as a water source; lack of other potable water sources and limited emergency
interconnections; assessments to DWA for future imported water supply; continued new residential
development in the City of Desert Hot Springs; risk of future degradation of groundwater supplies from
septic systems, and commercial and industrial development; and the need to implement costly new sources
of water (reclamation/conjunctive use, etc.).
The water conservation principles identified in the District’s Water Conservation Master Plan were outlined
and include detailed tasks. Overall, the District aims to employ the following principles:
o Clarify and summarize the District’s conservation programs, reflecting conservation commitments
made through the UWMP and other programs.
o Ensure that the conservation measures adopted by the District treat all customers fairly and
equitably.
o Do not create undue pressure on revenue stability resulting in water costs exceeding local socio-
economic conditions.
o Identify and establish measurable conservation targets to be accomplished by the District within a
reasonable period of time.
o Develop sensible approaches for practical, cost-effective and efficient conservation programs
which anticipate and serve the long-term needs of District customers.
o Facilitate the District’s ability to provide a dependable, reliable supply of water.
The District also developed a conceptual framework for the proposed conservation planning process
throughout the service area. Four phases are envisioned as part of the process, including the formulation
of conservation principles, program refinement, program implementation and program evaluation. The
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-29
Plan’s Conservation Action Plan seeks to implement the conceptual framework in a “dual approach,”
whereby regulatory and management practices are jointly utilized. In the Conservation Action Plan, the
process for establishing measurable conservation targets is discussed. Three distinct components for the
process are identified as the following:
o Establishment of measurable targets,
o Identifying worthwhile conservation measures, and
o Evaluating the effects of conservation activities and attainment of goals
The District’s implementation of the demand management and water conservation measures are discussed
below.
8.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
In 2004, the District adopted two major conservation policy statements: a water conservation master plan
and water efficient landscaping guidelines. The Water Conservation Master Plan identifies several key
areas in which the District will pursue more efficient water use practices, namely: efficient landscaping
guidelines; efficient landscaping requirements for new development; and xeriscape demonstration garden;
efficient landscaping incentives; conservation education programs in schools, community and bimonthly
billing information; tiered water pricing that encourages conservation; updated water shortage ordinance;
water audits for the largest users; and rebates for water efficient plumbing fixtures.
8.9.2.2 Metering
The District maintains water meters on all residential, commercial, industrial and municipal connections to
the District’s water distribution system.
The District has an aggressive meter replacement program. Meters are re-built or replaced on a multi-year
cycle to ensure accuracy and proper functioning. The District’s water system is fully metered. Therefore,
the District completes annual checks on the accuracy and operation of production meters by either
recalibrating and reinstalling meters, or by replacing meters that do not fall within the required operating
range of AWWA standards. Monthly non-revenue water is accounted for. In 2020, the District completed
a system-wide upgrade to advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), which allows for the direct transmission
of water use data between the point of consumption and the utility. As such, AMI provides a higher level
of accuracy, eliminates the need to manually read water meters, improves overall efficiency of operations,
and allows for the identification of potential leaks.
8.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
The District has a tiered rate structure for water service within its service area. The tiered rate structure is
intended to discourage high water use. The District may also enact a drought surcharge, as required by
Statewide drought measures. For example, during the 2016 California Drought, the District implemented a
temporary $0.05 per hundred cubic feet drought surcharge, consistent with State drought requirements.
Most of the District’s water customers also receive sewer service from District. The District imposes rates
for sewer service based on maximum potential water usage, billed at a uniform rate for residential
customers. Commercial sewer service fees are based on water usage and also promote water
conservation.
8.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
The District maintains a website titled MSWD.org which provides information regarding:
Methods to reduce water use;
Watering restrictions;
A dedicated conservation page;
A water efficient planting database;
An evaporative cooler maintenance program and primer;
Fines and surcharges associated with violation of watering restrictions;
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-30
Water rebates for installing certain water saving devices and turf removal; and
Other frequently asked questions regarding water use and conservation
Moreover, the District has partnered with SCE and SCGC in school education outreach programs that
provide information to children to learn the importance of water conservation.
The Groundwater Guardian Program is a community educational program developed by The Groundwater
Foundation, a private, non-profit educational organization recognized internationally, in Lincoln, Nebraska.
"Designation as a Groundwater Guardian Community is presented by The Groundwater Foundation to
communities which demonstrate an ongoing participatory approach to protecting groundwater resources."
"For continuing designation as a Groundwater Guardian, a community must submit an Annual Entry Form
and proposed ROA (Result Oriented Activities) Plan(s) by February each year; continue ongoing activities;
and submit an Annual Report in August each year." For more information about The Groundwater
Foundation and/or the Groundwater Guardian Program see www.groundwater.org.
The Desert Hot Springs community has three Groundwater Guardian Teams and a Groundwater Guardian
Affiliate:
o Desert Hot Springs Groundwater Guardian Team (Community - 1st Designated in 1995)
o Mission Springs Water District (Affiliate - 1st Designated in 1997)
o Desert Hot Springs High School (nation's 1st Groundwater Guardian Campus Team - 1st
Designated in 2000)
o Desert Springs Middle School (Groundwater Guardian Campus Team - 1st Designated in 2004)
8.9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Losses
The District is currently using a wide range of operational policies and practices to ensure the efficient use
of its water supply. The District conducts monthly monitoring of all water services. In addition, daily
inspection of all facilities such as pump stations, wells, reservoirs, valve vaults, etc., is completed. On an
annual basis, visual inspection of all easements and pipeline alignments is accomplished.
The District conducts water audits and leak detection through various District activities focused on finding
and correcting water losses. Field crews visually survey the system as they travel the throughout the
District’s service area on a daily basis. The District’s telemetry system, and newly implemented AMI
system, also enhances the ability to locate and correct large leaks expeditiously. Leak monitoring is
accomplished by all operations field personnel. In the event of a leak, prompt response and investigation
are communicated to the District by customers and other entities. Leak and other system losses (fire flows)
are calculated monthly and recorded in a database.
The District demonstrates to all customers how to identify toilet leaks using dye tablets. At public outreach
events, the District provides the dye tablets at no charge and offers a pamphlet on how to use them. The
District encourages landlords to make them available to tenants. Finally, the availability of the free tablets
is advertised on the District website, stating that customers may come into the District lobby and pick up
tablets at no charge. The District also offers Indoor Water Conservation kits at no charge to customers.
The kits include faucet and kitchen aerators, low-flow shower head, leak detection tablets, and toilet tank,
toilet fill cycle divertor. This has been advertised on the District quarterly newsletter as well as the website.
Customers are encouraged to reach out to the District and the District mails one out to them at no additional
charge.
The District works diligently to confirm that the appropriate parties are billed for water loss resulting from
damaged fire hydrants, air-vacuums, blow offs, dig-ins, etc. In addition, monthly monitoring of
“unaccounted-for” water losses assists in identifying leaks. Average unaccounted-for water losses are
currently at approximately 13.5 percent for the District.
To evaluate the effectiveness of these conservation measures, the District finance staff will continue to
review the data records to confirm that unaccounted-for water remains low and consistent. Because of the
District’s proactive measures, the unaccounted-for water losses are projected to be approximately 13.5
percent. Industry guidelines have established a standard rate of water savings based on the repair of a
distribution line: a 1-inch crack in a distribution main at 100 pounds per square inch (psi) can leak 57
gallons per minute. Cost and savings depend on the age of infrastructure for the water system.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-31
The District implements programs on leak detection and repair, metering, meter replacement, system
flushing, reservoir cleaning and maintenance, valve maintenance and mapping. The District continued
reviewing distribution system operational procedures and maintenance practices with appropriate field and
administrative staff, as detailed in the 2004 Water Conservation Master Plan. These measures will ensure
system reliability. The hydrant flushing program will be reviewed for its scope and timing, as well as to
determine how much water is lost during flushing.
The Desert Willow waterline replacement project included 8,200 linear feet of 8-inch ductile iron pipe which
will replace aging 8-inch PVC water lines, and 153 service line replacements. In 2010 MSWD saw
approximately 800 service line leak which triggered a service line replacement program. On average
MSWD budgeted $100,000-$120,000 annually to replace poly service lines. In 2020, MSWD was seeing
approximate 230 service line leaks annually. Over the past eight years, MSWD has also implemented
seismic valve controls on the Districts reservoirs to mitigate water loss during a sizable earthquake event.
MSWD also implemented additional water loss tracking at well sites with the installation of flow meters on
the pump to waste lines for each well. Most wells will also discharge to drywells or ponds onsite allowing
water to percolate back into the groundwater aquifer in lieu of running off the well sites.
In 2019, MSWD began a system wide advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) program. Since deploying
the AMI system, the District has seen a substantial decrease in calls to deploy a technician to the property
to check the meter for high bill calls or the check reads as the District has daily/hourly flow data available
through the Neptune 360 dashboard. The system allows District staff to resolve identify issues related to
high consumption and resolve them quickly with customers.
8.9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
The District has designated the Programs and Public Affairs Associate responsible for implementing both
the conservation master plan as well as monitoring progress in fulfilling DMMs and a state conservation
order.
The District continues to be involved in water conservation programs and coordinates with the four other
water agencies of the Coachella Valley through the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
and CV Water Counts (www.cvwatercounts.com) regional conservation group.
8.9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
The District in concert with the SCE, and SCGC has developed a number of consumption reduction/
conservation program methods for residential, landscape, and commercial/ industrial/institutional
customers that include:
Water Use Surveys/Audits
Rebates or Giveaways of Plumbing Fixtures and Devices
Rebate Programs including:
o Turf conversion
o High Efficiency Toilet rebates
Leak detection and monitoring program
Evaporative cooler maintenance and assessment program
Large landscape irrigation surveys are offered to cost effectively achieve quantifiable water savings. The
audits are performed in conjunction with the District’s Efficient Landscaping Guidelines, adopted by the
District board on December 20, 2004. The guidelines establish effective water efficient landscape
requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes, as well as promote water conservation
through climate appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation practices.
Section 0.00.040 of the District’s Landscaping Guidelines outlines provisions for landscape water audits.
Under the Guidelines, all landscaped areas which exceed 1.0 acre (43,560 square feet), including golf
courses, green belts, common areas, multifamily housing, schools, businesses, public works, parks, and
cemeteries, may be subject to a landscape irrigation audit at the discretion of the District if the District
determines that the annual maximum applied water allowance has been exceeded for a minimum of 2
consecutive years. At a minimum, the audit will be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor and
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-32
shall be in accordance with the California Landscape Irrigation Auditor Handbook, the entire document
which is hereby incorporated by reference.
The Guidelines also require an irrigation design plan, which includes the installation of separate landscape
water meters for all projects except for single-family homes or any project with a landscaped area of less
than 2,500 square feet. Automatic control systems shall be required for all irrigation systems and must be
able to accommodate all aspects of the design. Mechanical irrigation controllers are prohibited. Plants that
require different amounts of water shall be irrigated by separate valves. If one valve is used for a given
area, only plants with similar water use shall be used in that area. Anti-drain valves shall be installed in
strategic points to prevent low-head drainage. Sprinkler heads shall have application rates appropriate to
the plant water use requirements within each control valve circuit. Scheduling aids, including soil moisture
sensing devices and ET controllers, are required and recommended, respectively. Emitters shall have
applications rates appropriate to the plant water use requirements within each control valve circuit.
Since early 2002, the District has been an active participant along with various Coachella Valley area public
agencies and private sector organizations to develop a standardized landscape ordinance appropriate to
the arid desert climate. The resulting Coachella Valley-Wide Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Ordinance No.1302 adopted by CVWD on March 25, 2003) is designed to ensure consistency of landscape
water efficiency standards, and applies to new and rehabilitated landscapes within the Valley. A key feature
of the Ordinance is a 25 percent reduction in landscape water use. This savings is achieved by changing
the plant water-use coefficient factor in the formula originally established by AB 325 from 0.8 to 0.6. With
this ordinance, new landscaping for any parcel in the Coachella Valley can use no more than 60 percent of
the water required for an equivalent sized parcel completely planted in grass.
The City of Desert Hot Springs adopted the District’s Efficient Landscaping Guidelines, and incorporated
them into its Ordinance No. 2005-02, which establishes a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance within
the City’s boundaries. The Ordinance was updated and revised in 2009 and subsequently readopted again
by the City. The City’s Ordinance directly follows the District’s Ordinance as applicable to the City’s
jurisdiction. In other jurisdictions served by the District, the Riverside County Planning Department and the
City of Palm Springs require compliance with the District’s Landscaping Guidelines as a condition of new
building permits and/or certificates for occupancy.
The adoption of the District’s Guidelines by the City of Desert Hot Springs, and its consistency with CVWD
and City’s water conservation measures, demonstrates the District’s commitment to regional collaboration
and support for the implementation of large landscape conservation programs.
The District’s Water Conservation Master Plan sets forth an initiative to require water efficient practices in
landscape plans and irrigation systems of all new or substantially rehabilitated residential and commercial
development projects.
In late 2003, the District assumed a leadership role in landscape water conservation by partnering with a
local builder to develop a series of cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing landscape design options for
the builder’s new residential tract. The landscape solutions emphasized the use of native desert and other
water-conserving plants, in concert with water efficient irrigation systems. A key goal of this joint venture
was to satisfy the maximum applied water allowance budget established by the Coachella Valley-Wide
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The landscape designs jointly developed between the District and
the builder also reflect several factors important to homeowners, including the style of landscaping, the
maintenance demands and water use of a particular design option, and cost. This collaborative effort has
resulted in over 30 percent of the homes in Phase 1 of the project featuring water wise landscaping. The
District’s leadership and innovation was recognized by the water community when the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA) presented the District with the Theodore Roosevelt Environmental
Award in 2004 for the Lifestyle Landscaping Program.
The District was part of the Riverside County Conservation Task Force to create the Riverside County
Water Use Efficiency Ordinance. The District was an active member of the Task Force to encourage
approval and adoption of the ordinance among stakeholders, including County Supervisors, planning
agencies, cities, and water districts. To date, a water budget approach has been recommended to allow
customers flexibility and does not dictate design implementation. In addition, the Task Force evaluated the
use and inclusion of Weather Based Irrigation Controllers (WBIC), enforcement of the Ordinance, support
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-33
from stakeholders, and emphasis on education as key components of the implementation. The Task Force
developed the Model (draft) Ordinance in 2008/09 with compliance by local cities by January 1, 2010.
The District provides resources to assist residents in planning and implementing a desert- friendly
landscape. Residents within the District service area are provided with the steps for water conservation
measures in their homes and businesses under the following three categories of land uses: Residential
Landscape Makeover, Landscape Planning (in-fill projects which require a building permit), and Landscape
Planning (tract projects). The steps for each category are summarized below.
The District continues to recommend water-wise and desert-friendly plant materials in homes and
businesses. Desert-friendly landscape styles include the following: Arid, Semi-Arid, and Lush & Efficient.
Arid landscapes include slower growing, low water use plant materials and often incorporate decorative
rock or mulch into the landscape design. A 2000-square foot, Arid landscape design will use about 29,000
gallons of water per year. Semi-Arid landscapes use plant materials similar to Arid, but may also include a
limited turf area for pets and children, if needed.
The Semi-Arid style may include a mix of low and medium water-use plants. A 2000 square foot, Semi-Arid
landscape will use about 38,000 gallons of water per year. Lush & Efficient landscapes may incorporate
high water use plants or a larger amount of grass. Careful, ongoing maintenance of the irrigation system is
a must, as well as shaping the turf areas to conform to sprinkler patterns and avoid runoff. A 2000 square
foot, Lush & Efficient landscape will use about 56,000 gallons of water per year. A turf lawn requires heavy
maintenance and uses about three times more water than the Semi-Arid landscape. Turf lawns also look
out of place, and do not blend in with the desert’s natural beauty. A 2,000 square foot turf landscape will
use about 96,000 gallons of water per year.
The District also refers its service area residents to the following links for further information:
The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 5-step guide to creating a water-wise landscape,
called “Xeriscape 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Creating a Water-Wise Yard.”
http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/conservation/xeriscape-101.html.
Gallery of California Heritage Gardens:
http://www.bewaterwise.com/Gardensoft/garden_gallery.aspx
CVWD’s guide, “Lush & Efficient: Gardening in the Coachella Valley,” contains information on
topics such as “The Ingredients of a Desert Garden,” “Grouping Plants by Sun and Water Needs,”
and “How Much and When to Water.” It also includes a month-to-month gardening calendar for
the Coachella Valley and a vast plant database. “Lush & Efficient” can be ordered from CVWD or
you can browse the online version at: http://cvwd.org/lush&eff.htm.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority has useful information on general landscape tips at:
http://www.snwa.com/html/ws_landscape_tips.html
The Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation (AWAC) provides featured plant updates at:
http://www.hdawac.org/
The Water Education Water Awareness Committee (WEWAC) provides monthly plant features at:
http://www.usewaterwisely.com/potm.cfm
MSWD Mission: conservation - Plant Guide provides a custom search tool for water efficient
plants and provides calculation on water use and other helpful information for turf replacement
and new landscaping, at: http://topratedms.azurewebsites.net/
On its website, the District also provides a water budget calculator to assist residents in figuring out what
their water allowance is and how the landscape alternatives fit into the allowance. The District provides
detailed instruction on how to use the calculator, including determining square footage of landscape and
annual maximum water allowance for landscape. Based on the calculations, a type of irrigation will be
suggested, for example, drip irrigation (non-turf), and the recommended area in which to use spray
irrigation.
The District then provides a step by step process for selecting the types of plants that will meet the
recommended irrigation methods and landscape size. The water use calculator estimates the amount of
water that the selected landscape and plant materials will use on an annual basis. Next, the District provides
recommendations on design and installation of an efficient irrigation system. The District encourages public
consultation of the District staff as a source of information.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
8-37
8.10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption
The District held a public hearing on June 21, 2021 to hear public comment and consider adopting this
RUWMP and MSWD’s WSCP. As part of the public hearing, the District provided information on its baseline
values, water use targets, and implementation plan required in the Water Conservation Act of 2009.
The public hearing on the UWMP took place before the adoption of the UWMP, which allowed the District
the opportunity to modify the UWMP in response to public input before adoption.
The District adopt the RUWMP and MSWD’s WSCP before submitting them to DWR. A copy of the District’s
adoption resolution is included in Appendix H.
8.10.4 Plan Submittal
The RUWMP and MSWD’s WSCP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of adoption and by July 1,
2021. UWMP submittal will be done electronically through WUEdata, an online submittal tool.
Not later than 30 days after adoption, the District will submit a CD or hardcopy of the adopted UWMP to the
California State Library.
8.10.5 Public Availability
Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of the RUWMP and MSWD’s WSCP with DWR, the District will
make the plans available for public review during normal business hours by placing a copy of the UWMP
at the front desk of the District’s office, and by posting the UWMP on the District’s website for public viewing.
8.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
MSWD is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and therefore this section is not
applicable.
8.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If the District amends the adopted RUWMP or MSWD’s WSCP, each of the steps for notification, public
hearing, adoption, and submittal will also be followed for the amended plan.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-1
Introduction
The Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC) has participated in the Coachella Valley Regional
UWMP to meet its reporting requirements for 2020. This chapter describes information specific to MDMWC
and its water use efficiency programs.
Updates to the California Water Code (CWC) for the 2020 reporting cycle are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
RUWMP.
9.1.1 Chapter Organization
This chapter is organized into the sections recommended by the Guidebook prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR).
Sub-Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the chapter.
Sub-Chapter 2 shows details about the preparation of this RUWMP.
Sub-Chapter 3 presents information about the service area.
Sub-Chapter 4 presents information about current and projected future water demands.
Sub-Chapter 5 documents compliance with SB X7-7 through a reduction in per-capita water use.
Sub-Chapter 6 presents the current and planned future water supplies.
Sub-Chapter 7 assesses the reliability of supplies and presents a comparison of projected future
supplies and demands.
Sub-Chapter 8 discusses the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that will help guide
actions in case of a future water shortage.
Sub-Chapter 9 presents information about Demand Management Measures (DMMs) being
implemented to encourage efficient water use.
Sub-Chapter 10 presents information about the adoption and submittal process for this RUWMP
and the WSCP.
9.1.2 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The related planning efforts by agencies in the Coachella Valley are described in Chapter 2 of the RUWMP.
9.1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
The CWC requires urban water suppliers to have a current UWMP, deemed sufficient at addressing the
CWC requirements by DWR, on file with DWR in order for the urban water suppliers to be eligible for any
water management grant or loan administered by DWR. In addition, the UWMP Act requires a retail water
agency to meet its 2020 Compliance Urban Water Use Target and report compliance in the 2020 UWMP.
9.1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions
The participating agencies’ approach to demonstrating reduced reliance on the Delta is described in
Chapter 3 of the RUWMP.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-3
System Description
This section includes a description of MDMWC’s service area, climate, and population projections.
9.3.1 General Description
The Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC) is a retail urban water supplier that was established
in 1953 to provide potable water service to the community of Bermuda Dunes. MDMWC has grown over
the years, seeing housing booms in the mid-1980s, late 1990s, and mid-2000s, and it now provides service
to more than 2,500 customers in the Bermuda Dunes area. MDMWC is a mutual water company that is
governed by a four-member Board of Directors.
MDMWC’s service area is located within the Coachella Valley in Southern California. MDMWC’s service
area is approximately 2.6 square miles, generally bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the north, Washington
Street to the west, Fred Waring Drive to the south, and Jefferson Street to the east. There is a small area
of homes in the center of the MDMWC service area that is served by Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD).
The service area is predominantly comprised of single-family residential demands, with outdoor water use
being a major component of this demand category. The service area also includes multi- family residential,
commercial, and landscape irrigation demands. Currently, the Bermuda Dunes Country Club (BDCC) and
Bermuda Dunes Airport irrigation demands are met with their own private wells, not MDMWC potable water.
The service area is near build-out, with some small pockets of potential development, more so towards the
northern and western edges of the service area.
MDMWC serves its customers through a network of pressurized water distribution facilities. Myoma's water
supply source consists solely of groundwater from the Indio Subbasin. Water is extracted via five active
groundwater wells with a total nominal production capacity of 10,300 gallons per minute (gpm). Two of the
wells pump directly into two respective one-million-gallon reservoirs, which serve as forebays to the
distribution system. Two booster stations with nominal capacities totaling 7,500 gallons per minute deliver
water from the forebays into the distribution system. The other three wells pump directly into the distribution
system. The distribution system consists of a single pressure zone that is operated at pressures from
approximately 70 to 100 pounds per square inch (psi). Current treatment consists of wellhead chlorine
injection. MDMWC is not interconnected with any other water purveyor and is completely reliant upon its
own groundwater well supply and storage.
9.3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
MDMWC’s service area boundary is shown in Figure 9-1. MDMWC only provides potable water service,
and therefore, has a single service area boundary. No changes have been made to the service area since
the beginning of the baseline period (1995) through 2020.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-4
Figure 9-1. MDMWC Service Area Boundary
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-13
SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets
MDMWC’s methods for calculating baseline and target water consumption values are described in this
section. This section also documents MDMWC’s compliance with its 2020 Urban Water Use Target.
9.5.1 Wholesale Suppliers
MDMWC is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
9.5.2 SB X7-7 Forms and Tables
MDMWC has completed the SB X7-7 2020 Compliance Form and included it in Appendix E.
9.5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs
MDMWC calculated its baselines and targets for its 2015 UWMP, and MDMWC has not re-calculated its
baselines or targets for the 2020 RUWMP.
9.5.4 Service Area Population and Gross Water Use
MDMWC serves the majority of the Bermuda Dunes CDP and a small portion of the City of La Quinta.
Because MDMWC’s service area is not substantially the same as a city or CDP (“substantially the same”
defined as service area boundaries corresponding by 95 percent or more with the boundaries of a city or
CDP during the baseline period), the DWR Population Tool methodology has been used for estimating
MDMWC’s service area population. DWR’s Population Tool utilizes U.S. Census data and an electronic
map of MDMWC’s service area to obtain population data for census years. Using the number of service
connections, the tool calculates the population for the non-census years.
MDMWC’s gross water use was determined from production records. One hundred percent of MDMWC’s
supply entering the distribution system is provided by groundwater wells owned and operated by MDMWC.
All groundwater wells pump from the Indio Subbasin. As MDMWC does not utilize recycled water, does
not place water into long term storage, does not convey water to another urban supplier, does not deliver
water for agricultural uses, and does not deliver water to industrial users, no deductions to gross water use
have been made.
9.5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Per capita water use has been historically high in the MDMWC service area, which may be attributed in
part to the following reasons:
Hot, dry climate with very little rainfall
Irrigated turf yards
Swimming pools
Past water use habits from a historical flat water rate
Vacation homes and seasonal habitants underrepresenting service area population
It should be noted that the BDCC golf course, which occupies a relatively large portion of MDMWC’s service
area, irrigates with a private well supply. MDMWC only supplies potable water to BDCC’s clubhouse,
restrooms, and drinking fountains.
MDMWC’s average use during the baseline period and confirmed 2020 target are shown in Table 9-12.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-16
which treats and supplies recycled water. The wastewater within the MDMWC service area that is sent to
CVWD’s WRP-7 facility is not separately metered; therefore, volumes are estimated.
MDMWC does not provide any wastewater treatment service. The wastewater that is collected by CVWD
is conveyed to CVWD’s WRP-7 facility, located approximately 3 miles north of MDMWC’s service area in
north Indio.
Wastewater collection within the MDMWC service area is summarized in Table 9-15.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-18
MDMWC did not use recycled water within its service area in 2020. MDMWC’s 2015 UWMP did not project
the use of recycled water in 2020.
MDMWC does not have current or planned uses for recycled water primarily due to the lack of wastewater
treatment capabilities within the service area. Some limited recycled water service is being provided in the
surrounding area, and while water agencies in the vicinity are continuing to evaluate and plan for recycled
water use, the future availability of recycled water and location of recycled water facilities with respect to
MDMWC is uncertain. Costs to install wastewater treatment facilities or a dual recycled water distribution
system are likely prohibitive at this time. Furthermore, the largest potential recycled water users currently
utilize low cost private well supplies, with Canal water already planned as the new supply for the BDCC golf
course irrigation.
9.6.2.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
Developing new desalinated water sources for MDMWC is currently impractical for several reasons
including the lack of a saline water source; the distance, costs, and lack of infrastructure for desalinated
ocean water; and brine management issues. While MDMWC’s groundwater supply does not require any
desalination treatment, increasing salinity in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is being managed
through the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, with emphasis on
source control.
9.6.2.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
MDMWC does not currently have plans to participate in direct water exchanges. Water exchanges related
to the exchange of State Water Project (SWP) rights for Colorado River Water (CRW) rights for basin
replenishment are handled by CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA).
MDMWC does not currently have plans to participate in direct water transfers. Water transfers related to
basin replenishment are handled by CVWD and DWA.
MDMWC does not have any existing emergency interties. Opportunities may exist for the construction of
emergency interties between MDMWC and CVWD and/or IWA based on the proximity of water distribution
infrastructure; however, there are no planned projects at this time.
9.6.2.8 Future Water Projects
Because MDMWC’s service area is substantially built-out and demands have recently reduced due to
drought conditions and water conservation measures, MDMWC does not have plans for substantial water
supply projects within the urban water management planning horizon outside of MDMWC’s capital
improvement projects that are part of regular system maintenance. The planned project to serve Canal
water to the BDCC for irrigation purposes is being implemented by CVWD; therefore, specific project details
are not included in this chapter.
9.6.2.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Existing water supply volumes are presented in Table 9-16. These figures are based on MDMWC
production records for 2020. One hundred percent of the supply was from the Indio Subbasin.
Planned water supply volumes are presented in Table 9-17. As the Indio Subbasin is anticipated to be
reasonably reliable for the urban water management planning horizon, the projected water supply is
assumed to be equivalent to the projected water demand.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-24
Demands are expected to increase to the projected demands for 2025. It is expected that conservation
messaging and programs will prevent any significant increase in demands by existing customers due to dry
conditions. The groundwater supply is reliable for a five-year dry period as the volume in storage can be
drawn down during a dry period.
The data and methodologies used to identify a potential shortage are described in the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan. Based on the reliability analysis in Section 9.7, the supply of groundwater is fully reliable
under a five-year drought, including consideration of historic droughts in the Coachella Valley and potential
impacts of climate change.
The results of the DRA are summarized in Table 9-23.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-26
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Water shortage contingency planning is a program that is developed in the form of a Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP) that is used to help manage droughts and other short-term water shortages or
supply interruptions by temporarily reducing demand and finding alternate water sources to temporarily
increase supply utilizing methods that are within the authority of the water agency. As droughts are part of
the normal water cycle in California, this type of planning is a necessity.
MDMWC has developed a WSCP to help manage potential future water shortages. The WSCP is being
adopted separately from the RUWMP and may be modified as needed based on changing conditions. The
WSCP is an attachment to this RUWMP.
Demand Management Measures
This section describes MDMWC’s water conservation goals, existing and proposed conservation programs,
and efforts to promote conservation and reduce demand in order to meet its urban water use reduction
targets. Setting goals and selecting appropriate water conservation measures is a continuous process that
evolves based upon legislation, technologies, and past measure effectiveness.
9.9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
MDMWC is not wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable.
9.9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
MDMWC aims to reduce unnecessary water usage and eliminate wasteful practices. MDMWC plans to
achieve these goals through a combination of promotion, public outreach, voluntary, and mandatory
measures. MDMWC also employs a water conservation staff for support.
9.9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
There are a series of State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ordinances regarding the waste of
water that remain in effect at all times. Depending on State mandates for water use reduction and depending
on the stage of the WSCP, additional water waste prevention ordinances may be enacted.
9.9.2.2 Metering
Except for fire protection services, all customer service connections are fully metered. Most multi-family
units are served by one meter. A few multi-family units are metered separately at the owner’s request.
MDMWC is also in the process of implementing a meter replacement program.
9.9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
MDMWC has adopted a four-tier budget-based rate structure, which is a conservation rate structure that
remains active at all times. Tiers are based upon customer water budgets. As the customer uses water in
excess of their budget, the tier increases with a progressively increasing unit water cost.
9.9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
MDMWC is a partner and contributing member of CV Water Counts (http://cvwatercounts.com), a local
program consisting of the six water agencies in the Coachella Valley: CVWD, IWA, CWA, Mission Springs
Water District (MSWD), DWA, and MDMWC. CV Water Counts promotes the message of water
conservation, provides water saving tips, landscaping and leak detection resources, as well as resources
for parents, teachers, and children. MDMWC provides links on its website (http://www.myomawater.com/)
to CV Water Counts as well as Save Our Water (http://saveourwater.com), a statewide conservation
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-27
program that aims to make water conservation a daily habit through partnering with local water agencies,
social marketing, and event sponsorships.
MDMWC also reaches its customers by providing water conservation pamphlets at the MDMWC office as
well as by periodically distributing water conservation related materials through customer water bills.
In addition, the State provides rebate incentives for turf replacement and water-efficient toilet replacement.
9.9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Losses
MDMWC controls water loss by comparing production with consumption, regular and frequent inspection
of distribution facilities, advising customers of observed or suspected leakage downstream of meters, and
immediate leak repair.
9.9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
MDMWC adopted a conservation policy in 2003 as part of its Rules and Regulations, encouraging efficiency
in water use and actively discouraging the waste of water. The policy covers shortages, waste, and
landscaping provisions.
MDMWC has recently added a conservation coordinator to its staff and is in the process of developing a
formal water conservation program.
9.9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
MDMWC makes the following conservation assistance available to high consumption users or those who
request it at no cost:
Location and instructions on how to read water meter.
Identifications of high consumption areas.
Check for leakage.
Irrigation schedule and check timers.
Recommendations on sprinkler repair or improvements.
Information on landscape conservation methods including water efficient design, maintenance, and
plant selection.
9.9.3 Implementation
MDMWC has been implementing its conservation policy since 2003, and has continued to support water
conservation over the past five years through the demand management measures (DMMs) described
herein. The conservation pricing, public outreach, and State-mandated measures due to the drought have
all had a significant impact on reducing per capita demands. In addition, voluntary customer turf
replacement has reduced MDMWC’s largest demand component, landscape irrigation.
MDMWC has achieved its 2020 target per capita water use. MDMWC plans to continue support of its water
conservation policy, water conservation program development, and implementation of DMMs to support
water conservation as a way of life.
9.9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)
Updated water use objectives are being developed for water suppliers to meet the requirements of the
CWC. The final water use objectives for MDMWC have not yet been determined. The DMMs described in
this section are expected to align with MDMWC’s efforts to comply with these objectives when they are
finalized.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
9-29
California State Library Government Publications Section
P.O. Box 942837 Sacramento, CA 94237-0001
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
9.10.5 Public Availability
MDMWC will make the 2020 RUWMP and MDMWC’s WSCP available to the public online in electronic
format on MDMWC’s website (http://www.myomawater.com).
9.10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
MDMWC is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and therefore this
requirement does not apply.
9.10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If MDMWC identifies the need to amend the 2020 RUWMP or MDMWC’s WSCP, it will follow similar
processes for notification of cities, counties, and the general public. MDMWC will hold a public hearing to
consider the amended RUWMP or WSCP and will follow the same procedures for adoption, submittal, and
implementation as the original plans.
2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
10-1
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016. Bulletin 118 – California’s Groundwater – Interim
Update 2016.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019. The Final State Water Project Delivery Capability
Report 2019. Published August 2020.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021. Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook
2020. Published March 2021.
City of Coachella (CWA), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July 2011.
City of Coachella (CWA), 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July 2016.
Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG), 2018. 2018 Coachella Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan. Published December 2018.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July
2011.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update.
Published January 2012.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July
2016.
Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, Mission Springs Water District (CVWD et al.), 2013.
Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan. Published January 2013.
Desert Water Agency (DWA), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Published March 2011.
Desert Water Agency (DWA), 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published June 2016.
Indio Water Authority (IWA), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July 2011.
Indio Water Authority (IWA), 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published July 2016.
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Published June
2011.
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published June
2016.
MWH, 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Published June
2015.
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC), 2018. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Published
January 2018.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020. Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted September 2020.
Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran (Todd), 2021. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year
2019-2020. Prepared for Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water
Agency, and Indio Water Authority. Published February 2021.
United States Census Bureau, 2021. American Community Survey (ACS) 2014 – 2018.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood), 2021. Mission Creek Subbasin Annual
Report for Water Year 2019-2020. Prepared for Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water
Agency, and Mission Springs Water District. Published February 2021.
Appendix A: Urban Water
Management Planning Act
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-1
Appendix A. California Water Code –
Urban Water Management Planning
This material is for informational purposes only and not to be
used in place of official California Water Code (Water Code).
This document presents updated sections of Water Code as of January 1, 2020,
as compiled by DWR staff. The selection focuses on the portions of code directly
relevant to preparation of the urban water management plan and contextually
relevant to urban water suppliers and the Department of Water Resources
(DWR). This includes the Urban Water Management Planning Act and the
Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7-7), and more. Further
legislative information is available on the California Legislative Information
website at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.
The following Water Code sections are included in this appendix.
• Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7)
Water Code Division 6, Part 2.55
o Chapter 1. General Declarations and Policy, Sections 10608
– 10608.8
o Chapter 2. Definitions, Section 10608.12
o Chapter 3. Urban Retail Water Suppliers, Sections 10608.16
– 10608.44
o Chapter 4. Agricultural Water Suppliers, Section 10608.48
o Chapter 5. Sustainable Water Management, Section
10608.50
o Chapter 6. Standardized Data Collection, Section 10608.52
o Chapter 7. Funding Provisions, Sections 10608.56 –
10608.60
o Chapter 8. Quantifying Agricultural Water Use Efficiency,
Section 10608.64
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-2
• Urban Water Management Planning Act
Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6
o Chapter 1. General Declaration and Policy, Sections 10610 –
10610.4
o Chapter 2. Definitions, Sections 10611 – 10618
o Chapter 3. Urban Water Management Plans
Article 1. General Provisions, Sections 10620 – 10621
Article 2. Contents of Plans, Sections 10630 – 10634
Article 2.5. Water Service Reliability, Section 10635
Article 3. Adoption and Implementation of Plans, Sections
10640 – 10645
o Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Provisions, Sections 10650 –
10657
PART 2.55. SUSTAINABLE WATER USE AND DEMAND REDUCTION
CHAPTER 1. General Declaration and Policy [10608 – 10608.8]
10608. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Water is a public resource that the California Constitution protects
against waste and unreasonable use.
(b) Growing population, climate change, and the need to protect and
grow California’s economy while protecting and restoring our fish
and wildlife habitats make it essential that the state manage its
water resources as efficiently as possible.
(c) Diverse regional water supply portfolios will increase water supply
reliability and reduce dependence on the Delta.
(d) Reduced water use through conservation provides significant
energy and environmental benefits, and can help protect water
quality, improve streamflows, and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
(e) The success of state and local water conservation programs to
increase efficiency of water use is best determined on the basis of
measurable outcomes related to water use or efficiency.
(f) Improvements in technology and management practices offer the
potential for increasing water efficiency in California over time,
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-3
providing an essential water management tool to meet the need
for water for urban, agricultural, and environmental uses.
(g) The Governor has called for a 20 percent per capita reduction in
urban water use statewide by 2020.
(h) The factors used to formulate water use efficiency targets can vary
significantly from location to location based on factors including
weather, patterns of urban and suburban development, and past
efforts to enhance water use efficiency.
(i) Per capita water use is a valid measure of a water provider’s
efforts to reduce urban water use within its service area. However,
per capita water use is less useful for measuring relative water use
efficiency between different water providers. Differences in
weather, historical patterns of urban and suburban development,
and density of housing in a particular location need to be
considered when assessing per capita water use as a measure of
efficiency.
10608.4. It is the intent of the Legislature, by the enactment of this part, to
do all of the following:
(a) Require all water suppliers to increase the efficiency of use of this
essential resource.
(b) Establish a framework to meet the state targets for urban water
conservation identified in this part and called for by the Governor.
(c) Measure increased efficiency of urban water use on a per capita
basis.
(d) Establish a method or methods for urban retail water suppliers to
determine targets for achieving increased water use efficiency by
the year 2020, in accordance with the Governor’s goal of a 20-
percent reduction.
(e) Establish consistent water use efficiency planning and
implementation standards for urban water suppliers and
agricultural water suppliers.
(f) Promote urban water conservation standards that are consistent
with the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s adopted
best management practices and the requirements for demand
management in Section 10631.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-4
(g) Establish standards that recognize and provide credit to water
suppliers that made substantial capital investments in urban water
conservation since the drought of the early 1990s.
(h) Recognize and account for the investment of urban retail water
suppliers in providing recycled water for beneficial uses.
(i) Require implementation of specified efficient water management
practices for agricultural water suppliers.
(j) Support the economic productivity of California’s agricultural,
commercial, and industrial sectors.
(k) Advance regional water resources management.
10608.8. (a) (1) Water use efficiency measures adopted and implemented
pursuant to this part or Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800) are water
conservation measures subject to the protections provided under Section
1011.
(2) Because an urban agency is not required to meet its urban
water use target until 2020 pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 10608.24, an urban retail water supplier’s failure to
meet those targets shall not establish a violation of law for
purposes of any state administrative or judicial proceeding
prior to January 1, 2021. Nothing in this paragraph limits the
use of data reported to the department or the board in
litigation or an administrative proceeding. This paragraph
shall become inoperative on January 1, 2021.
(3) To the extent feasible, the department and the board shall
provide for the use of water conservation reports required
under this part to meet the requirements of Section 1011 for
water conservation reporting.
(b) This part does not limit or otherwise affect the application of
Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 11340), Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 11370), Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 11400), and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500)
of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(c) This part does not require a reduction in the total water used in the
agricultural or urban sectors, because other factors, including, but
not limited to, changes in agricultural economics or population
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-5
growth may have greater effects on water use. This part does not
limit the economic productivity of California’s agricultural,
commercial, or industrial sectors.
(d) The requirements of this part do not apply to an agricultural water
supplier that is a party to the Quantification Settlement
Agreement, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1 of Chapter
617 of the Statutes of 2002, during the period within which the
Quantification Settlement Agreement remains in effect. After the
expiration of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, to the
extent conservation water projects implemented as part of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement remain in effect, the
conserved water created as part of those projects shall be credited
against the obligations of the agricultural water supplier pursuant
to this part.
CHAPTER 2. Definitions [10608.12]
10608.12. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions
govern the construction of this part:
(a) “Agricultural water supplier” means a water supplier, either
publicly or privately owned, providing water to 10,000 or more
irrigated acres, excluding recycled water. “Agricultural water
supplier” includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of
the basis of right, that distributes or sells water for ultimate resale
to customers. “Agricultural water supplier” does not include the
department.
(b) “Base daily per capita water use” means any of the following:
(1) The urban retail water supplier’s estimate of its average
gross water use, reported in gallons per capita per day and
calculated over a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier
than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31,
2010.
(2) For an urban retail water supplier that meets at least 10
percent of its 2008 measured retail water demand through
recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an
urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water
supplier, the urban retail water supplier may extend the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-6
calculation described in paragraph (1) up to an additional five
years to a maximum of a continuous 15-year period ending
no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than
December 31, 2010.
(3) For the purposes of Section 10608.22, the urban retail water
supplier’s estimate of its average gross water use, reported
in gallons per capita per day and calculated over a
continuous five-year period ending no earlier than December
31, 2007, and no later than December 31, 2010.
(c) “Baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water use”
means an urban retail water supplier’s base daily per capita water
use for commercial, industrial, and institutional users.
(d) “CII water use” means water used by commercial water users,
industrial water users, institutional water users, and large
landscape water users.
(e) “Commercial water user” means a water user that provides or
distributes a product or service.
(f) “Compliance daily per capita water use” means the gross water use
during the final year of the reporting period, reported in gallons
per capita per day.
(g) “Disadvantaged community” means a community with an annual
median household income that is less than 80 percent of the
statewide annual median household income.
(h) “Gross water use” means the total volume of water, whether
treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban
retail water supplier, excluding all of the following:
(1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an
urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier.
(2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier
places into long-term storage.
(3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys
for use by another urban water supplier.
(4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as
otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24.
(i) “Industrial water user” means a water user that is primarily a
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-7
manufacturer or processor of materials as defined by the North
American Industry Classification System code sectors 31 to 33,
inclusive, or an entity that is a water user primarily engaged in
research and development.
(j) “Institutional water user” means a water user dedicated to public
service. This type of user includes, among other users, higher
education institutions, schools, courts, churches, hospitals,
government facilities, and nonprofit research institutions.
(k) “Interim urban water use target” means the midpoint between the
urban retail water supplier’s base daily per capita water use and
the urban retail water supplier’s urban water use target for 2020.
(l) “Large landscape” means a nonresidential landscape as described
in the performance measures for CII water use adopted pursuant
to Section 10609.10.
(m) “Locally cost effective” means that the present value of the local
benefits of implementing an agricultural efficiency water
management practice is greater than or equal to the present value
of the local cost of implementing that measure.
(n) “Performance measures” means actions to be taken by urban retail
water suppliers that will result in increased water use efficiency by
CII water users. Performance measures may include, but are not
limited to, educating CII water users on best management practices,
conducting water use audits, and preparing water management
plans. Performance measures do not include process water.
(o) “Potable reuse” means direct potable reuse, indirect potable reuse
for groundwater recharge, and reservoir water augmentation as
those terms are defined in Section 13561.
(p) “Process water” means water used by industrial water users for
producing a product or product content or water used for research
and development. Process water includes, but is not limited to,
continuous manufacturing processes, and water used for testing,
cleaning, and maintaining equipment. Water used to cool
machinery or buildings used in the manufacturing process or
necessary to maintain product quality or chemical characteristics
for product manufacturing or control rooms, data centers,
laboratories, clean rooms, and other industrial facility units that
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-8
are integral to the manufacturing or research and development
process is process water. Water used in the manufacturing process
that is necessary for complying with local, state, and federal health
and safety laws, and is not incidental water, is process water.
Process water does not mean incidental water uses.
(q) “Recycled water” means recycled water, as defined in subdivision
(n) of Section 13050.
(r) “Regional water resources management” means sources of supply
resulting from watershed-based planning for sustainable local
water reliability or any of the following alternative sources of
water:
(1) The capture and reuse of stormwater or rainwater.
(2) The use of recycled water.
(3) The desalination of brackish groundwater.
(4) The conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in a
manner that is consistent with the safe yield of the
groundwater basin.
(s) “Reporting period” means the years for which an urban retail water
supplier reports compliance with the urban water use targets.
(t) “Urban retail water supplier” means a water supplier, either
publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable
municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies
more than 3,000 acre-feet of potable water annually at retail for
municipal purposes.
(u) “Urban water use objective” means an estimate of aggregate
efficient water use for the previous year based on adopted water
use efficiency standards and local service area characteristics for
that year, as described in Section 10609.20.
(v) “Urban water use target” means the urban retail water supplier’s
targeted future daily per capita water use.
(w) “Urban wholesale water supplier” means a water supplier, either
publicly or privately owned, that provides more than 3,000 acre-
feet of water annually at wholesale for potable municipal purposes.
CHAPTER 3. Urban Retail Water Suppliers [10608.16 – 10608.44]
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-9
10608.16. (a) The state shall achieve a 20-percent reduction in urban per
capita water use in California on or before December 31, 2020.
(1) The state shall make incremental progress towards the state
target specified in subdivision (a) by reducing urban per
capita water use by at least 10 percent on or before
December 31, 2015.
10608.20. (a) (1) Each urban retail water supplier shall develop urban
water use targets and an interim urban water use target by July 1, 2011.
Urban retail water suppliers may elect to determine and report progress
toward achieving these targets on an individual or regional basis, as
provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28, and may determine the
targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that the urban water use
targets described in paragraph (1) cumulatively result in a
20-percent reduction from the baseline daily per capita water
use by December 31, 2020.
(b) An urban retail water supplier shall adopt one of the following
methods for determining its urban water use target pursuant to
subdivision (a):
(1) Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier’s baseline
per capita daily water use.
(2) The per capita daily water use that is estimated using the
sum of the following performance standards:
(A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita
daily water use as a provisional standard. Upon
completion of the department’s 2017 report to the
Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard
may be adjusted by the Legislature by statute.
(B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential
meters or connections, water efficiency equivalent to the
standards of the Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with
Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California
Code of Regulations, as in effect the later of the year of
the landscape’s installation or 1992. An urban retail
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-10
water supplier using the approach specified in this
subparagraph shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or
other best available technology to develop an accurate
estimate of landscaped areas.
(C) For commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, a 10-
percent reduction in water use from the baseline
commercial, industrial, and institutional water use by
2020.
(3) Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region
target, as set forth in the state’s draft 20x2020 Water
Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009). If the service area
of an urban water supplier includes more than one hydrologic
region, the supplier shall apportion its service area to each
region based on population or area.
(4) A method that shall be identified and developed by the
department, through a public process, and reported to the
Legislature no later than December 31, 2010. The method
developed by the department shall identify per capita targets
that cumulatively result in a statewide 20-percent reduction
in urban daily per capita water use by December 31, 2020.
In developing urban daily per capita water use targets, the
department shall do all of the following:
(A) Consider climatic differences within the state.
(B) Consider population density differences within the
state.
(C) Provide flexibility to communities and regions in
meeting the targets.
(D) Consider different levels of per capita water use
according to plant water needs in different regions.
(E) Consider different levels of commercial, industrial, and
institutional water use in different regions of the state.
(F) Avoid placing an undue hardship on communities that
have implemented conservation measures or taken
actions to keep per capita water use low.
(c) If the department adopts a regulation pursuant to paragraph (4) of
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-11
subdivision (b) that results in a requirement that an urban retail
water supplier achieve a reduction in daily per capita water use
that is greater than 20 percent by December 31, 2020, an urban
retail water supplier that adopted the method described in
paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) may limit its urban water use
target to a reduction of not more than 20 percent by December 31,
2020, by adopting the method described in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b).
(d) The department shall update the method described in paragraph
(4) of subdivision (b) and report to the Legislature by December
31, 2014. An urban retail water supplier that adopted the method
described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) may adopt a new
urban daily per capita water use target pursuant to this updated
method.
(e) An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water
management plan due in 2010 pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing
with Section 10610) the baseline daily per capita water use, urban
water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance
daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining
those estimates, including references to supporting data.
(f) When calculating per capita values for the purposes of this chapter,
an urban retail water supplier shall determine population using
federal, state, and local population reports and projections.
(g) An urban retail water supplier may update its 2020 urban water
use target in its 2015 urban water management plan required
pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(h) (1) The department, through a public process and in consultation
with the California Urban Water Conservation Council, shall develop
technical methodologies and criteria for the consistent
implementation of this part, including, but not limited to, both of
the following:
(A) Methodologies for calculating base daily per capita
water use, baseline commercial, industrial, and
institutional water use, compliance daily per capita
water use, gross water use, service area population,
indoor residential water use, and landscaped area
water use.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-12
(B) Criteria for adjustments pursuant to subdivisions (d)
and (e) of Section 10608.24.
(2) The department shall post the methodologies and criteria
developed pursuant to this subdivision on its internet
website, and make written copies available, by October 1,
2010. An urban retail water supplier shall use the methods
developed by the department in compliance with this part.
(i) (1) The department shall adopt regulations for implementation of
the provisions relating to process water in accordance with Section
10608.12, subdivision (e) of Section 10608.24, and subdivision (d)
of Section 10608.26.
(2) The initial adoption of a regulation authorized by this
subdivision is deemed to address an emergency, for
purposes of Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the
Government Code, and the department is hereby exempted
for that purpose from the requirements of subdivision (b) of
Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. After the initial
adoption of an emergency regulation pursuant to this
subdivision, the department shall not request approval from
the Office of Administrative Law to readopt the regulation as
an emergency regulation pursuant to Section 11346.1 of the
Government Code.
(j) (1) An urban retail water supplier is granted an extension to July 1,
2011, for adoption of an urban water management plan pursuant
to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) due in 2010 to allow
the use of technical methodologies developed by the department
pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (h).
An urban retail water supplier that adopts an urban water
management plan due in 2010 that does not use the
methodologies developed by the department pursuant to
subdivision (h) shall amend the plan by July 1, 2011, to comply
with this part.
(2) An urban wholesale water supplier whose urban water
management plan prepared pursuant to Part 2.6
(commencing with Section 10610) was due and not
submitted in 2010 is granted an extension to July 1, 2011, to
permit coordination between an urban wholesale water
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-13
supplier and urban retail water suppliers.
10608.22. Notwithstanding the method adopted by an urban retail water
supplier pursuant to Section 10608.20, an urban retail water supplier’s per
capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily
per capita water use as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section
10608.12. This section does not apply to an urban retail water supplier with
a base daily per capita water use at or below 100 gallons per capita per day.
10608.24. (a) Each urban retail water supplier shall meet its interim urban
water use target by December 31, 2015.
(b) Each urban retail water supplier shall meet its urban water use
target by December 31, 2020.
(c) An urban retail water supplier’s compliance daily per capita water
use shall be the measure of progress toward achievement of its
urban water use target.
(d) (1) When determining compliance daily per capita water use, an
urban retail water supplier may consider the following factors:
(A) Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the
baseline period compared to the compliance reporting
period.
(B) Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water
use resulting from increased business output and
economic development that have occurred during the
reporting period.
(C) Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting
from fire suppression services or other extraordinary
events, or from new or expanded operations, that have
occurred during the reporting period.
(2) If the urban retail water supplier elects to adjust its estimate
of compliance daily per capita water use due to one or more
of the factors described in paragraph (1), it shall provide the
basis for, and data supporting, the adjustment in the report
required by Section 10608.40.
(e) When developing the urban water use target pursuant to Section
10608.20, an urban retail water supplier that has a substantial
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-14
percentage of industrial water use in its service area may exclude
process water from the calculation of gross water use to avoid a
disproportionate burden on another customer sector.
(f) (1) An urban retail water supplier that includes agricultural water
use in an urban water management plan pursuant to Part 2.6
(commencing with Section 10610) may include the agricultural
water use in determining gross water use. An urban retail water
supplier that includes agricultural water use in determining gross
water use and develops its urban water use target pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 10608.20 shall use a
water efficient standard for agricultural irrigation of 100 percent of
reference evapotranspiration multiplied by the crop coefficient for
irrigated acres.
(2) An urban retail water supplier, that is also an agricultural
water supplier, is not subject to the requirements of Chapter
4 (commencing with Section 10608.48), if the agricultural
water use is incorporated into its urban water use target
pursuant to paragraph (1).
10608.26. (a) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier
shall conduct at least one public hearing to accomplish all of the following:
(1) Allow community input regarding the urban retail water
supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part.
(2) Consider the economic impacts of the urban retail water
supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part.
(3) Adopt a method, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
10608.20, for determining its urban water use target.
(b) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier may
meet its urban water use target through efficiency improvements
in any combination among its customer sectors. An urban retail
water supplier shall avoid placing a disproportionate burden on any
customer sector.
(c) For an urban retail water supplier that supplies water to a United
States Department of Defense military installation, the urban retail
water supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part
shall consider the conservation of that military installation under
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-15
federal Executive Order 13514.
(d) (1) Any ordinance or resolution adopted by an urban retail water
supplier after the effective date of this section shall not require
existing customers as of the effective date of this section, to
undertake changes in product formulation, operations, or
equipment that would reduce process water use, but may provide
technical assistance and financial incentives to those customers to
implement efficiency measures for process water. This section shall
not limit an ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a
declaration of drought emergency by an urban retail water
supplier.
(2) This part shall not be construed or enforced so as to interfere
with the requirements of Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 113980) to Chapter 13 (commencing with Section
114380), inclusive, of Part 7 of Division 104 of the Health
and Safety Code, or any requirement or standard for the
protection of public health, public safety, or worker safety
established by federal, state, or local government or
recommended by recognized standard setting organizations
or trade associations.
10608.28. (a) An urban retail water supplier may meet its urban water use
target within its retail service area, or through mutual agreement, by any of
the following:
(1) Through an urban wholesale water supplier.
(2) Through a regional agency authorized to plan and implement
water conservation, including, but not limited to, an agency
established under the Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency Act (Division 31 (commencing with
Section 81300)).
(3) Through a regional water management group as defined in
Section 10537.
(4) By an integrated regional water management funding area.
(5) By hydrologic region.
(6) Through other appropriate geographic scales for which
computation methods have been developed by the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-16
department.
(b) A regional water management group, with the written consent of
its member agencies, may undertake any or all planning,
reporting, and implementation functions under this chapter for the
member agencies that consent to those activities. Any data or
reports shall provide information both for the regional water
management group and separately for each consenting urban retail
water supplier and urban wholesale water supplier.
10608.32. All costs incurred pursuant to this part by a water utility
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission may be recoverable in rates
subject to review and approval by the Public Utilities Commission, and may
be recorded in a memorandum account and reviewed for reasonableness by
the Public Utilities Commission.
10608.34. (a) (1) On or before January 1, 2017, the department shall
adopt rules for all of the following:
(A) The conduct of standardized water loss audits by urban
retail water suppliers in accordance with the method
adopted by the American Water Works Association in
the third edition of Water Audits and Loss Control
Programs, Manual M36 and in the Free Water Audit
Software, version 5.0.
(B) The process for validating a water loss audit report
prior to submitting the report to the department. For
the purposes of this section, “validating” is a process
whereby an urban retail water supplier uses a technical
expert to confirm the basis of all data entries in the
urban retail water supplier’s water loss audit report and
to appropriately characterize the quality of the reported
data. The validation process shall follow the principles
and terminology laid out by the American Water Works
Association in the third edition of Water Audits and
Loss Control Programs, Manual M36 and in the Free
Water Audit Software, version 5.0. A validated water
loss audit report shall include the name and technical
qualifications of the person engaged for validation.
(C) The technical qualifications required of a person to
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-17
engage in validation, as described in subparagraph (B).
(D) The certification requirements for a person selected by
an urban retail water supplier to provide validation of
its own water loss audit report.
(E) The method of submitting a water loss audit report to
the department.
(2) The department shall update rules adopted pursuant to
paragraph (1) no later than six months after the release of
subsequent editions of the American Water Works
Association’s Water Audits and Loss Control Programs,
Manual M36. Except as provided by the department, until the
department adopts updated rules pursuant to this paragraph,
an urban retail water supplier may rely upon a subsequent
edition of the American Water Works Association’s Water
Audits and Loss Control Programs, Manual M36 or the Free
Water Audit Software.
(b) (1) On or before October 1 of each year until October 1, 2023,
each urban retail water supplier reporting on a calendar year basis
shall submit a completed and validated water loss audit report for
the previous calendar year or the previous fiscal year as prescribed
by the department pursuant to subdivision (a).
(2) On or before January 1 of each year until January 1, 2024,
each urban retail water supplier reporting on a fiscal year
basis shall submit a completed and validated water loss audit
report for the previous fiscal year as prescribed by the
department pursuant to subdivision (a).
(3) On or before January 1, 2024, and on or before January 1 of
each year thereafter, each urban retail water supplier shall
submit a completed and validated water loss audit report for
the previous calendar year or previous fiscal year as part of
the report submitted to the department pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 10609.24 and as prescribed by the
department pursuant to subdivision (a).
(4) Water loss audit reports submitted on or before October 1,
2017, may be completed and validated with assistance as
described in subdivision (c).
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-18
(c) Using funds available for the 2016–17 fiscal year, the board shall
contribute up to four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000)
towards procuring water loss audit report validation assistance for
urban retail water suppliers.
(d) Each water loss audit report submitted to the department shall be
accompanied by information, in a form specified by the
department, identifying steps taken in the preceding year to
increase the validity of data entered into the final audit, reduce the
volume of apparent losses, and reduce the volume of real losses.
(e) At least one of the following employees of an urban retail water
supplier shall attest to each water loss audit report submitted to
the department:
(1) The chief financial officer.
(2) The chief engineer.
(3) The general manager.
(f) The department shall deem incomplete and return to the urban
retail water supplier any final water loss audit report found by the
department to be incomplete, not validated, unattested, or
incongruent with known characteristics of water system operations.
A water supplier shall resubmit a completed water loss audit report
within 90 days of an audit being returned by the department.
(g) The department shall post all validated water loss audit reports on
its internet website in a manner that allows for comparisons across
water suppliers. The department shall make the validated water
loss audit reports available for public viewing in a timely manner
after their receipt.
(h) Using available funds, the department shall provide technical
assistance to guide urban retail water suppliers’ water loss
detection programs, including, but not limited to, metering
techniques, pressure management techniques, condition-based
assessment techniques for transmission and distribution pipelines,
and utilization of portable and permanent water loss detection
devices.
(i) No earlier than January 1, 2019, and no later than July 1, 2020, the
board shall adopt rules requiring urban retail water suppliers to
meet performance standards for the volume of water losses. In
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-19
adopting these rules, the board shall employ full life-cycle cost
accounting to evaluate the costs of meeting the performance
standards. The board may consider establishing a minimum
allowable water loss threshold that, if reached and maintained by
an urban water supplier, would exempt the urban water supplier
from further water loss reduction requirements.
10608.35. (a) The department, in coordination with the board, shall
conduct necessary studies and investigations and make a recommendation
to the Legislature, by January 1, 2020, on the feasibility of developing and
enacting water loss reporting requirements for urban wholesale water
suppliers.
(b) The studies and investigations shall include an evaluation of the
suitability of applying the processes and requirements of Section
10608.34 to urban wholesale water suppliers.
(c) In conducting necessary studies and investigations and developing
its recommendation, the department shall solicit broad public
participation from stakeholders and other interested persons.
10608.36. Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water
management plans required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section
10610) an assessment of their present and proposed future measures,
programs, and policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by
this part.
10608.40. Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on
their progress in meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban
water management plans submitted pursuant to Section 10631. The data
shall be reported using a standardized form developed pursuant to Section
10608.52.
10608.42. (a) The department shall review the 2015 urban water
management plans and report to the Legislature by July 1, 2017, on
progress towards achieving a 20-percent reduction in urban water use by
December 31, 2020. The report shall include recommendations on changes
to water efficiency standards or urban water use targets to achieve the 20-
percent reduction and to reflect updated efficiency information and
technology changes.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-20
(b) A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be
submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government
Code.
10608.43. The department, in conjunction with the California Urban Water
Conservation Council, by April 1, 2010, shall convene a representative task
force consisting of academic experts, urban retail water suppliers,
environmental organizations, commercial water users, industrial water users,
and institutional water users to develop alternative best management
practices for commercial, industrial, and institutional users and an
assessment of the potential statewide water use efficiency improvement in
the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors that would result from
implementation of these best management practices. The taskforce, in
conjunction with the department, shall submit a report to the Legislature by
April 1, 2012, that shall include a review of multiple sectors within
commercial, industrial, and institutional users and that shall recommend
water use efficiency standards for commercial, industrial, and institutional
users among various sectors of water use. The report shall include, but not
be limited to, the following:
(a) Appropriate metrics for evaluating commercial, industrial, and
institutional water use.
(b) Evaluation of water demands for manufacturing processes, goods,
and cooling.
(c) Evaluation of public infrastructure necessary for delivery of
recycled water to the commercial, industrial, and institutional
sectors.
(d) Evaluation of institutional and economic barriers to increased
recycled water use within the commercial, industrial, and
institutional sectors.
(e) Identification of technical feasibility and cost of the best
management practices to achieve more efficient water use
statewide in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors
that is consistent with the public interest and reflects past
investments in water use efficiency.
10608.44. Each state agency shall reduce water use at facilities it operates
to support urban retail water suppliers in meeting the target identified in
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-21
Section 10608.16.
CHAPTER 4. Agricultural Water Suppliers [10608.48]
10608.48. (a) On or before July 31, 2012, an agricultural water supplier
shall implement efficient water management practices pursuant to
subdivisions (b) and (c).
(b) Agricultural water suppliers shall implement both of the following
critical efficient management practices:
(1) Measure the volume of water delivered to customers with
sufficient accuracy to comply with subdivision (a) of Section
531.10 and to implement paragraph (2).
(2) Adopt a pricing structure for water customers based at least
in part on quantity delivered.
(c) Agricultural water suppliers shall implement additional efficient
management practices, including, but not limited to, practices to
accomplish all of the following, if the measures are locally cost
effective and technically feasible:
(1) Facilitate alternative land use for lands with exceptionally
high water duties or whose irrigation contributes to
significant problems, including drainage.
(2) Facilitate use of available recycled water that otherwise
would not be used beneficially, meets all health and safety
criteria, and does not harm crops or soils.
(3) Facilitate the financing of capital improvements for on-farm
irrigation systems.
(4) Implement an incentive pricing structure that promotes one
or more of the following goals:
(A) More efficient water use at the farm level.
(B) Conjunctive use of groundwater.
(C) Appropriate increase of groundwater recharge.
(D) Reduction in problem drainage.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-22
(E) Improved management of environmental resources.
(F) Effective management of all water sources throughout
the year by adjusting seasonal pricing structures based
on current conditions.
(5) Expand line or pipe distribution systems, and construct
regulatory reservoirs to increase distribution system
flexibility and capacity, decrease maintenance, and reduce
seepage.
(6) Increase flexibility in water ordering by, and delivery to,
water customers within operational limits.
(7) Construct and operate supplier spill and tailwater recovery
systems.
(8) Increase planned conjunctive use of surface water and
groundwater within the supplier service area.
(9) Automate canal control structures.
(10) Facilitate or promote customer pump testing and evaluation.
(11) Designate a water conservation coordinator who will develop
and implement the water management plan and prepare
progress reports.
(12) Provide for the availability of water management services to
water users. These services may include, but are not limited
to, all of the following:
(A) On-farm irrigation and drainage system evaluations.
(B) Normal year and real-time irrigation scheduling and
crop evapotranspiration information.
(C) Surface water, groundwater, and drainage water
quantity and quality data.
(D) Agricultural water management educational programs
and materials for farmers, staff, and the public.
(13) Evaluate the policies of agencies that provide the supplier
with water to identify the potential for institutional changes
to allow more flexible water deliveries and storage.
(14) Evaluate and improve the efficiencies of the supplier’s
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-23
pumps.
(d) Agricultural water suppliers shall include in the agricultural water
management plans required pursuant to Part 2.8 (commencing
with Section 10800) a report on which efficient water management
practices have been implemented and are planned to be
implemented, an estimate of the water use efficiency
improvements that have occurred since the last report, and an
estimate of the water use efficiency improvements estimated to
occur five and 10 years in the future. If an agricultural water
supplier determines that an efficient water management practice is
not locally cost effective or technically feasible, the supplier shall
submit information documenting that determination.
(e) The department shall require information about the
implementation of efficient water management practices to be
reported using a standardized form developed pursuant to Section
10608.52. (f) An agricultural water supplier may meet the
requirements of subdivisions (d) and (e) by submitting to the
department a water conservation plan submitted to the United
States Bureau of Reclamation that meets the requirements
described in Section 10828.
(f) On or before December 31, 2013, December 31, 2016, and
December 31, 2021, the department, in consultation with the
board, shall submit to the Legislature a report on the agricultural
efficient water management practices that have been implemented
and are planned to be implemented and an assessment of the
manner in which the implementation of those efficient water
management practices has affected and will affect agricultural
operations, including estimated water use efficiency improvements,
if any.
(g) The department may update the efficient water management
practices required pursuant to subdivision (c), in consultation with
the Agricultural Water Management Council, the United States
Bureau of Reclamation, and the board. All efficient water
management practices for agricultural water use pursuant to this
chapter shall be adopted or revised by the department only after
the department conducts public hearings to allow participation of
the diverse geographical areas and interests of the state.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-24
(h) (1) The department shall adopt regulations that provide for a range
of options that agricultural water suppliers may use or implement
to comply with the measurement requirement in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b).
(2) The initial adoption of a regulation authorized by this
subdivision is deemed to address an emergency, for
purposes of Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the
Government Code, and the department is hereby exempted
for that purpose from the requirements of subdivision (b) of
Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. After the initial
adoption of an emergency regulation pursuant to this
subdivision, the department shall not request approval from
the Office of Administrative Law to readopt the regulation as
an emergency regulation pursuant to Section 11346.1 of the
Government Code.
CHAPTER 5. Sustainable Water Management [10608.50]
10608.50. (a) The department, in consultation with the board, shall
promote implementation of regional water resources management practices
through increased incentives and removal of barriers consistent with state
and federal law. Potential changes may include, but are not limited to, all of
the following:
(1) Revisions to the requirements for urban and agricultural
water management plans.
(2) Revisions to the requirements for integrated regional water
management plans.
(3) Revisions to the eligibility for state water management
grants and loans.
(4) Revisions to state or local permitting requirements that
increase water supply opportunities, but do not weaken
water quality protection under state and federal law.
(5) Increased funding for research, feasibility studies, and
project construction.
(6) Expanding technical and educational support for local land
use and water management agencies.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-25
(b) No later than January 1, 2011, and updated as part of the
California Water Plan, the department, in consultation with the
board, and with public input, shall propose new statewide targets,
or review and update existing statewide targets, for regional water
resources management practices, including, but not limited to,
recycled water, brackish groundwater desalination, and infiltration
and direct use of urban stormwater runoff.
CHAPTER 6. Standardized Data Collection [10608.52]
10608.52. (a) The department, in consultation with the board, the
California Bay-Delta Authority or its successor agency, the State Department
of Public Health, and the Public Utilities Commission, shall develop a single
standardized water use reporting form to meet the water use information
needs of each agency, including the needs of urban water suppliers that
elect to determine and report progress toward achieving targets on a
regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28.
(b) At a minimum, the form shall be developed to accommodate
information sufficient to assess an urban water supplier’s
compliance with conservation targets pursuant to Section
10608.24 and an agricultural water supplier’s compliance with
implementation of efficient water management practices pursuant
to subdivision (a) of Section 10608.48. The form shall
accommodate reporting by urban water suppliers on an individual
or regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section
10608.28.
CHAPTER 7. Funding Provisions [10608.56 – 10608.60]
10608.56. (a) On and after July 1, 2016, an urban retail water supplier is
not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state
unless the supplier complies with this part.
(b) On and after July 1, 2013, an agricultural water supplier is not
eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the
state unless the supplier complies with this part.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine
that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or
loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-26
reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban
retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval
a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to be included in the grant
or loan agreement, for achieving the per capita reductions. The
supplier may request grant or loan funds to achieve the per capita
reductions to the extent the request is consistent with the eligibility
requirements applicable to the water funds.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the department shall determine
that an agricultural water supplier is eligible for a water grant or
loan even though the supplier is not implementing all of the
efficient water management practices described in Section
10608.48, if the agricultural water supplier has submitted to the
department for approval a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to
be included in the grant or loan agreement, for implementation of
the efficient water management practices. The supplier may
request grant or loan funds to implement the efficient water
management practices to the extent the request is consistent with
the eligibility requirements applicable to the water funds.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine
that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or
loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita
reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban
retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval
documentation demonstrating that its entire service area qualifies
as a disadvantaged community.
(f) The department shall not deny eligibility to an urban retail water
supplier or agricultural water supplier in compliance with the
requirements of this part and Part 2.8 (commencing with Section
10800), that is participating in a multiagency water project, or an
integrated regional water management plan, developed pursuant
to Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code, solely on the basis
that one or more of the agencies participating in the project or plan
is not implementing all of the requirements of this part or Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 10800).
10608.60. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds made available
by Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code should be expended,
consistent with Division 43 (commencing with Section 75001) of the Public
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-27
Resources Code and upon appropriation by the Legislature, for grants to
implement this part. In the allocation of funding, it is the intent of the
Legislature that the department give consideration to disadvantaged
communities to assist in implementing the requirements of this part.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds made available by
Section 75041 of the Public Resources Code, should be expended,
consistent with Division 43 (commencing with Section 75001) of
the Public Resources Code and upon appropriation by the
Legislature, for direct expenditures to implement this part.
CHAPTER 8. Quantifying Agricultural Water Use Efficiency [10608.64]
10608.64. The department, in consultation with the Agricultural Water
Management Council, academic experts, and other stakeholders, shall
develop a methodology for quantifying the efficiency of agricultural water
use. Alternatives to be assessed shall include, but not be limited to,
determination of efficiency levels based on crop type or irrigation system
distribution uniformity. On or before December 31, 2011, the department
shall report to the Legislature on a proposed methodology and a plan for
implementation. The plan shall include the estimated implementation costs
and the types of data needed to support the methodology. Nothing in this
section authorizes the department to implement a methodology established
pursuant to this section.
PART 2.55. SUSTAINABLE WATER USE AND DEMAND REDUCTION
[10608 – 10609.42]
CHAPTER 9. Urban Water Use Objectives and Water Use Reporting
[10609 – 10609.38]
10609. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that this chapter establishes a
method to estimate the aggregate amount of water that would have been
delivered the previous year by an urban retail water supplier if all that water
had been used efficiently. This estimated aggregate water use is the urban
retail water supplier’s urban water use objective. The method is based on
water use efficiency standards and local service area characteristics for that
year. By comparing the amount of water actually used in the previous year
with the urban water use objective, local urban water suppliers will be in a
better position to help eliminate unnecessary use of water; that is, water
used in excess of that needed to accomplish the intended beneficial use.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-28
(b) The Legislature further finds and declares all of the following:
(1) This chapter establishes standards and practices for the
following water uses:
(A) Indoor residential use.
(B) Outdoor residential use.
(C) CII water use.
(D) Water losses.
(E) Other unique local uses and situations that can have a
material effect on an urban water supplier’s total water use.
(2) This chapter further does all of the following:
(A) Establishes a method to calculate each urban water use
objective.
(B) Considers recycled water quality in establishing
efficient irrigation standards.
(C) Requires the department to provide or otherwise
identify data regarding the unique local conditions to
support the calculation of an urban water use
objective.
(D) Provides for the use of alternative sources of data if
alternative sources are shown to be as accurate as, or
more accurate than, the data provided by the
department.
(E) Requires annual reporting of the previous year’s water
use with the urban water use objective.
(F) Provides a bonus incentive for the amount of potable
recycled water used the previous year when comparing
the previous year’s water use with the urban water use
objective, of up to 10 percent of the urban water use
objective.
(3) This chapter requires the department and the board to solicit
broad public participation from stakeholders and other
interested persons in the development of the standards and
the adoption of regulations pursuant to this chapter.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-29
(4) This chapter preserves the Legislature’s authority over long-
term water use efficiency target setting and ensures
appropriate legislative oversight of the implementation of
this chapter by doing all of the following:
(A) Requiring the Legislative Analyst to conduct a review of
the implementation of this chapter, including
compliance with the adopted standards and
regulations, accuracy of the data, use of alternate
data, and other issues the Legislative Analyst deems
appropriate.
(B) Stating legislative intent that the director of the
department and the chairperson of the board appear
before the appropriate Senate and Assembly policy
committees to report on progress in implementing this
chapter.
(C) Providing one-time-only authority to the department
and board to adopt water use efficiency standards,
except as explicitly provided in this chapter.
Authorization to update the standards shall require
separate legislation.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the following principles apply
to the development and implementation of long-term standards
and urban water use objectives:
(1) Local urban retail water suppliers should have primary
responsibility for meeting standards-based water use targets,
and they shall retain the flexibility to develop their water
supply portfolios, design and implement water conservation
strategies, educate their customers, and enforce their rules.
(2) Long-term standards and urban water use objectives should
advance the state’s goals to mitigate and adapt to climate
change.
(3) Long-term standards and urban water use objectives should
acknowledge the shade, air quality, and heat-island
reduction benefits provided to communities by trees through
the support of water-efficient irrigation practices that keep
trees healthy.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-30
(4) The state should identify opportunities for streamlined
reporting, eliminate redundant data submissions, and
incentivize open access to data collected by urban and
agricultural water suppliers.
10609.2. (a) The board, in coordination with the department, shall adopt
long-term standards for the efficient use of water pursuant to this chapter
on or before June 30, 2022.
(b) Standards shall be adopted for all of the following:
(1) Outdoor residential water use.
(2) Outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated
irrigation meters in connection with CII water use.
(3) A volume for water loss.
(c) When adopting the standards under this section, the board shall
consider the policies of this chapter and the proposed efficiency
standards’ effects on local wastewater management, developed
and natural parklands, and urban tree health. The standards and
potential effects shall be identified by May 30, 2022. The board
shall allow for public comment on potential effects identified by the
board under this subdivision.
(d) The long-term standards shall be set at a level designed so that
the water use objectives, together with other demands excluded
from the long-term standards such as CII indoor water use and CII
outdoor water use not connected to a dedicated landscape meter,
would exceed the statewide conservation targets required pursuant
to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 10608.16).
(e) The board, in coordination with the department, shall adopt by
regulation variances recommended by the department pursuant to
Section 10609.14 and guidelines and methodologies pertaining to
the calculation of an urban retail water supplier’s urban water use
objective recommended by the department pursuant to Section
10609.16.
10609.4. (a) (1) Until January 1, 2025, the standard for indoor residential
water use shall be 55 gallons per capita daily.
(2) Beginning January 1, 2025, and until January 1, 2030, the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-31
standard for indoor residential water use shall be the greater
of 52.5 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended
pursuant to subdivision (b).
(3) Beginning January 1, 2030, the standard for indoor
residential water use shall be the greater of 50 gallons per
capita daily or a standard recommended pursuant to
subdivision (b).
(b) (1) The department, in coordination with the board, shall conduct
necessary studies and investigations and may jointly recommend
to the Legislature a standard for indoor residential water use that
more appropriately reflects best practices for indoor residential
water use than the standard described in subdivision (a). A report
on the results of the studies and investigations shall be made to
the chairpersons of the relevant policy committees of each house
of the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and shall include
information necessary to support the recommended standard, if
there is one. The studies and investigations shall also include an
analysis of the benefits and impacts of how the changing standard
for indoor residential water use will impact water and wastewater
management, including potable water usage, wastewater, recycling
and reuse systems, infrastructure, operations, and supplies.
(2) The studies, investigations, and report described in
paragraph (1) shall include collaboration with, and input
from, a broad group of stakeholders, including, but not
limited to, environmental groups, experts in indoor plumbing,
and water, wastewater, and recycled water agencies.
10609.6. (a) (1) The department, in coordination with the board, shall
conduct necessary studies and investigations and recommend, no later than
October 1, 2021, standards for outdoor residential use for adoption by the
board in accordance with this chapter.
(2) (A) The standards shall incorporate the principles of the model
water efficient landscape ordinance adopted by the department
pursuant to the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Article
10.8 (commencing with Section 65591) of Chapter 3 of Division
1 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
(B) The standards shall apply to irrigable lands.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-32
(C) The standards shall include provisions for swimming
pools, spas, and other water features. Ornamental water
features that are artificially supplied with water, including
ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, shall be analyzed
separately from swimming pools and spas.
(b) The department shall, by January 1, 2021, provide each urban
retail water supplier with data regarding the area of residential
irrigable lands in a manner that can reasonably be applied to the
standards adopted pursuant to this section.
(c) The department shall not recommend standards pursuant to this
section until it has conducted pilot projects or studies, or some
combination of the two, to ensure that the data provided to local
agencies are reasonably accurate for the data’s intended uses,
taking into consideration California’s diverse landscapes and
community characteristics.
10609.8. (a) The department, in coordination with the board, shall conduct
necessary studies and investigations and recommend, no later than October
1, 2021, standards for outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated
irrigation meters or other means of calculating outdoor irrigation use in
connection with CII water use for adoption by the board in accordance with
this chapter.
(b) The standards shall incorporate the principles of the model water
efficient landscape ordinance adopted by the department pursuant
to the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Article 10.8
(commencing with Section 65591) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of
Title 7 of the Government Code).
(c) The standards shall include an exclusion for water for commercial
agricultural use meeting the definition of subdivision (b) of Section
51201 of the Government Code.
10609.9. For purposes of Sections 10609.6 and 10609.8, “principles of the
model water efficient landscape ordinance” means those provisions of the
model water efficient landscape ordinance applicable to the establishment or
determination of the amount of water necessary to efficiently irrigate both
new and existing landscapes. These provisions include, but are not limited
to, all of the following:
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-33
(a) Evapotranspiration adjustment factors, as applicable.
(b) Landscape area.
(c) Maximum applied water allowance.
(d) Reference evapotranspiration.
(e) Special landscape areas, including provisions governing
evapotranspiration adjustment factors for different types of water
used for irrigating the landscape.
10609.10. (a) The department, in coordination with the board, shall
conduct necessary studies and investigations and recommend, no later than
October 1, 2021, performance measures for CII water use for adoption by
the board in accordance with this chapter.
(b) Prior to recommending performance measures for CII water use,
the department shall solicit broad public participation from
stakeholders and other interested persons relating to all of the
following:
(1) Recommendations for a CII water use classification system
for California that address significant uses of water.
(2) Recommendations for setting minimum size thresholds for
converting mixed CII meters to dedicated irrigation meters,
and evaluation of, and recommendations for, technologies
that could be used in lieu of requiring dedicated irrigation
meters.
(3) Recommendations for CII water use best management
practices, which may include, but are not limited to, water
audits and water management plans for those CII customers
that exceed a recommended size, volume of water use, or
other threshold.
(c) Recommendations of appropriate performance measures for CII
water use shall be consistent with the October 21, 2013, report to
the Legislature by the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Task Force entitled “Water Use Best Management Practices,”
including the technical and financial feasibility recommendations
provided in that report, and shall support the economic
productivity of California’s commercial, industrial, and institutional
sectors.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-34
(d) (1) The board, in coordination with the department, shall adopt
performance measures for CII water use on or before June 30,
2022.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-35
(a) Each urban retail water supplier shall implement the
performance measures adopted by the board pursuant to
paragraph (1).
10609.12. The standards for water loss for urban retail water suppliers shall
be the standards adopted by the board pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section
10608.34.
10609.14. (a) The department, in coordination with the board, shall
conduct necessary studies and investigations and, no later than October 1,
2021, recommend for adoption by the board in accordance with this chapter
appropriate variances for unique uses that can have a material effect on an
urban retail water supplier’s urban water use objective.
(b) Appropriate variances may include, but are not limited to,
allowances for the following:
(1) Significant use of evaporative coolers.
(2) Significant populations of horses and other livestock.
(3) Significant fluctuations in seasonal populations.
(4) Significant landscaped areas irrigated with recycled water
having high levels of total dissolved solids.
(5) Significant use of water for soil compaction and dust control.
(6) Significant use of water to supplement ponds and lakes to
sustain wildlife.
(7) Significant use of water to irrigate vegetation for fire
protection.
(8) Significant use of water for commercial or noncommercial
agricultural use.
(c) The department, in recommending variances for adoption by the
board, shall also recommend a threshold of significance for each
recommended variance.
(d) Before including any specific variance in calculating an urban retail
water supplier’s water use objective, the urban retail water
supplier shall request and receive approval by the board for the
inclusion of that variance.
(e) The board shall post on its Internet Web site all of the following:
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-36
(1) A list of all urban retail water suppliers with approved
variances.
(2) The specific variance or variances approved for each urban
retail water supplier.
(3) The data supporting approval of each variance.
10609.15. To help streamline water data reporting, the department and the
board shall do all of the following:
(a) Identify urban water reporting requirements shared by both
agencies, and post on each agency’s Internet Web site how the
data is used for planning, regulatory, or other purposes.
(b) Analyze opportunities for more efficient publication of urban water
reporting requirements within each agency, and analyze how each
agency can integrate various data sets in a publicly accessible
location, identify priority actions, and implement priority actions
identified in the analysis.
(c) Make appropriate data pertaining to the urban water reporting
requirements that are collected by either agency available to the
public according to the principles and requirements of the Open
and Transparent Water Data Act (Part 4.9 (commencing with
Section 12400)).
10609.16. The department, in coordination with the board, shall conduct
necessary studies and investigations and recommend, no later than October
1, 2021, guidelines and methodologies for the board to adopt that identify
how an urban retail water supplier calculates its urban water use objective.
The guidelines and methodologies shall address, as necessary, all of the
following:
(a) Determining the irrigable lands within the urban retail water
supplier’s service area.
(b) Updating and revising methodologies described pursuant to
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (h) of Section
10608.20, as appropriate, including methodologies for calculating
the population in an urban retail water supplier’s service area.
(c) Using landscape area data provided by the department or
alternative data.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-37
(d) Incorporating precipitation data and climate data into estimates of
a urban retail water supplier’s outdoor irrigation budget for its
urban water use objective.
(e) Estimating changes in outdoor landscape area and population, and
calculating the urban water use objective, for years when updated
landscape imagery is not available from the department.
(f) Determining acceptable levels of accuracy for the supporting data,
the urban water use objective, and compliance with the urban
water use objective.
10609.18. The department and the board shall solicit broad public
participation from stakeholders and other interested persons in the
development of the standards and the adoption of regulations pursuant to
this chapter. The board shall hold at least one public meeting before taking
any action on any standard or variance recommended by the department.
10609.20. (a) Each urban retail water supplier shall calculate its urban
water use objective no later than January 1, 2024, and by January 1 every
year thereafter.
(b) The calculation shall be based on the urban retail water supplier’s
water use conditions for the previous calendar or fiscal year.
(c) Each urban water supplier’s urban water use objective shall be
composed of the sum of the following:
(1) Aggregate estimated efficient indoor residential water use.
(2) Aggregate estimated efficient outdoor residential water use.
(3) Aggregate estimated efficient outdoor irrigation of landscape
areas with dedicated irrigation meters or equivalent
technology in connection with CII water use.
(4) Aggregate estimated efficient water losses.
(5) Aggregate estimated water use in accordance with variances,
as appropriate.
(d) (1) An urban retail water supplier that delivers water from a
groundwater basin, reservoir, or other source that is augmented by
potable reuse water may adjust its urban water use objective by a
bonus incentive calculated pursuant to this subdivision.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-38
(2) The water use objective bonus incentive shall be the volume
of its potable reuse delivered to residential water users and
to landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters in
connection with CII water use, on an acre-foot basis.
(3) The bonus incentive pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be
limited in accordance with one of the following:
(A) The bonus incentive shall not exceed 15 percent of the
urban water supplier’s water use objective for any
potable reuse water produced at an existing facility.
(B) The bonus incentive shall not exceed 10 percent of the
urban water supplier’s water use objective for any
potable reuse water produced at any facility that is not
an existing facility.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, “existing facility” means a
facility that meets all of the following:
(A) The facility has a certified environmental impact
report, mitigated negative declaration, or negative
declaration on or before January 1, 2019.
(B) The facility begins producing and delivering potable
reuse water on or before January 1, 2022.
(C) The facility uses microfiltration and reverse osmosis
technologies to produce the potable reuse water.
(e) (1) The calculation of the urban water use objective shall be made
using landscape area and other data provided by the department
and pursuant to the standards, guidelines, and methodologies
adopted by the board. The department shall provide data to the
urban water supplier at a level of detail sufficient to allow the
urban water supplier to verify its accuracy at the parcel level.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an urban retail water supplier may
use alternative data in calculating the urban water use objective if
the supplier demonstrates to the department that the alternative
data are equivalent, or superior, in quality and accuracy to the
data provided by the department. The department may provide
technical assistance to an urban retail water supplier in evaluating
whether the alternative data are appropriate for use in calculating
the supplier’s urban water use objective.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-39
10609.21. (a) For purposes of Section 10609.20, and notwithstanding
paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 10609.20, “existing facility” also
includes the North City Project, phase one of the Pure Water San Diego
Program, for which an environmental impact report was certified on April 10,
2018.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2019.
10609.22. (a) An urban retail water supplier shall calculate its actual urban
water use no later than January 1, 2024, and by January 1 every year
thereafter.
(b) The calculation shall be based on the urban retail water supplier’s
water use for the previous calendar or fiscal year.
(c) Each urban water supplier’s urban water use shall be composed of
the sum of the following:
(1) Aggregate residential water use.
(2) Aggregate outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with
dedicated irrigation meters in connection with CII water use.
(3) Aggregate water losses.
10609.24. (a) An urban retail water supplier shall submit a report to the
department no later than January 1, 2024, and by January 1 every year
thereafter. The report shall include all of the following:
(1) The urban water use objective calculated pursuant to Section
10609.20 along with relevant supporting data.
(2) The actual urban water use calculated pursuant to Section
10609.22 along with relevant supporting data.
(3) Documentation of the implementation of the performance
measures for CII water use.
(4) A description of the progress made towards meeting the
urban water use objective.
(5) The validated water loss audit report conducted pursuant to
Section 10608.34.
(b) The department shall post the reports and information on its
internet website.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-40
(c) The board may issue an information order or conservation order to,
or impose civil liability on, an entity or individual for failure to
submit a report required by this section.
10609.25. As part of the first report submitted to the department by an
urban retail water supplier no later than January 1, 2024, pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 10609.24, each urban retail water supplier shall
provide a narrative that describes the water demand management measures
that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its urban water use objective
by January 1, 2027.
10609.26. (a) (1) On and after January 1, 2024, the board may issue
informational orders pertaining to water production, water use, and water
conservation to an urban retail water supplier that does not meet its urban
water use objective required by this chapter. Informational orders are
intended to obtain information on supplier activities, water production, and
conservation efforts in order to identify technical assistance needs and assist
urban water suppliers in meeting their urban water use objectives.
(2) In determining whether to issue an informational order, the
board shall consider the degree to which the urban retail
water supplier is not meeting its urban water use objective,
information provided in the report required by Section
10609.24, and actions the urban retail water supplier has
implemented or will implement in order to help meet the
urban water use objective.
(3) The board shall share information received pursuant to this
subdivision with the department.
(4) An urban water supplier may request technical assistance
from the department. The technical assistance may, to the
extent available, include guidance documents, tools, and
data.
(b) On and after January 1, 2025, the board may issue a written notice
to an urban retail water supplier that does not meet its urban
water use objective required by this chapter. The written notice
may warn the urban retail water supplier that it is not meeting its
urban water use objective described in Section 10609.20 and is not
making adequate progress in meeting the urban water use
objective, and may request that the urban retail water supplier
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-41
address areas of concern in its next annual report required by
Section 10609.24. In deciding whether to issue a written notice,
the board may consider whether the urban retail water supplier
has received an informational order, the degree to which the urban
retail water supplier is not meeting its urban water use objective,
information provided in the report required by Section 10609.24,
and actions the urban retail water supplier has implemented or will
implement in order to help meet its urban water use objective.
(c) (1) On and after January 1, 2026, the board may issue a
conservation order to an urban retail water supplier that does not
meet its urban water use objective. A conservation order may
consist of, but is not limited to, referral to the department for
technical assistance, requirements for education and outreach,
requirements for local enforcement, and other efforts to assist
urban retail water suppliers in meeting their urban water use
objective.
(2) In issuing a conservation order, the board shall identify
specific deficiencies in an urban retail water supplier’s
progress towards meeting its urban water use objective, and
identify specific actions to address the deficiencies.
(3) The board may request that the department provide an
urban retail water supplier with technical assistance to
support the urban retail water supplier’s actions to remedy
the deficiencies.
(d) A conservation order issued in accordance with this chapter may
include requiring actions intended to increase water-use efficiency,
but shall not curtail or otherwise limit the exercise of a water right,
nor shall it require the imposition of civil liability pursuant to
Section 377.
10609.27. Notwithstanding Section 10609.26, the board shall not issue an
information order, written notice, or conservation order pursuant to Section
10609.26 if both of the following conditions are met:
(a) The board determines that the urban retail water supplier is not
meeting its urban water use objective solely because the volume of
water loss exceeds the urban retail water supplier’s standard for
water loss.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-42
(b) Pursuant to Section 10608.34, the board is taking enforcement
action against the urban retail water supplier for not meeting the
performance standards for the volume of water losses.
10609.28. The board may issue a regulation or informational order
requiring a wholesale water supplier, an urban retail water supplier, or a
distributor of a public water supply, as that term is used in Section 350, to
provide a monthly report relating to water production, water use, or water
conservation.
10609.30. On or before January 10, 2024, the Legislative Analyst shall
provide to the appropriate policy committees of both houses of the
Legislature and the public a report evaluating the implementation of the
water use efficiency standards and water use reporting pursuant to this
chapter. The board and the department shall provide the Legislative Analyst
with the available data to complete this report.
(a) The report shall describe all of the following:
(1) The rate at which urban retail water users are complying
with the standards, and factors that might facilitate or
impede their compliance.
(2) The accuracy of the data and estimates being used to
calculate urban water use objectives.
(3) Indications of the economic impacts, if any, of the
implementation of this chapter on urban water suppliers and
urban water users, including CII water users.
(4) The frequency of use of the bonus incentive, the volume of
water associated with the bonus incentive, value to urban
water suppliers of the bonus incentive, and any implications
of the use of the bonus incentive on water use efficiency.
(5) The early indications of how implementing this chapter might
impact the efficiency of statewide urban water use.
(6) Recommendations, if any, for improving statewide urban
water use efficiency and the standards and practices
described in this chapter.
(7) Any other issues the Legislative Analyst deems appropriate.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-43
10609.32. It is the intent of the Legislature that the chairperson of the
board and the director of the department appear before the appropriate
policy committees of both houses of the Legislature on or around January 1,
2026, and report on the implementation of the water use efficiency
standards and water use reporting pursuant to this chapter. It is the intent
of the Legislature that the topics to be covered include all of the following:
(a) The rate at which urban retail water suppliers are complying with
the standards, and factors that might facilitate or impede their
compliance.
(b) What enforcement actions have been taken, if any.
(c) The accuracy of the data and estimates being used to calculate
urban water use objectives.
(d) Indications of the economic impacts, if any, of the implementation
of this chapter on urban water suppliers and urban water users,
including CII water users.
(e) The frequency of use of the bonus incentive, the volume of water
associated with the bonus incentive, value to urban water suppliers
of the bonus incentive, and any implications of the use of the
bonus incentive on water use efficiency.
(f) An assessment of how implementing this chapter is affecting the
efficiency of statewide urban water use.
10609.34. Notwithstanding Section 15300.2 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, an action of the board taken under this chapter shall be
deemed to be a Class 8 action, within the meaning of Section 15308 of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations, provided that the action does not
involve relaxation of existing water conservation or water use standards.
10609.36. (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to determine or
alter water rights. Sections 1010 and 1011 apply to water conserved
through implementation of this chapter.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the board to
update or revise water use efficiency standards authorized by this
chapter except as explicitly provided in this chapter. Authorization
to update the standards beyond that explicitly provided in this
chapter shall require separate legislation.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-44
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or otherwise
affect the use of recycled water as seawater barriers for
groundwater salinity management.
10609.38. The board may waive the requirements of this chapter for a
period of up to five years for any urban retail water supplier whose water
deliveries are significantly affected by changes in water use as a result of
damage from a disaster such as an earthquake or fire. In establishing the
period of a waiver, the board shall take into consideration the breadth of the
damage and the time necessary for the damaged areas to recover from the
disaster.
PART 2.6. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING
CHAPTER 1. General Declaration and Policy [10610 – 10610.4]
10610. This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Urban Water
Management Planning Act."
10610.2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The waters of the state are a limited and renewable resource
subject to ever-increasing demands.
(2) The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies
are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use
and the implementation of those plans can best be
accomplished at the local level.
(3) A long-term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect
the productivity of California’s businesses and economic
climate, and increasing long-term water conservation among
Californians, improving water use efficiency within the state’s
communities and agricultural production, and strengthening
local and regional drought planning are critical to California’s
resilience to drought and climate change.
(4) As part of its long-range planning activities, every urban
water supplier should make every effort to ensure the
appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to
meet the needs of its various categories of customers during
normal, dry, and multiple dry water years now and into the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-45
foreseeable future, and every urban water supplier should
collaborate closely with local land-use authorities to ensure
water demand forecasts are consistent with current land-use
planning.
(5) Public health issues have been raised over a number of
contaminants that have been identified in certain local and
imported water supplies.
(6) Implementing effective water management strategies,
including groundwater storage projects and recycled water
projects, may require specific water quality and salinity
targets for meeting groundwater basins water quality
objectives and promoting beneficial use of recycled water.
(7) Water quality regulations are becoming an increasingly
important factor in water agencies’ selection of raw water
sources, treatment alternatives, and modifications to existing
treatment facilities.
(8) Changes in drinking water quality standards may also impact
the usefulness of water supplies and may ultimately impact
supply reliability.
(9) The quality of source supplies can have a significant impact
on water management strategies and supply reliability.
(b) This part is intended to provide assistance to water agencies in
carrying out their long-term resource planning responsibilities to
ensure adequate water supplies to meet existing and future
demands for water.
10610.4. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state
as follows:
(a) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of
water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the
state and their water resources.
(b) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of
urban water supplies shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions.
(c) Urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water
management plans to achieve the efficient use of available supplies
and strengthen local drought planning.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-46
CHAPTER 2. Definitions [10611 – 10618]
10611. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions of this chapter
govern the construction of this part.
10611.3. “Customer” means a purchaser of water from a water supplier
who uses the water for municipal purposes, including residential,
commercial, governmental, and industrial uses.
10611.5. “Demand management” means those water conservation
measures, programs, and incentives that prevent the waste of water and
promote the reasonable and efficient use and reuse of available supplies.
10612. “Drought risk assessment” means a method that examines water
shortage risks based on the driest five-year historic sequence for the
agency’s water supply, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 10635.
10613. "Efficient use" means those management measures that result in
the most effective use of water so as to prevent its waste or unreasonable
use or unreasonable method of use.
10614. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, public agency, or any
agency of such an entity.
10615. "Plan" means an urban water management plan prepared pursuant
to this part. A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable
and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.
The components of the plan may vary according to an individual community
or area's characteristics and its capabilities to efficiently use and conserve
water. The plan shall address measures for residential, commercial,
governmental, and industrial water demand management as set forth in
Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) of Chapter 3. In addition, a
strategy and time schedule for implementation shall be included in the plan.
10616. "Public agency" means any board, commission, county, city and
county, city, regional agency, district, or other public entity.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-47
10616.5. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of wastewater
for beneficial use.
10617. "Urban water supplier" means a supplier, either publicly or privately
owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to
more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water
annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water,
regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale
to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water
systems subject to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116275) of Part 12
of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code.
10617.5. “Water shortage contingency plan” means a document that
incorporates the provisions detailed in subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and
is subsequently adopted by an urban water supplier pursuant to this article.
10618. “Water supply and demand assessment” means a method that looks
at current year and one or more dry year supplies and demands for
determining water shortage risks, as described in Section 10632.1.
CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [10620 – 10621]
10620. (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban
water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing
with Section 10640).
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an
urban water management plan within one year after it has become
an urban water supplier.
(c) An urban water supplier indirectly providing water shall not include
planning elements in its water management plan as provided in
Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) that would be
applicable to urban water suppliers or public agencies directly
providing water, or to their customers, without the consent of
those suppliers or public agencies.
(d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this
part by participation in areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide
urban water management planning where those plans will reduce
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-48
preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of
conservation, efficient water use, and improved local drought
resilience.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), each urban water supplier
shall develop its own water shortage contingency plan, but
an urban water supplier may incorporate, collaborate, and
otherwise share information with other urban water suppliers
or other governing entities participating in an areawide,
regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management
plan, an agricultural management plan, or groundwater
sustainability plan development.
(3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of
its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including
other water suppliers that share a common source, water
management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the
extent practicable.
(e) The urban water supplier may prepare the plan with its own staff,
by contract, or in cooperation with other governmental agencies.
(f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water
management tools and options used by that entity that will
maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from
other regions.
10621. (a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once
every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one,
incorporating updated and new information from the five years preceding
each update.
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to
this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the
plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within
which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water
supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or
changes to the plan. The urban water supplier may consult with,
and obtain comments from, any city or county that receives notice
pursuant to this subdivision.
(c) An urban water supplier regulated by the Public Utilities
Commission shall include its most recent plan and water shortage
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-49
contingency plan as part of the supplier’s general rate case filings.
(d) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and
filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section
10640).
(e) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2015 plan to
the department by July 1, 2016.
(f) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to
the department by July 1, 2021.
CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans
ARTICLE 2. Contents of Plans [10630 – 10634]
10630. It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit
levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of
customers served and the volume of water supplied, while accounting for
impacts from climate change.
10630.5. Each plan shall include a simple lay description of how much
water the agency has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the
foreseeable future, what the agency’s strategy is for meeting its water
needs, the challenges facing the agency, and any other information
necessary to provide a general understanding of the agency’s plan.
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter that shall do
all of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and
projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and
demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management
planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon
data from the state, regional, or local service agency population
projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and
shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is
available. The description shall include the current and projected
land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting
the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers
shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to
determine the most appropriate land use information, including,
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-50
where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or
regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5
(commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of
Title 7 of the Government Code.
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and
planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same
five-year increments described in subdivision (a), providing
supporting and related information, including all of the following:
(1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under
a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at
least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods
of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For
each source of water supply, consider any information
pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to
Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate
change.
(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a
description of the management of each supply in correlation
with the other identified supplies.
(3) For any planned sources of water supply, a description of the
measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop
those water supplies.
(4) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source
of water available to the supplier, all of the following
information:
(A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability
plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74
(commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater
management plan adopted by the urban water
supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75
(commencing with Section 10750), or any other
specific authorization for groundwater management for
basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service
area.
(B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from
which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-51
For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated
the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or
decree adopted by the court or the board and a
description of the amount of groundwater the urban
water supplier has the legal right to pump under the
order or decree. For a basin that has not been
adjudicated, information as to whether the department
has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority
basin in the most current official departmental bulletin
that characterizes the condition of the groundwater
basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being
undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate
with groundwater sustainability agencies or
groundwater management agencies listed in
subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve
sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with
a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative
adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with
Section 10720).
(C) A detailed description and analysis of the location,
amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the
urban water supplier for the past five years. The
description and analysis shall be based on information
that is reasonably available, including, but not limited
to, historic use records.
(D) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and
location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped
by the urban water supplier. The description and
analysis shall be based on information that is
reasonably available, including, but not limited to,
historic use records.
(c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a
short-term or long-term basis.
(d) (1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent
records are available, past and current water use, over the same
five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected
water use, based upon information developed pursuant to
subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors,
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-52
including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge,
or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(J) Distribution system water loss.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year
increments described in subdivision (a).
(3) (A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for
each of the five years preceding the plan update, in
accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34.
(B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be
reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or
developed by the department through a public process.
The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based
on the water system balance methodology developed by
the American Water Works Association.
(C) In the plan due July 1, 2021, and in each update
thereafter, data shall be included to show whether the
urban retail water supplier met the distribution loss
standards enacted by the board pursuant to Section
10608.34.
(4) (A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and
account for the water savings estimated to result from
adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and
land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as
applicable to the service area.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-53
(B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the
information described in subparagraph (A), an urban
water supplier shall do both of the following:
(i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards,
ordinances, or transportation and land use plans
utilized in making the projections.
(ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections
consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances,
or transportation and land use plans. Water use
projections that do not account for these water
savings shall be noted of that fact.
(e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management
measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) (A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section
10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and
extent of each water demand management measure implemented
over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water
demand management measures that the supplier plans to
implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section
10608.20.
(B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include
descriptions of the following water demand management
measures:
(i) Water waste prevention ordinances.
(ii) Metering.
(iii) Conservation pricing.
(iv) Public education and outreach.
(v) Programs to assess and manage distribution
system real loss.
(vi) Water conservation program coordination and
staffing support.
(vii) Other demand management measures that have a
significant impact on water use as measured in
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-54
gallons per capita per day, including innovative
measures, if implemented.
(2) For an urban wholesale water supplier, as defined in Section
10608.12, a narrative description of the items in clauses (ii),
(iv), (vi), and (vii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), and
a narrative description of its distribution system asset
management and wholesale supplier assistance programs.
(f) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply
programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to
meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall
include a detailed description of expected future projects and
programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase
the amount of the water supply available to the urban water
supplier in normal and single-dry water years and for a period of
drought lasting five consecutive water years. The description shall
identify specific projects and include a description of the increase
in water supply that is expected to be available from each project.
The description shall include an estimate with regard to the
implementation timeline for each project or program.
(g) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water,
including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and
groundwater, as a long-term supply.
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a
source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use
projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year
increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale
agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for
inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and
quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned
sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the
wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-
year increments, and during various water-year types in
accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely
upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency
in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b)
and (f).
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-55
10631.1. (a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall
include projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential
housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5
of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any
city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the identification of projected
water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing for
lower income households will assist a supplier in complying with
the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code to
grant a priority for the provision of service to housing units
affordable to lower income households.
10631.2. (a) In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban
water management plan shall include any of the following information that
the urban water supplier can readily obtain:
(1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or
divert water supplies.
(2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water
supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution
systems.
(3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies.
(4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water
supplies through its distribution systems.
(5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water
supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated
water supplies.
(6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into
or withdraw from storage.
(7) Any other energy-related information the urban water
supplier deems appropriate.
(b) The department shall include in its guidance for the preparation of
urban water management plans a methodology for the voluntary
calculation or estimation of the energy intensity of urban water
systems. The department may consider studies and calculations
conducted by the Public Utilities Commission in developing the
methodology.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-56
(c) The Legislature finds and declares that energy use is only one
factor in water supply planning and shall not be considered
independently of other factors.
10632. (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt a water
shortage contingency plan as part of its urban water management plan that
consists of each of the following elements:
(1) The analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to
Section 10635.
(2) The procedures used in conducting an annual water supply
and demand assessment that include, at a minimum, both of
the following:
(A) The written decision making process that an urban
water supplier will use each year to determine its water
supply reliability.
(B) The key data inputs and assessment methodology used
to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply
reliability for the current year and one dry year,
including all of the following:
(i) Current year unconstrained demand, considering
weather, growth, and other influencing factors,
such as policies to manage current supplies to meet
demand objectives in future years, as applicable.
(ii) Current year available supply, considering
hydrological and regulatory conditions in the
current year and one dry year. The annual supply
and demand assessment may consider more than
one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban
water supplier.
(iii) Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible
constraints.
(iv) A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria
that are consistently relied upon for each annual
water supply and demand assessment.
(v) A description and quantification of each source of
water supply.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-57
(3) (A) Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to
progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent
shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage. Urban
water suppliers shall define these shortage levels based on
the suppliers’ water supply conditions, including percentage
reductions in water supply, changes in groundwater levels,
changes in surface elevation or level of subsidence, or other
changes in hydrological or other local conditions indicative of
the water supply available for use. Shortage levels shall also
apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies,
including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an
earthquake, and other potential emergency events.
(B) An urban water supplier with an existing water
shortage contingency plan that uses different water
shortage levels may comply with the requirement in
subparagraph (A) by developing and including a cross-
reference relating its existing categories to the six
standard water shortage levels.
(4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined
shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the
following:
(A) Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions.
(B) Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to
adequately respond to shortages.
(C) Locally appropriate operational changes.
(D) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific
water use practices that are in addition to state-
mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local
conditions.
(E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the
gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by
implementation of the action.
(5) Communication protocols and procedures to inform
customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional,
and state governments, regarding, at a minimum, all of the
following:
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-58
(A) Any current or predicted shortages as determined by
the annual water supply and demand assessment
described pursuant to Section 10632.1.
(B) Any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated
to be triggered by the annual water supply and
demand assessment described pursuant to Section
10632.1.
(C) Any other relevant communications.
(6) For an urban retail water supplier, customer compliance,
enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for
triggered shortage response actions as determined pursuant
to Section 10632.2.
(7) (A) A description of the legal authorities that empower the
urban water supplier to implement and enforce its shortage
response actions specified in paragraph (4) that may include,
but are not limited to, statutory authorities, ordinances,
resolutions, and contract provisions.
(A) A statement that an urban water supplier shall declare a
water shortage emergency in accordance with Chapter
3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1.
(B) A statement that an urban water supplier shall
coordinate with any city or county within which it
provides water supply services for the possible
proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in
Section 8558 of the Government Code.
(8) A description of the financial consequences of, and responses
for, drought conditions, including, but not limited to, all of
the following:
(A) A description of potential revenue reductions and
expense increases associated with activated shortage
response actions described in paragraph (4).
(B) A description of mitigation actions needed to address
revenue reductions and expense increases associated
with activated shortage response actions described in
paragraph (4).
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-59
(C) A description of the cost of compliance with Chapter
3.3 (commencing with Section 365) of Division 1.
(9) For an urban retail water supplier, monitoring and reporting
requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is
collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring
customer compliance and to meet state reporting
requirements.
(10) Reevaluation and improvement procedures for systematically
monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the water
shortage contingency plan in order to ensure shortage risk
tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage
mitigation strategies are implemented as needed.
(b) For purposes of developing the water shortage contingency plan
pursuant to subdivision (a), an urban water supplier shall analyze
and define water features that are artificially supplied with water,
including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from
swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
115921 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c) The urban water supplier shall make available the water shortage
contingency plan prepared pursuant to this article to its customers
and any city or county within which it provides water supplies no
later than 30 days after adoption of the water shortage
contingency plan.
10632.1. An urban water supplier shall conduct an annual water supply and
demand assessment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and, on or
before July 1 of each year, submit an annual water shortage assessment
report to the department with information for anticipated shortage, triggered
shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and
communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage
contingency plan. An urban water supplier that relies on imported water
from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its
annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its
final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.
10632.2. An urban water supplier shall follow, where feasible and
appropriate, the prescribed procedures and implement determined shortage
response actions in its water shortage contingency plan, as identified in
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-60
subdivision (a) of Section 10632, or reasonable alternative actions, provided
that descriptions of the alternative actions are submitted with the annual
water shortage assessment report pursuant to Section 10632.1. Nothing in
this section prohibits an urban water supplier from taking actions not
specified in its water shortage contingency plan, if needed, without having to
formally amend its urban water management plan or water shortage
contingency plan.
10632.3. It is the intent of the Legislature that, upon proclamation by the
Governor of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services
Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of
the Government Code) based on drought conditions, the board defer to
implementation of locally adopted water shortage contingency plans to the
extent practicable.
10632.5. (a) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision
(a) of Section 10632, beginning January 1, 2020, the plan shall include a
seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of
each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those
vulnerabilities.
(b) An urban water supplier shall update the seismic risk assessment
and mitigation plan when updating its urban water management
plan as required by Section 10621.
(c) An urban water supplier may comply with this section by
submitting, pursuant to Section 10644, a copy of the most recent
adopted local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan
under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
390) if the local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation
plan addresses seismic risk.
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on
recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the serv`ice
area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be
coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all
of the following:
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems
in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-61
amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of
wastewater disposal.
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets
recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise
available for use in a recycled water project.
(c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the
supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type,
place, and quantity of use.
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled
water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation,
landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands,
industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and
other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the
technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
(e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service
area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the
actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously
projected pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may
be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected
results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used
per year.
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s
service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual
distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the
increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water
standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that
increased use.
10634. The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating
to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the
same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631,
and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies
and supply reliability.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-62
CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans
ARTICLE 2.5. Water Service Reliability [10635]
10635. (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban
water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service
to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This
water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply
sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected
water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal
water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive
water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon
the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data
from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the
service area of the urban water supplier.
(b) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water
management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service
to its customers as part of information considered in developing
the demand management measures and water supply projects and
programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The
urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to
this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban
water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall
include each of the following:
(1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or
more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to
conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that
lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year
following when the assessment is conducted.
(2) A determination of the reliability of each source of supply
under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may
include a determination that a particular source of water
supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions.
(3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to
the water supplier with the total projected water use for the
drought period.
(4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible
changes on projected supplies and demands under climate
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-63
change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other
locally applicable criteria.
(d) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban
water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any
city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than
60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan.
(e) Nothing in this article is intended to create a right or entitlement to
water service or any specific level of water service.
(f) Nothing in this article is intended to change existing law concerning
an urban water supplier’s obligation to provide water service to its
existing customers or to any potential future customers.
CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans
ARTICLE 3. Adoption and Implementation of Plans [10640 – 10645]
10640. (a) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant
to this part shall prepare its plan pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with
Section 10630). The supplier shall likewise periodically review the plan as
required by Section 10621, and any amendments or changes required as a
result of that review shall be adopted pursuant to this article.
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a water shortage
contingency plan shall prepare a water shortage contingency plan
pursuant to Section 10632. The supplier shall likewise periodically
review the water shortage contingency plan as required by
paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and any
amendments or changes required as a result of that review shall
be adopted pursuant to this article.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-64
10641. An urban water supplier required to prepare a plan or a water
shortage contingency plan may consult with, and obtain comments from,
any public agency or state agency or any person who has special expertise
with respect to water demand management methods and techniques.
10642. Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of
diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the
service area prior to and during the preparation of both the plan and the
water shortage contingency plan. Prior to adopting either, the urban water
supplier shall make both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan
available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings
thereon. Prior to any of these hearings, notice of the time and place of the
hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water
supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code. The urban water
supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of a hearing to any city or
county within which the supplier provides water supplies. Notices by a local
public agency pursuant to this section shall be provided pursuant to Chapter
17.5 (commencing with Section 7290) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code. A privately owned water supplier shall provide an
equivalent notice within its service area. After the hearing or hearings, the
plan or water shortage contingency plan shall be adopted as prepared or as
modified after the hearing or hearings.
10643. An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant
to this chapter in accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan.
10644. (a) (1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the
California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier
provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after
adoption. Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted
to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within
which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.
(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted electronically and
shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified
by the department.
(b) If an urban water supplier revises its water shortage contingency
plan, the supplier shall submit to the department a copy of its
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-65
water shortage contingency plan prepared pursuant to subdivision
(a) of Section 10632 no later than 30 days after adoption, in
accordance with protocols for submission and using electronic
reporting tools developed by the department.
(c) (1) (A) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code,
the department shall prepare and submit to the Legislature, on or
before July 1, in the years ending in seven and two, a report
summarizing the status of the plans and water shortage
contingency plans adopted pursuant to this part. The report
prepared by the department shall identify the exemplary elements
of the individual plans and water shortage contingency plans. The
department shall provide a copy of the report to each urban water
supplier that has submitted its plan and water shortage
contingency plan to the department. The department shall also
prepare reports and provide data for any legislative hearings
designed to consider the effectiveness of plans and water shortage
contingency plans submitted pursuant to this part.
(B) The department shall prepare and submit to the board,
on or before September 30 of each year, a report
summarizing the submitted water supply and demand
assessment results along with appropriate reported
water shortage conditions and the regional and
statewide analysis of water supply conditions
developed by the department. As part of the report,
the department shall provide a summary and, as
appropriate, urban water supplier specific information
regarding various shortage response actions
implemented as a result of annual supplier-specific
water supply and demand assessments performed
pursuant to Section 10632.1.
(C) The department shall submit the report to the
Legislature for the 2015 plans by July 1, 2017, and the
report to the Legislature for the 2020 plans and water
shortage contingency plans by July 1, 2022.
(2) A report to be submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section
9795 of the Government Code.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-66
(d) The department shall make available to the public the standard the
department will use to identify exemplary water demand
management measures.
10645. (a) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the
department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the
plan available for public review during normal business hours.
(b) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage
contingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier
and the department shall make the plan available for public review
during normal business hours.
CHAPTER 4. Miscellaneous Provisions [10650 – 10657]
10650. Any actions or proceedings, other than actions by the board, to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of an urban
water supplier on the grounds of noncompliance with this part shall be
commenced as follows:
(a) An action or proceeding alleging failure to adopt a plan or a water
shortage contingency plan shall be commenced within 18 months
after that adoption is required by this part.
(b) Any action or proceeding alleging that a plan or water shortage
contingency plan, or action taken pursuant to either, does not
comply with this part shall be commenced within 90 days after
filing of the plan or water shortage contingency plan or an
amendment to either pursuant to Section 10644 or the taking of
that action.
10651. In any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul a plan or a water shortage contingency plan, or an action taken
pursuant to either by an urban water supplier on the grounds of
noncompliance with this part, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there
was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the
supplier has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the action by
the water supplier is not supported by substantial evidence.
10652. The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-67
preparation and adoption of plans pursuant to this part or to the
implementation of actions taken pursuant to Section 10632. Nothing in this
part shall be interpreted as exempting from the California Environmental
Quality Act any project that would significantly affect water supplies for fish
and wildlife, or any project for implementation of the plan, other than
projects implementing Section 10632, or any project for expanded or
additional water supplies.
10653. The adoption of a plan shall satisfy any requirements of state law,
regulation, or order, including those of the board and the Public Utilities
Commission, for the preparation of water management plans, water
shortage contingency plans, or conservation plans; provided, that if the
board or the Public Utilities Commission requires additional information
concerning water conservation, drought response measures, or financial
conditions to implement its existing authority, nothing in this part shall be
deemed to limit the board or the commission in obtaining that information.
The requirements of this part shall be satisfied by any urban water demand
management plan that complies with analogous federal laws or regulations
after the effective date of this part, and which substantially meets the
requirements of this part, or by any existing urban water management plan
which includes the contents of a plan required under this part.
10654. An urban water supplier may recover in its rates the costs incurred
in preparing its urban water management plan, its drought risk assessment,
its water supply and demand assessment, and its water shortage
contingency plan and implementing the reasonable water conservation
measures included in either of the plans.
10655. If any provision of this part or the application thereof to any person
or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of this part which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application thereof, and to this end the provisions of this
part are severable.
10656. An urban water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan
awarded or administered by the state unless the urban water supplier
complies with this part.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook Appendix A
California Department of Water Resources A-68
10657. The department may adopt regulations regarding the definitions of
water, water use, and reporting periods, and may adopt any other
regulations deemed necessary or desirable to implement this part. In
developing regulations pursuant to this section, the department shall solicit
broad public participation from stakeholders and other interested persons.
Appendix B: Notices of
Preparation and Notices of
Public Hearing
February 24, 2021
Jon McMillen
City Manager
La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta CA 92253
jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Cheri L. Flores
Planning Manager
La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta CA 92253
cflores@laquintaca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Danny Castro
Design and Development Director
La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta CA 92253
dcastro@laquintaca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Trish Rhay
General Manager
Indio
83101 Avenue 45
Indio CA 92201
trhay@indio.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Castulo Estrada
Utilities Manager
Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella CA 92236
cestrada@coachella.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Randy Bynder
Interim City Manager
Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
rbynder@cityofpalmdesert.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Eric Ceja
Principle Planner
Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Ryan Stendell
Director of Community Development
Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Charlie McClendon
City Manager
Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City CA 92234
CMcClendon@cathedralcity.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Brenda Ramirez
Associate Planner
Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City CA 92234
bramirez@cathedralcity.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Robert Rodriguez
Director of Planning/Building
Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City CA 92234
rrodriguez@cathedralcity.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Christopher Freeland
City Manager
Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
cfreeland@indianwells.com
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jon Berg
Community Development Director
Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
jberg@indianwells.com
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Luis Rubalcava
Assistant Planner
Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
lrubalcava@indianwells.com
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Isaiah Hagerman
City Manager
Rancho Mirage
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
isaiahh@ranchomirageca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jeremy Gleim
Director of Development Services
Rancho Mirage
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
jeremyg@ranchomirageca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
David Ready
City Manager
Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs CA 92262
David.Ready@palmspringsca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Flinn Fagg
Director of Planning Services
Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs CA 92262
flinn.fagg@palmspringsca.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Chuck Maynard
City Manager
Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs CA 92240
citymanager@cityofdhs.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Rebecca Deming
Community Development Director
Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs CA 92240
rdeming@cityofdhs.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Mojahed Salama
Deputy Director of Transportation and Land Management
Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside CA 92501
msalama@rctlma.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jason Uhley
General Manager
Riverside
1995 Market St
Riverside CA 92501
juhley@rcflood.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Mark Abbott
Land Use & Water Supervisor
Indio
47-950 Arabia St, Suite A
Indio CA 92201
MAbbott@rivco.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jim Minnick
Director
El Centro
801 Main St
El Centro CA 92243
jimminnick@co.imperial.ca.us
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Mark Krause
General Manager
Palm Springs
1200 S Gene Autry Trail
Palm Springs CA 92264
mkrause@dwa.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Victoria Llort
Programs & Public Affairs
Desert Hot Springs
66575 Second Street
Desert Hot Springs CA 92240
vllort@mswd.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey
Water Resources Manager
Coachella
PO Box 1058
Coachella CA 92236
zrodriguezdelrey@cvwd.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Mark Meeler
General Manager
Bermuda Dunes
79-050 Avenue 42
Bermuda Dunes CA 92203
markmeeler@myomawater.com
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Doug Welmas
Tribal Chairman
Indio
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio CA 92203
nmarkwardt@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
J Aceves
Environmental Analyst
Indio
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio CA 92203
jaceves@cabazonindians-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jeff Grubbe
Tribal Chair
Palm Springs
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264
jgrubbe@aguacaliente.net
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Margaret Park
Chief Planning Officer
Palm Springs
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264
mpark@aguacaliente-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Thomas Tortez, Jr.
Tribal Chairman
Thermal
66-725 Martinez Road
Thermal CA 92274
thomas.tortez@torresmartinez-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Otoniel Quiroz
Natural Resources Manager
Thermal
66-725 Martinez Road
Thermal CA 92274
oquiroz@tmtanf.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Amanda Vance
Tribal Chairman
Coachella
PO Box 846
Coachella CA 92236
avance@augustinetribe-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Karen Kupcha
Tribal Administrator
Coachella
PO Box 846
Coachella CA 92236
karen_kupcha@eee.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Darrell Mike
Tribal Chairman
Coachella
46200 Harrison Place
Coachella CA 92236
29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Jose Mora
Environmental Technician
Coachella
46200 Harrison Place
Coachella CA 92236
jmora@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Robert Martin
Tribal Chairman
Banning
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning CA 92220
rmartin@morongo-nsn.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Yvonne Franco
District Manager
Indio
81077 Indio Blvd. Suite A
Indio CA 92201
YFranco@cvrcd.com
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
February 24, 2021
Gretchen Gutierrez
CEO
Palm Desert
75100 Mediterranean
Palm Desert CA 92211
gg@thedvba.org
Re: Notice of Intent to Update Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. McMillen:
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley are updating their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and preparing a Regional
UWMP to comply with the current requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The
participating agencies are:
· Coachella Valley Water District
· Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
· Desert Water Agency
· Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
· Mission Springs Water District
· Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The State of California requires urban water purveyors to update their UWMP every five years.
Preparing a Regional UWMP will allow the six agencies to coordinate their efforts on demand
projections and supply characterizations.
The agencies will be evaluating their previous UWMP and considering amendments and changes as
required by the law. The agencies will be hosting a public workshop to gather input, and the draft
RUWMP will be made available for public review before each agency’s governing board holds a public
hearing to gather input and consider adoption. The adopted RUWMP is due to be submitted to the
State by July 1, 2021. More information and the draft RUWMP will be available at
http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
1
Jeroen Olthof
From:Jeroen Olthof
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 9:08 AM
To:jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov; cflores@laquintaca.gov; dcastro@laquintaca.gov;
trhay@indio.org; bmontgomery@indio.org; rtrejo@indio.org; mtse@indio.org;
ksnyder@indio.org; cestrada@coachella.org; rbynder@cityofpalmdesert.org;
thileman@cityofpalmdesert.org; eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org;
rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org; CMcClendon@cathedralcity.gov;
bramirez@cathedralcity.gov; rrodriguez@cathedralcity.gov; cfreeland@indianwells.com;
jberg@indianwells.com; lrubalcava@indianwells.com; isaiahh@ranchomirageca.gov;
jeremyg@ranchomirageca.gov; Marcus.Fuller@palmspringsca.gov;
flinn.fagg@palmspringsca.gov; David.Newell@palmspringsca.gov;
citymanager@cityofdhs.org; bswanson@cityofdhs.org; jcarrillo@cityofdhs.org;
msalama@rctlma.org; rklaaren@rivco.org; jcaballe@rivco.org; juhley@rcflood.org;
MAbbott@rivco.org; jimminnick@co.imperial.ca.us; ashley@dwa.org; vllort@mswd.org;
zrodriguezdelrey@cvwd.org; markmeeler@myomawater.com;
nmarkwardt@cabazonindians-nsn.gov; jaceves@cabazonindians-nsn.gov;
jgrubbe@aguacaliente.net; mpark@aguacaliente-nsn.gov;
thomas.tortez@torresmartinez-nsn.gov; oquiroz@tmtanf.org; avance@augustinetribe-
nsn.gov; karen_kupcha@eee.org; 29chairman@29palmsbomi-nsn.gov; jmora@
29palmsbomi-nsn.gov; rmartin@morongo-nsn.gov; YFranco@cvrcd.com;
gg@thedvba.org; khightower@cityofdhs.org
Cc:Ryan Molhoek (RMolhoek@dwa.org)
Subject:Notice of Public Hearing for Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Shortage
Contingency Plan, and 2015 UWMP Addendum
Attachments:hearing_notice.pdf
Hello,
Please see the attached correspondence regarding an updated Urban Water Management Plan being prepared by six
water agencies in the Coachella Valley.
Jeroen Olthof, PE
jolthof@wsc-inc.com
O: 858.397.2617 x301
C: 619.246.1258
expectWSC.com
Notice of Availability and Public Review of
Draft 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan,
Draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and
Appendix L Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
On behalf of the six participating agencies, this letter provides notice that six water agencies in the
Coachella Valley have prepared a Draft 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(RUWMP), a Draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) for each agency, and an Appendix L Addendum
to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for each agency.
The participating agencies are:
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority (City of Coachella)
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority (City of Indio)
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
The RUWMP describes the region’s water supplies and anticipated demands through 2045. It also
describes each agency’s programs to encourage efficient water use. The WSCP for each agency describes
the actions that could be taken during a water shortage to reduce demands. The agencies have
coordinated their WSCPs to provide consistent shortage levels and response actions across the region.
Because the region receives imported water from the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta (Delta), the agencies
are required to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduced Reliance on the Delta
Through Improved Regional Water Self‐Reliance. Draft Appendix L has been prepared to satisfy the
requirement to demonstrate reduced reliance on the Delta. This appendix is included in the Draft 2020
RUWMP and will also be included as an addendum to each agency’s 2015 UWMP.
These documents will be available for public review on each agency’s web site. Each agency will hold a
public hearing to hear comments before considering adoption of the plans. Information for each agency’s
public hearing is included in the table below. The table also includes a contact for questions or comments
regarding the plans.
More information and the draft documents will also be available at http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/.
Agency
Hearing Date and
Time Agency Web Site for Hearing Details and Additional Information
Coachella Valley
Water District
Tuesday, June 22,
2021
8:00 a.m.
https://www.cvwd.org/151/Board‐Agendas
https://www.cvwd.org/543/Urban‐Water‐Management‐Planning
Coachella Water
Authority (City of
Coachella)
Wednesday, June
23, 2021
6:00 p.m.
https://www.coachella.org/city‐government/city‐
council/agendas‐and‐minutes
Desert Water
Agency
Tuesday, June 15,
2021
8:00 a.m.
https://dwa.org/organization/board‐agendas/
Indio Water
Authority (City of
Indio)
Wednesday, June
16, 2021
5:00 p.m.
https://www.indio.org/your government/city clerk/agendas.htm
Mission Springs
Water District
Monday, June 21,
2021
3:00 p.m.
https://www.mswd.org/board.aspx
Myoma Dunes
Mutual Water
Company
Tuesday, June 22,
2021
2:00 p.m.
http://www.myomawater.com/Board.aspx
Please address any comments or questions to:
Agency Address Contact Email
Coachella Valley
Water District
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, CA 92236
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey,
Water Resources
Manager
ZRodriguezdelRey@cvwd.org
Coachella Water
Authority (City of
Coachella)
1515 Sixth St.
Coachella, CA 92236
Castulo Estrada,
Utilities Manager
cestrada@coachella.org
Desert Water Agency 1200 S Gene Autry Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Ashley Metzger,
Outreach &
Conservation Manager
ametzger@dwa.org
Indio Water
Authority (City of
Indio)
83101 Avenue 45
Indio, CA 92201
Reymundo Trejo,
Assistant General
Manager
rtrejo@indio.org
Mission Springs
Water District
66575 Second Street
Desert Hot Springs, CA
92240
Victoria Llort,
Programs & Public
Affairs
vllort@mswd.org
Myoma Dunes
Mutual Water
Company
79‐050 Avenue 42
Bermuda Dunes, CA
92203
Mark Meeler,
General Manager
markmeeler@myomawater.com
On behalf of all the RUWMP Agencies,
Ryan Molhoek, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Desert Water Agency
D ESERTSUN.COM |F RIDAY, JUNE 4, 2021
|3 C
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU
CNS
D A I L Y J O U R N A L C O R P O R A T I O N
To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the THE
DESERT SUN. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any
corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if
required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for
this notice is (are):
Daily Journal Corporation
Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California. Call your local
Mailing Address : 915 E FIRST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
Telephone (213) 229-5300 / Fax (213) 229-5481
Visit us @ WWW.LEGALADSTORE.COM
MICHELLE TSE / DENISE RUDISEL
CITY OF INDIO/CITY CLERK
100 CIVIC CENTER MALL
INDIO, CA 92201
BID NOTICE INVITING BIDS
PHN 06-16-21 2020 CVRUWMP
06/02/2021 , 06/09/2021
BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111
DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300
ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027
SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829
SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866
THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355
THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486
THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747
Notice Type:
Ad Description
COPY OF NOTICE
3476304
!A000005730833!
An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this
order in full, you will not receive an invoice.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,
that the City Council of the City
of Indio, California and the Indio
Water Authority (collectively
“City”), will hold a joint public
hearing on June 16, 2021, at 5
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard to receive
and consider public input on the
following prior to their adoption
by resolution:
2020 Coachella Valley
Regional Urban Water
Management Plan, the Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
and Appendix L Addendum to
the 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan
The City encourages all of its
customers to participate in this
review process. California's
Urban Water Management
Planning Act (“Act”) requires
urban water suppliers to prepare
and adopt an urban water
management plan every five
years. The City is collaborating
with five other regional agencies
(Coachella Valley Water District,
Coachella Water Authority (City
of Coachella), Desert Water
Agency, Mission Springs Water
District, and Myoma Dunes
Mutual Water Company) in
preparing the Coachella Valley
Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP).
The RUWMP describes the
region’s water supplies and
anticipated water demands
through Year 2045 and
documents each agency’s
programs to encourage efficient
water use.
The Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP) _is
also required by the Act and
describes the actions that could
be undertaken during a water
shortage to reduce demand. The
agencies have coordinated their
WSCPs to provide consistent
shortage levels and response
regions across the Coachella
Valley region.
Because the region receives
imported water from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(Delta), the agencies are
required to demonstrate
consistency with Delta Plan
Policy WR P1, Reduced
Reliance on the Delta Through
Improved Regional Water Self-
Reliance. Appendix L has been
prepared to satisfy the
requirement to demonstrate
reduced reliance on the Delta.
This appendix is included in the
Draft 2020 RUWMP, and will be
included as an addendum to
each agency’s 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan.
Summaries of the RUWMP,
WSCP and Appendix L will be
presented at the public hearing.
A copy of the documents entitled
“2020 Coachella Valley Regional
Urban Water Management Plan,
Water Shortage Contingency
Plan (WSCP), and Appendix L
Addendum to the 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan” will be
available for review at IWA’s
website, www.indiowater.org.
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s
Executive Orders N-25-20 and
N-29-20, meetings of the City of
Indio City Council are being
conducted via teleconference.
Consistent with these orders and
in the interest of maintaining
appropriate social distancing,
City Council Chamber is closed
and there will be no in-person
public access to the meeting
location. Accordingly public
comments at the public hearing
will be received via
teleconference and the public will
be able to participate in the
hearing remotely, via the
electronic means provided
below.
The City Council meetings may
be viewed via livestream on the
City’s website at
https //www indio.org/your_gover
nment/city_clerk/agendas.htm or
via Facebook Live at
https //www.facebook com/Cityof
Indio/
Interested persons wishing to
express their views on the
hearing item referenced above
may participate by providing oral
or written comments as follows:
Written comment on the public
hearing item may be submitted
via email to ssanchez@indio.org
no later than 2:00 pm on the day
of the hearing. If you wish to
provide oral testimony during the
hearing, email your name,
contact number, and the item(s)
you wish to comment on to the
email listed above on the day of
the meeting. Upon receipt of
your request, the City Clerk will
email you the zoom ID and
password to join the meeting for
public comment. The agenda will
be posted no less than 72 hours
in advance of the meeting.
Written comments provided via
email by the time listed above
will be distributed to the City
Council and posted to the
agenda-landing page for public
view.
If you are an individual with a
disability and need a reasonable
modification or accommodation
pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, please contact
Sabdi Sanchez at
ssanchez@indio.org 24 hours in
advance of the hearing for
assistance.
If you challenge the request for
this issue in court, you may be
limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered
to the City Clerk at or prior to the
public hearing.
For further information on the
above matter, please contact
Reymundo Trejo, Assistant
General Manager, Indio Water
Authority, at 83101 Avenue 45,
Indio, California 92201 at 760-
625-1821, or email
rtrejo@indio.org.
DATE May 27, 2021
CITY OF INDIO
/s/
SABDI SANCHEZ, CMC
CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
6/2, 6/9/21
CNS-3476304#
THE DESERT SUN
Appendix C: Demonstration
of Reduced Delta Reliance
(Appendix L to 2015 UWMP)
1
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
Quantifying Regional Self-Reliance and Reduced Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta
Watershed
June 2021
1 Background
Under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, state and local public agencies proposing a
covered action in the Delta, prior to initiating the implementation of that action, must prepare a written
certification of consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with
applicable Delta Plan policies and submit that certification to the Delta Stewardship Council. Anyone may
appeal a certification of consistency, and if the Delta Stewardship Council grants the appeal, the covered
action may not be implemented until the agency proposing the covered action submits a revised
certification of consistency, and either no appeal is filed, or the Delta Stewardship Council denies the
subsequent appeal.
An urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed covered
action such as a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring
water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Delta should provide information in their 2015
and 2020 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) that can then be used in the covered action process
to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved
Regional Water Self-Reliance (WR P1).
WR P1 details what is needed for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with reduced reliance on
the Delta and improved regional self-reliance. WR P1 subsection (a) states that:
(a) Water shall not be exported from, transferred through, or used in the Delta if all of the following
apply:
(1) One or more water suppliers that would receive water as a result of the export,
transfer, or use have failed to adequately contribute to reduced reliance on the Delta and
improved regional self-reliance consistent with all of the requirements listed in paragraph
(1) of subsection (c);
(2) That failure has significantly caused the need for the export, transfer, or use; and
(3) The export, transfer, or use would have a significant adverse environmental impact in
the Delta.
WR P1 subsection (c)(1) further defines what adequately contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta
means in terms of (a)(1) above.
(c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the
Delta and improved regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy:
2
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
(A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has
been reviewed by the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the
applicable requirements of Water Code Division 6, Parts 2.55, 2.6, and 2.8;
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the
implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the
Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the
Delta; and
(C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable
reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance. The expected
outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-
reliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in
the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the purposes of reporting,
water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code
section 1011(a).
The analysis and documentation provided below include all the elements described in WR P1(c)(1) that
need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future
covered action.
The analysis presented here was developed on behalf of the six agencies participating in the 2020
Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP). These six agencies include:
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
This analysis is based on the water used to meet demands throughout the Coachella Valley.
2 Methodology
As stated in WR P1(c)(1)(C), the policy requires that, commencing in 2015, UWMPs include expected
outcomes for improved regional self-reliance and measurable reduction in Delta reliance. WR P1 further
states that those outcomes shall be reported in the UWMP as the reduction in the amount of water used,
or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta. The expected outcomes for regional self-reliance and
reduced Delta reliance were developed using the approach and guidance described in Appendix C of
DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020 issued in March 2020 (Guidebook Appendix C).
The methodology used to determine improved regional self-reliance and reduced Delta reliance is
consistent with the approach detailed in DWR’s UWMP Guidebook Appendix C, including the use of
3
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
narrative justifications for the accounting of supplies and the documentation of specific data sources.
Some of the key assumptions include:
All data were obtained from the current 2020 RUWMP, UWMPs from previous years, the
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Draft Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update,
or the Draft Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. Demands represent average or
normal water year conditions.
All analyses were conducted at the service area level, and all data reflect the total contributions
of the agencies as well as their customers.
To calculate the expected outcomes for improved regional self-reliance and reduced Delta reliance, a
baseline is needed to compare against. This analysis uses a normal water year representation of 2010 as
the baseline, which is consistent with the approach described in the Guidebook Appendix C.
3 Demonstration of Regional Self-Reliance
Demands without Water Use Efficiency
In alignment with the Guidebook Appendix C, this analysis uses normal water year demands, rather than
normal water year supplies to calculate expected outcomes in terms of the percentage of water used.
Using normal water year demands serves as a proxy for the amount of supplies that would be used in a
normal water year, which helps alleviate issues associated with how supply capability is presented to fulfill
requirements of the UWMP Act versus how supplies might be accounted for to demonstrate consistency
with WR P1.
Because WR P1 considers water use efficiency savings a source of water supply, water suppliers that do
not explicitly quantify water use efficiency savings in their UWMPs can calculate their embedded water
use efficiency savings based on changes in forecasted per capita water use since the baseline. As
explained in the Guidebook Appendix C, water use efficiency savings must be added back to the normal
year demands to represent demands without water use efficiency savings; otherwise the effect of water
use efficiency savings on regional self-reliance would be overestimated. Table C-1 shows the results of
this estimation. Supporting narrative and documentation for the data shown in Table C-1 are provided
below.
Demands with Water Use Efficiency
The demands shown in Table C-1 represent the water demands for the region, compiled from the previous
documents mentioned above and current projections. .
Population
Population was estimated using the previous UWMPs and the regional growth forecast prepared by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
4
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline
This line item was calculated using “Potable Demands with Water Use Efficiency” divided by “Population”
and then calculating Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline by comparing with 2010 Per Capita
Water Use.
Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency
This line item was calculated by adding “Demands with Water Use Efficiency” to “Estimated Water Use
Efficiency Since Baseline.”
Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
For a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) states
that water suppliers must report the expected outcomes for measurable improvement in regional self-
reliance. Table C-3 shows expected outcomes for supplies contributing to regional self-reliance both in
amount and as a percentage. The numbers shown in Table C-3 represent efforts to improve regional self-
reliance for all agencies and include the total contributions of the agencies and their customers.
Supporting narratives and documentation for the data shown in Table C-3 are provided below.
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency information shown in Table C-3 is taken directly from Table C-1.
Water Recycling
Estimates of water recycling volumes are based on previous UWMPs and current projections.
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Programs
The local and regional water supply and storage programs data shown in Table C-3 represent estimates
by the participating agencies.
Conclusions
The results shown in Table C-3 demonstrate that the agencies are measurably improving regional self-
reliance. In the long-term (through 2045), the expected outcome for normal water year regional self-
reliance is an increase of approximately 17 percentage points from the 2010 baseline. The results show
that as a region, the agencies and their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and
improving regional self-reliance.
4 Demonstration of Reduced Reliance on the Delta
The agencies reduce reliance on the Delta through investments in non-Delta water supplies, local water
supplies, and regional and local demand management measures. For reduced reliance on supplies from
the Delta Watershed, the data used in this analysis represent the total regional efforts of the agencies and
their customers.
5
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
Calculation of Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
The calculation of reliance on water supplies from the Delta watershed, shown in Table C-4, is based on
the following assumptions. The agencies’ supplies from the Delta watershed include:
Central Valley Project (CVP) / State Water Project (SWP) Contract Supplies
Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed.
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
The supply data shown in Table C-4 is for SWP Table A allocations to CVWD and DWA. These values are
based on the combined Table A amount for CVWD and DWA (194,100 AFY) and the historical average
reliability as published in the SWP Delivery Capability Report.
Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
Because this document demonstrates reduced reliance on the Delta and could be used to help support
the approval of a future project, these supplies do not include any potential future projects that could be
covered actions.
Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
This line item was calculated by adding “CVP/SWP Contract Supplies” and “Other Water Supplies from the
Delta Watershed” to get total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed and then calculating changes
from the 2010 baseline.
Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
In this line item the “Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed” is divided by “Demands without Water
Use Efficiency” for each timeframe to show changes from the 2010 baseline.
Conclusions
The results shown in Table C-4 demonstrate that the agencies are measurably reducing reliance on
supplies from the Delta watershed. In the long term (through 2045), the results show that as a region,
the agencies and their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional
self-reliance.
5 UWMP Implementation
In addition to the analysis and documentation described above, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(B) requires that
all programs and projects included in the UWMP that are locally cost-effective and technically feasible,
which reduce reliance on the Delta, are identified, evaluated, and implemented consistent with the
implementation schedule. WR P1 (c)(1)(B) states that water supplies must have:
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation
schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost
effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta[.]
6
Appendix - Delta Reliance_DRAFT.docx
In accordance with Water Code Section 10631(f), water suppliers must include in their UWMP a detailed
description of expected future projects and programs that they may implement to increase the amount
of water supply available to them in normal and single-dry water years and for a period of drought lasting
five consecutive years. The UWMP description must also identify specific projects, include a description
of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project, and include an estimate
regarding the implementation timeline for each project or program.
The 2020 RUWMP summarizes the implementation plan and continued progress in developing a
diversified water portfolio to meet the region’s water needs.
6 2015 UWMP Appendix L
The information contained in this appendix is also intended to be a new Appendix L attached to each
agency’s 2015 UWMP consistent with WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003). The
agencies provided notice of the availability of the draft 2020 RUWMP, 2021 WSCPs, and a new Appendix
L to the 2015 UWMP and of a public hearing to consider adoption of the documents in accordance with
CWC Sections 10621(b) and 10642, and Government Code Section 6066, and Chapter 17.5 (starting with
Section 7290) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. The public review drafts of the 2020
RUWMP, Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and the 2021 WSCPs were posted on each agency’s website
before the public hearings in June 2021. The notice of availability of the documents was published in local
newspapers and was sent to cities and counties in each agency’s service area. Copies of the notification
letter sent to cities and counties are included in the 2020 RUWMP Appendix B. Thus, this Appendix C to
the 2020 RUWMP, which was adopted with the 2020 RUWMP, will also be recognized and treated as
Appendix L to each agency’s 2015 UWMP.
Each agency held a public hearing for the draft 2020 RUWMP, draft Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and
draft 2021 WSCP in June of 2021, at a regular Board of Directors meeting. Each agency’s Board of Directors
determined that the 2020 RUWMP and the 2021 WSCP accurately represent the water resources plan for
the service area. In addition, each agency’s Board of Directors determined that Appendix L to the 2015
UWMP (and Appendix C to the 2020 RUWMP) includes all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy
WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit.
23, § 5003), which need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of
consistency for a future covered action. Each agency’s Board of Directors adopted the 2020 RUWMP,
Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and the 2021 WSCP and authorized their submittal to the State of
California. Copies of the resolutions are included in the 2020 RUWMP Appendix H.
Appendix D: Standard
DWR UWMP Tables
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Appendix E: Standard SB
X7-7 Tables
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Appendix F: Water
Management Agreements
Appendix G: AWWA
Water Loss Audits
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Appendix H: Resolutions of
Adoption
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-19
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE 2020 COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing
water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-
feet of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban
water management plan every five years;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and
procedures for adopting such urban water management plans, including regional urban water
management plans;
WHEREAS, the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) has
been prepared at the direction of Coachella Valley Water District (the “District”), Coachella Water
Authority, Desert Water Agency, Indio Water Authority, Mission Springs Water District, and
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company in accordance with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act and the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also referred to as SB X7-7;
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code section 10642, and
Government Code section 6066, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the 2020 RUWMP was
published within the jurisdiction of the District on June 4, 2021 and June 11, 2021;
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code section
10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2021 at 8:00 AM or soon thereafter, at 75515
Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA 92211 in order to provide members of the public and other
interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of the
2020 RUWMP and issues related thereto;
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on the 2020 RUWMP, the District, among other
things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members of
the community within the District’s service area with regard to the 2020 RUWMP and
encouraged community input regarding the 2020 RUWMP;
WHEREAS, Section 10652 of the California Water Code provides that the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code) (CEQA) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of the 2020 RUWMP;
and
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-19
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District wishes to adopt the 2020 RUWMP and has
determined the 2020 RUWMP to be consistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act
and the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and to be an accurate representation of the water resources
plan for the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the District hereby
resolves as follows:
1. All of the above recitals are true;
2. The Board of Directors of the District adopts the 2020 RUWMP, as amended by changes
incorporated by the Board of Directors as a result of input received (if any) at the public
hearing;
3. District staff is hereby authorized and directed to submit copies of the 2020 RUWMP as
required by Urban Water Management Planning Act and to make the 2020 RUWMP
available to the public no later than thirty days after filing a copy of the 2020 RUWMP
with the Department of Water Resources;
4. The Board of Directors finds and determines that this resolution is not subject to CEQA
pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 because CEQA does not apply to the preparation
and adoption, including addenda thereto, of an urban water management plan or to the
implementation of the actions taken pursuant to such plans. Because this resolution
comprises the District’s adoption of the 2020 RUWMP and involves its implementation,
no CEQA review is required;
5. Pursuant to CEQA, the Board of Directors directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption
with the Riverside County, Imperial County, and San Diego County Clerks within five
(5) working days of adoption of this resolution; and
6. The document and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
resolution and the above findings have been based are located at 75515 Hovley Lane
East, Palm Desert, CA 92211. The custodian for these records is the Director of
Environmental Services.
PASSED and ADOPTED by the Board of Directors, County of Riverside, State of
California, on this 22nd day of June, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Powell, Nelson, Aguilar, Bianco, Estrada
NOES: None
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-20
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE 2021
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing
water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet
of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, a water
shortage contingency plan;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and
procedures for adopting such water shortage contingency plans;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to
conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment (Annual Assessment) each year and to
include in their water shortage contingency plans the procedures they will use to conduct the
Annual Assessment;
WHEREAS, the procedures used to conduct an Annual Assessment include, but are not limited
to, the written decision-making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine
its water supply reliability;
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Water District’s (the “District”) Water Shortage Contingency
Plan provides that by June of each year, agency staff will present a completed Annual Assessment
for approval by the Board of Directors or by the Board’s authorized designee with expressly
delegated authority for approval of Annual Assessment determinations;
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code section 10642, and
Government Code section 6066, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan was published within the jurisdiction of the District on June 4, 2021 and June
11, 2021;
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code section
10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2021 at 8:00 AM or soon thereafter, at 75515
Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA 92211 in order to provide members of the public and other
interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of the
Water Shortage Contingency Plan and issues related thereto;
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the
District, among other things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and
economic members of the community within the District’s service area with regard to the Water
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-20
Shortage Contingency Plan and encouraged community input regarding the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan;
WHEREAS, Section 10652 of the California Water Code provides that the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code) (CEQA) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District wishes to adopt such Water Shortage
Contingency Plan and has determined the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to be consistent with
the Urban Water Management Planning Act and to be an accurate representation of the planned
actions during shortage conditions for the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the District hereby
resolves as follows:
1. All of the above recitals are true;
2. The Board of Directors of the District adopts the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as
amended by changes incorporated by the Board of Directors as a result of input received
(if any) at the public hearing and expressly authorizes the General Manager of the District
to approve the Annual Assessment each year;
3. District staff is hereby authorized and directed to submit copies of the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan as required by Urban Water Management Planning Act and to make the
Water Shortage Contingency Plan available to the public no later than thirty days after
filing a copy of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan with the Department of Water
Resources;
4. The Board of Directors finds and determines that this resolution is not subject to CEQA
pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 because CEQA does not apply to the preparation
and adoption, including addenda thereto, of a Water Shortage Contingency Plan or to the
implementation of the actions taken pursuant to such plans. Because this resolution
comprises the District’s adoption of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and involves its
implementation, no CEQA review is required;
5. Pursuant to CEQA, the Board of Directors directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with
the Riverside County, Imperial County, and San Diego County Clerks within five (5)
working days of adoption of this resolution; and
6. The document and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
resolution and the above findings have been based are located at 75515 Hovley Lane
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-21
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING APPENDIX L AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2015
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing
water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-
feet of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban
water management plan every five years;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and
procedures for amending and adopting such urban water management plans;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, the Delta Plan,
and Water Code section 85021, which declares that the State’s policy is to “reduce reliance on the
Delta in meeting California’s future water needs through a statewide strategy of investing in
improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use efficiency,” urban water suppliers are
encouraged by the California Department of Resources (DWR) and the Delta Stewardship Council
(DSC) to consider adopting an Addendum to their 2015 urban water management plans to
demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan Policy WR P1 to Reduce Reliance on the Delta
Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003);
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Coachella Valley Water District (the “District”), wishes
to adopt Appendix L as an addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and
has determined Appendix L to be consistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and
to include all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the
Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5003, subd.
(c)(1));
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code section 10642, and
Government Code section 6066, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding Appendix L as an
addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was published within the
jurisdiction of the District on June 4, 2021 and June 11, 2021;
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code section
10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2021 at 8:00 AM or soon thereafter, at 75515
Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA 92211 in order to provide members of the public and other
interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of
Appendix L as an addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and issues
related thereto;
Coachella Valley Water District
Board of Directors
Resolution No: 2021-21
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on Appendix L as an addendum to the District’s
2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the District, among other things, encouraged the active
involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members of the community within the
District’s service area with regard to Appendix L as an addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan and encouraged community input regarding the Appendix L as an
addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 10652 of the California Water Code provides that the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code) (CEQA) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of the Appendix L as an
addendum to the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the District hereby
resolves as follows:
1. All of the above recitals are true;
2. The Board of Directors of the District adopts Appendix L as an addendum to the 2015
Urban Water Management Plan, as amended by changes incorporated by the Board of
Directors as a result of input received (if any) at the public hearing;
3. District staff is hereby authorized and directed to submit copies of Appendix L as an
addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan as required by Urban Water
Management Planning Act and to make Appendix L as an addendum to the 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan available to the public no later than thirty days after filing a copy
of Appendix L as an addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan with the
Department of Water Resources;
4. The Board of Directors finds and determines that this resolution is not subject to CEQA
pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 because CEQA does not apply to the preparation
and adoption of Appendix L as an addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
or to the implementation of the actions taken pursuant to such plans. Because this
resolution comprises the District’s adoption of Appendix L as an addendum to the 2015
Urban Water Management Plan and involves its implementation, no CEQA review is
required;
5. Pursuant to CEQA, the Board of Directors directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with
the Riverside County, Imperial County, and San Diego County Clerks within five (5)
working days of adoption of this resolution; and
6. The document and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
resolution and the above findings have been based are located at 75515 Hovley Lane
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
RESOLUTION NO. 1260
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
DESERT WATER AGENCY ADOPTING THE 2020 URBAN
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 797 (Water Code
Section 10610 et seq., known as the Urban Water Management Planning Act) during the 1983-
1984 Regular Session, as subsequently amended, which mandates that every supplier providing
water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet
of water annually, prepare an Urban Water Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires each urban
water supplier to update its Urban Water Management Plan at least once every five years on or
before December 31, in years ending five and zero; and
WHEREAS, legislation referred to as the Water Conservation Act of 2009 or
“SBX7-7” (Water Code, Part 2.55, Section 10608 et seq.), enacted by the California Legislature
during the 2009 Extraordinary Session, extended the time by which urban retail water suppliers
must adopt their 2015 Urban Water Management Plans until July 1, 2016, and, among other things,
established requirements for urban retail water suppliers to prepare interim and urban water use
targets for achieving increased water use efficiency by the years 2015 and 2020, in accordance
with the goal of SBX7-7 to reduce statewide per capita water use 20 percent by the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Desert Water agency (Agency) is an urban retail water supplier
for purposes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and SBX7-7; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and
SBX7-7, the Agency adopted its current Urban Water Management Plan (Plan) in 2016 and must
update the Plan no later than July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code Sections
10608.26 and 10642, and Government Code Section 6066, a properly noticed public hearing
regarding said updated the Plan was conducted by the Board of Directors on June 15, 2021, and
the proposed updated Plan was posted on the Agency’s website two (2) weeks before the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on the Agency’s proposed updated
Plan, the Agency, among other things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the Agency’s service area with regard to
the preparation of the Plan, allowed community input regarding the Agency’s implementation plan
for complying with SBX7-7, considered the economic impacts of the Agency’s implementation
plan for complying with SBX7-7, and adopted Method 1 under Water Code Section 10608.20(b)
for determining its water use targets; and
Reso. 1260
Page 2
WHEREAS, the California Department of Water Resources issued a Guidebook
to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (the “DWR
Guidebook”) and Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita
Water Use (the “DWR Methodologies”) to provide guidance to urban retail water suppliers for
purposes of preparing Urban Water Management Plans, and the Agency utilized the DWR
Guidebook and the DWR Methodologies in preparing its updated Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Water Code Section 10620(e), the Agency has
prepared its updated Plan with its own staff, with the assistance of consulting professionals, and in
cooperation with other governmental agencies, and has utilized industry standards and the
expertise of industry professionals in preparing its updated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the
purposes and requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and SBX7-7, the
contents of the updated Plan, and the documentation contained in the administrative record in
support of the updated Plan, and has determined that the factual analyses and conclusions set forth
in the updated Plan are supported by substantial evidence.
WHEREAS, DWA’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby adopted as amended by changes agreed upon by participating CV UWMP
Agencies as a result of input received (if any) at public hearings and ordered filed with the
Secretary of DWA.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of Desert Water
Agency as follows:
1. The Agency hereby adopts Target Method 1 under Water Code Section
10608.20(b) for determining its water use targets, and the updated Urban Water Management Plan
is hereby adopted and ordered filed with the Secretary of the Board.
2. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to include a copy
of this Resolution in the Agency’s updated Urban Water Management Plan and, in accordance
with Water Code Section 10644(a), to file the updated Urban Water Management Plan with the
California Department of Water Resources, the California State Library, and any city or county
within which the Agency provides water supplies within thirty (30) days after this date.
3. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with
Water Code Section 10645, to make the updated Urban Water Management Plan available for
public review not later than thirty (30) days after filing a copy thereof with the California
Department of Water Resources.
4. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with
Water Code Section 10635(b), to provide that portion of the updated Urban Water Management
Plan prepared pursuant to Water Code Section 10635(a) to any city or county within which the
Agency provides water supplies not later than sixty (60) days after filing a copy thereof with the
California Department of Water Resources.
Reso. 1260
Page 3
5. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to implement the
components of the updated Urban Water Management Plan in accordance with the Urban Water
Management Planning Act and SBX7-7 including, but not limited to, the Agency’s Water
Conservation Programs and its water shortage contingency analysis.
6. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to recommend to
the Board of Directors additional steps necessary or appropriate to effectively carry out the
implementation of the updated Urban Water Management Plan.
ADOPTED this 15th day of June 2021.
Kristin Bloomer, President
ATTEST:
Joseph K. Stuart, Secretary-Treasurer
I, Sylvia Baca, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors of Desert Water Agency, hereby
certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a motion adopted by the Board of Directors
of Desert Water Agency at a Regular Meeting of the Board conducted on June 15, 2021:
Director Oygar moved to adopt the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water
Contingency Plan, Resolution No. 1260 and Ordinance No. 72. After a second by Secretary-
Treasurer Stuart, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Ortega, Oygar, Stuart, Cioffi, Bloomer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, Sylvia Baca, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors of Desert Water Agency do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of the minute entry on record in
this office.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, dated this 28th day of June, 2021.
___________________________
Sylvia Baca
Assistant Secretary of the Board
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Appendix I: DWR UWMP
Checklists
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Valley Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 4.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 4.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 4.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 4.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 4.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 4.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 4.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 4.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 4.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 4.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 4.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 4.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 4.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 4.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 4.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 4.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 4.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 4.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 4.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 4.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 4.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 4.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 4.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 4.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 4.6Page 1 of 4
Coachella Valley Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 4.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 4.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 4.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 4.7Page 2 of 4
Coachella Valley Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Coachella Valley Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 4.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 4.10Page 4 of 4
Coachella Water Authority
Coachella Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 5.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 5.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 5.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 5.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 5.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 5.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 5.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 5.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 5.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 5.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 5.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 5.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 5.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 5.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 5.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 5.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 5.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 5.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 5.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 5.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 5.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 5.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 5.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 5.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 5.6Page 1 of 4
Coachella Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 5.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 5.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 5.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 5.7Page 2 of 4
Coachella Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Coachella Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 5.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 5.10Page 4 of 4
Desert Water Agency
Desert Water AgencyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 6.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 6.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 6.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 6.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 6.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 6.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 6.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 6.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 6.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 6.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 6.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 6.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 6.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 6.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 6.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 6.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 6.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 6.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 6.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 6.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 6.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 6.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 6.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 6.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 6.6Page 1 of 4
Desert Water AgencyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 6.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 6.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 6.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 6.7Page 2 of 4
Desert Water AgencyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Desert Water AgencyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 6.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 6.10Page 4 of 4
Indio Water Authority
Indio Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 7.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 7.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 7.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 7.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 7.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 7.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 7.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 7.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 7.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 7.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 7.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 7.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 7.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 7.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 7.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 7.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 7.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 7.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 7.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 7.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 7.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 7.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 7.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 7.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 7.6Page 1 of 4
Indio Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 7.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 7.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 7.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 7.7Page 2 of 4
Indio Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Indio Water AuthorityRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 7.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 7.10Page 4 of 4
Mission Springs Water District
Mission Springs Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 8.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 8.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 8.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 8.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 8.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 8.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 8.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 8.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 8.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 8.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 8.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 8.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 8.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 8.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 8.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 8.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 8.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 8.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 8.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 8.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 8.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 8.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 8.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 8.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 8.6Page 1 of 4
Mission Springs Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 8.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 8.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 8.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 8.7Page 2 of 4
Mission Springs Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Mission Springs Water DistrictRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 8.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 8.10Page 4 of 4
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water CompanyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 110615A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.Introduction and Overview Section 1.1xxChapter 110630 5Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.SummarySection 1.3xxSection 2.210620(b)Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.Plan PreparationSection 9.2xxSection 2.610620(d)(2)Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.Plan PreparationSection 9.2xxSection 2.6.210642Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.Plan PreparationSection 9.2xSection 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h)Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source.System SuppliesSection 9.2xSection 2.610631(h)Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types.System SuppliesN/AxxSection 3.110631(a)Describe the water supplier service area.System DescriptionSection 9.3xxSection 3.310631(a)Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier.System DescriptionSection 9.3xxSection 3.410631(a)Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System DescriptionSection 9.3xxSection 3.4.210631(a)Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.System DescriptionSection 9.3xxSections 3.4 and 5.410631(a)Indicate the current population of the service area.System Description and Baselines and TargetsSection 9.3xxSection 3.510631(a)Describe the land uses within the service area.System DescriptionSection 9.3xxSection 4.210631(d)(1)Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water UseSection 9.4xxSection 4.2.410631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met.System Water UseSection 9.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(A)In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water UseSection 9.4xxSection 4.2.610631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water UseSection 9.4x optionalSection 4.3.2.410631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water UseSection 9.4x optionalSection 4.410631.1(a)Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier.System Water UseSection 9.4xxSection 4.510635(b)Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment.System Water UseSection 9.4xChapter 510608 20(e)Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.Baselines and TargetsSection 9.5xChapter 510608 24(a)Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31 2020.Baselines and TargetsSection 9.5xSection 5.110608 36Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.Baselines and TargetsN/AxSection 5.2 10608 24(d)(2)If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.Baselines and TargetsSection 9.5xSection 5.510608 22Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.Baselines and TargetsSection 9.5xSection 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form.Baselines and TargetsSection 9.5xxSections 6.1 and 6.210631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought.System SuppliesSection 9.7xxSections 6.110631(b)(1)Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System SuppliesSection 9.7xxSection 6.110631(b)(2)When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies.System SuppliesSection 9.6Page 1 of 4
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water CompanyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxSection 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.810631(b)Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.210631(b)Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(A)Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(B)Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.2.110631(b)(4)(B)For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.2.410631(b)(4)(C)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five yearsSystem SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.210631(b)(4)(D)Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.710631(c)Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(b)Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(c)Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(d)Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(e)Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(f)Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(g)Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.610631(g)Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.2.510633(a)Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.System Supplies (Recycled Water)Section 9.6xxSection 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.System SuppliesSection 9.6xxSection 6.4 and Appendix O 10631 2(a)The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy IntensitySection 9.6xxSection 7.210634Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliabilityWater Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.2.410620(f)Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(a)Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(b)Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(1)Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(2)Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(3)Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7xxSection 7.310635(b)(4)Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability AssessmentSection 9.7Page 2 of 4
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water CompanyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xxChapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCPxxChapter 810632(a)(1)Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCPWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 1xxSection 8.1010632(a)(10)Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(A)Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.210632(a)(2)(B)Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 2xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(A)Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.310632(a)(3)(B)Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 3xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(A)Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(D)Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.410632(a)(4)(E)Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 4xxSection 8.4.610632 5The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSCP, Section 4.6xxSection 8.510632(a)(5)(A)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xxSection 8.5 and 8.610632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C)Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 5xSection 8.610632(a)(6)Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 6xSection 8.710632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(B)Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.710632(a)(7)(C)Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 7xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(A)Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xxSection 8.810632(a)(8)(B)Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.810632(a)(8)(C)Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3 3: Excessive Residential Water Use During DroughtWater Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.910632(a)(9)Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 8xSection 8.1110632(b)Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 11xxSections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationWSCP, Section 12xxSection 8.1210632(c)Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan.Water Shortage Contingency PlanningWSCP, Section 12xSections 9.1 and 9.310631(e)(2)Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program.Demand Management Measures N/APage 3 of 4
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water CompanyRetail Wholesale2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMPSubject2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use)xSections 9 2 and 9.310631(e)(1)Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.Demand Management Measures Section 9.9xChapter 1010608 26(a)Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 2.110621(b)Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10.410621(f)Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 2 210642The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 3 210642Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10.410644(a)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10.410644(a)(1)Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2)The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 510645(a)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 510645(b)Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10 610621(c)If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10xxSection 10.7 210644(b)If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption.Plan Adoption, Submittal, and ImplementationSection 9.10Page 4 of 4
1
Water Supply Assessment Fact Sheet
(Updated: March 22, 2022)
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is a special district established in 1918 by the California state legislature
to protect the Coachella Valley’s water resources and build a canal to supplement the local groundwater basin
with imported Colorado River Water. CVWD policies are regulated by several state and federal agencies
including the State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Public Health, and the California
Environmental Protection Agency. The CVWD Board of Directors may enact and enforce ordinances, and pass
resolutions necessary for the operation of CVWD’s business.
When a new development or project is approved, the public may have questions regarding who approved what,
how, and why. This document clarifies CVWD’s role in land use planning within its service area.
1. Who approves land use zoning and development?
Land use and zoning regulations are vested in cities and counties by way of their general police power to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents. As a special district, CVWD does not have the police
power to make, change, or affect land use decisions made by the cities or counties within CVWD’s service area.
2. What, if any, is CVWD’s role in land use planning?
For projects that are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) within CVWD’s service area, the city
or county as the lead agency will identify CVWD as the “public water system” that will supply water for the
proposed project. If the project meets certain size or water use criteria, the lead agency will request a Water
Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) to incorporate into the environmental review
documents required by CEQA. Once CVWD receives the request, CVWD must provide the WSA/WSV to the lead
agency within 90 days.
3. What is a Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV)?
To foster better communication and more closely link land use decision-making and water supply availability,
Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 were enacted into law in 2001.
Water Supply Assessment (SB 610):
The purpose of a WSA is to determine whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies
available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the
projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing
and planned future uses. The WSA is incorporated into the proposed project’s environmental review
documents, pursuant to CEQA.
Water Supply Verification (SB 221):
SB 221 establishes the relationship between the WSA and project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. The
public water system must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply (Water Supply Verification)
prior to the approval of a new subdivision.
4. Does CVWD have authority to deny water to a project for wasteful or inefficient water use?
CVWD as a special district has no authority over land use decisions. The WSA/WSV is an informational document
that state law requires CVWD to provide when a qualifying project is being proposed within
2
CVWD’s service area. The information in the WSA/WSV is defined by state law and does not recommend or
advocate any position on whether the city or county should approve or deny a project.
If, because of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be,
insufficient, the public water system is required to provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional
water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water
supplies.
5. How does CVWD calculate future supply and demand?
Future water supply and demand projections within CVWD’s boundary are periodically evaluated in CVWD’s
long-term water management plans like the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update and 2022
Mission Creek Alternative Plan Update (collectively, 2022 Alternative Plan Updates). Municipal water demand
projections were also included in the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. The
demand projections are based on the regional growth forecasts including population, households, and
employment that incorporate city and county general plans.
Similarly, these documents evaluate current and future supply outlooks for all sources. CVWD has a diverse
supply portfolio which includes local groundwater, Colorado River water, State Water Project (SWP) water, and
recycled water. Plans include investments in developing new sources of supply like additional recycled water
and participating in the Delta Conveyance Project to modernize the aging SWP infrastructure and protect the
reliability of SWP water deliveries.
6. Does a WSA/WSV consider the sustainability of the aquifer?
A WSA/WSV determines whether CVWD’s total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand
associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. CVWD participates in
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Planning and Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP),
which both consider the long-term sustainability of the local groundwater basin. SGMA requires that these plans
be evaluated and updated every five years. If SGMA or UWMP inform CVWD that either subbasins’ extraction
could exceed the inflow of water to the basin (overdraft), CVWD would develop water supply projects and
conservation goals to correct overdraft and protect the sustainability of the aquifer.
7. How does CVWD consider the long-term reliability of imported water supplies?
The 2022 Alternative Plan Updates considered impacts of reduced local and imported supplies from more
frequent droughts to help plan for these impacts. Specifically, the 2022 Alternative Plans included an evaluation
of reduced reliability of both State Water Project and Colorado River Water.
8. How is the expected water use of large development projects calculated?
A WSA/WSV must determine the water demand required by the project. This is based on the size and type of
land uses proposed for the project (e.g. residential, commercial/industrial, recreational uses). Indoor residential
water demand is based on performance standards as provided in the California Water Code (CWC). Indoor
commercial and industrial demand is based on the American Water Works Association Research Foundations
Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water report. Projected outdoor water usage is calculated using the
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) equation from CVWD’s Landscape and Irrigation Design Ordinance.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1 TODD/W&C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1
ES.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... ES-1
ES.2 Plan Area .......................................................................................................................... ES-2
ES.3 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ...................................................................................... ES-3
ES.4 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................... ES-3
ES.5 Demand Projections .......................................................................................................... ES-6
ES.6 Water Supply .................................................................................................................... ES-7
ES.7 Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios ................................................................................. ES-9
ES.8 Regulatory and Policy Issues ........................................................................................... ES-12
ES.9 Sustainable Management ................................................................................................ ES-14
ES.10 Monitoring Program ....................................................................................................... ES-16
ES.11 Projects and Management Actions .................................................................................. ES-18
ES.12 Plan Evaluation and Implementation ............................................................................... ES-18
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background for Alternative Plan Update ..............................................................................1-2
1.1.1 Indio Subbasin ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.2 Historical Water Management Planning............................................................................... 1-4
1.1.3 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan ................................................................. 1-5
1.1.4 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update..................................................... 1-5
1.1.5 SGMA and Alternative Plan Development ............................................................................ 1-7
1.1.6 Approach to Alternative Plan Update ................................................................................... 1-8
1.2 Plan Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................1-8
1.3 GSA Governance .................................................................................................................1-9
1.4 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ............................................................................... 1-10
1.4.1 Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update .............................................................. 1-10
1.4.2 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ........................................ 1-11
1.4.3 Urban Water Management Plan ......................................................................................... 1-11
1.4.4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ........................................... 1-12
1.4.5 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ....................................................... 1-12
1.5 Notice and Communication ............................................................................................... 1-12
1.5.1 Participating Agencies and Coordination ........................................................................... 1-13
1.5.2 GSAs Decision Making Process ........................................................................................... 1-13
1.5.3 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................... 1-13
1.5.4 Public Workshops ............................................................................................................... 1-15
1.5.5 SGMA Tribal Workgroup ..................................................................................................... 1-15
1.5.6 List of Public Meetings Where the Alternative Plan Update was Discussed ...................... 1-16
1.5.7 Comments Received and Response Summary.................................................................... 1-17
1.6 Plan Update Adoption ....................................................................................................... 1-18
Chapter 2: Plan Area ....................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Geographic Area .................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Water Management and Land Use Planning Agencies ..........................................................2-4
2.2.1 Water Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 2-4
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2 TODD/W&C
2.2.2 Local Agencies: Cities and Counties ...................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.3 State and Federal Agencies ................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.4 Tribal Governments .............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3 Water Resources Management ...........................................................................................2-9
2.4 Water Sources .................................................................................................................. 2-11
2.4.1 Local Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 2-11
2.4.2 Colorado River Water ......................................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.3 State Water Project ............................................................................................................ 2-12
2.4.4 Surface Water ..................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.4.5 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.5 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................................. 2-14
2.6 Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................................. 2-18
2.7 Water Use Sectors ............................................................................................................ 2-20
2.8 Water Resources Monitoring ............................................................................................. 2-22
2.8.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 2-22
2.8.2 Streamflow .......................................................................................................................... 2-22
2.8.3 Subsidence .......................................................................................................................... 2-22
2.8.4 Groundwater Elevations ..................................................................................................... 2-22
2.8.5 Surface Water and Groundwater Quality ........................................................................... 2-26
2.8.6 Groundwater Pumping ....................................................................................................... 2-26
2.8.7 Drain Flows ......................................................................................................................... 2-27
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ................................................................................3-1
3.1 Physical Setting ...................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Garnet Hill Subarea ............................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Palm Springs Subarea ........................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3 Thermal Subarea ................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.4 Thousand Palms Subarea ...................................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.5 Oasis Subarea ........................................................................................................................ 3-9
3.3 Faults .................................................................................................................................3-9
3.4 Recharge and Discharge Areas ........................................................................................... 3-10
3.4.1 Groundwater Inflows .......................................................................................................... 3-10
3.4.2 Groundwater Outflows ....................................................................................................... 3-11
3.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections ............................................................................................ 3-12
3.5.1 Longitudinal Cross Sections ................................................................................................ 3-12
3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections .............................................................................................. 3-18
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions ...........................................................4-1
4.1 Groundwater Elevations ......................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Groundwater Elevations, Flow, and Trends.......................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Vertical Groundwater Gradients (Artesian Conditions)........................................................ 4-7
4.1.3 Groundwater Occurrence (Depth to Water) ........................................................................ 4-7
4.1.4 Groundwater Elevation Change ............................................................................................ 4-7
4.2 Changes in Groundwater Storage ...................................................................................... 4-11
4.3 Land Subsidence and Potential for Subsidence ................................................................... 4-14
4.4 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 4-16
4.4.1 Constituents of Concern ..................................................................................................... 4-16
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3 TODD/W&C
4.4.2 Data Sources for Water Quality Mapping ........................................................................... 4-16
4.4.3 Plan View Concentration Maps .......................................................................................... 4-17
4.4.4 Water Quality Cross Sections .............................................................................................. 4-26
4.4.5 Time-Concentration Plots for TDS and Nitrate ................................................................... 4-26
4.4.6 Total Dissolved Solids.......................................................................................................... 4-44
4.4.7 Nitrate ................................................................................................................................. 4-45
4.4.8 Arsenic ................................................................................................................................ 4-47
4.4.9 Chromium-6 ........................................................................................................................ 4-48
4.4.10 Uranium .............................................................................................................................. 4-49
4.4.11 Fluoride ............................................................................................................................... 4-49
4.4.12 Perchlorate ......................................................................................................................... 4-50
4.4.13 Dibromochloropropane ...................................................................................................... 4-50
4.5 Seawater Intrusion ............................................................................................................ 4-50
4.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ................................................................................ 4-51
Chapter 5: Demand Projections ....................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Factors Affecting Future Water Demands ............................................................................5-1
5.3 Municipal Demands ............................................................................................................5-2
5.3.1 Municipal Demand Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-2
5.3.2 SCAG Regional Growth Forecast ........................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.3 SCAG Land Use Inventories ................................................................................................. 5-10
5.3.4 Housing Unit Projections .................................................................................................... 5-14
5.3.5 Employment Projection ...................................................................................................... 5-21
5.3.6 Unit Demand Factors .......................................................................................................... 5-22
5.3.7 Baseline Forecast ................................................................................................................ 5-28
5.3.8 Water Loss .......................................................................................................................... 5-28
5.3.9 Adjustment Factors ............................................................................................................. 5-29
5.3.10 Water Demands on Tribal/Reservation Lands .................................................................... 5-33
5.3.11 Final Municipal Demand Forecast ...................................................................................... 5-33
5.4 Agricultural Demands........................................................................................................ 5-36
5.5 Agricultural Land Conversion ............................................................................................. 5-37
5.5.1 Agricultural Demand Factors .............................................................................................. 5-40
5.5.2 Agricultural Conservation ................................................................................................... 5-40
5.5.3 Final Agricultural Demand Projections ............................................................................... 5-41
5.6 Golf Demand .................................................................................................................... 5-42
5.6.1 Golf Conservation ............................................................................................................... 5-43
5.6.2 Final Golf Industry Demand Projections ............................................................................. 5-44
5.7 Other Demands ................................................................................................................ 5-44
5.7.1 Final Other Demand Projections ......................................................................................... 5-46
5.8 Total Water Demands ....................................................................................................... 5-46
Chapter 6: Water Supply ..............................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Overview of Water Supply ..................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Local Groundwater .............................................................................................................6-1
6.2.1 Uses of Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.2 Groundwater Supply ............................................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.3 Groundwater Storage ........................................................................................................... 6-4
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4 TODD/W&C
6.3 Surface Water .....................................................................................................................6-5
6.3.1 Use of Surface Water Supply ................................................................................................ 6-6
6.4 Colorado River Water ..........................................................................................................6-7
6.4.1 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) .............................................................. 6-8
6.4.2 Colorado River Water Consumptive Use .............................................................................. 6-9
6.4.3 Supply Reliability ................................................................................................................. 6-11
6.4.4 Use of Colorado River Water .............................................................................................. 6-13
6.5 SWP Exchange Water ........................................................................................................ 6-13
6.5.1 SWP Table A Amounts ........................................................................................................ 6-14
6.5.2 Other SWP Water Types ..................................................................................................... 6-15
6.5.3 Advance Deliveries .............................................................................................................. 6-16
6.5.4 Supply Reliability ................................................................................................................. 6-17
6.5.5 Delta Conveyance Facility ................................................................................................... 6-20
6.5.6 Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project ....................................................................... 6-22
6.5.7 Sites Reservoir Project ........................................................................................................ 6-22
6.5.8 SWP Delivery to Subbasins ................................................................................................. 6-23
6.5.9 Use of SWP Exchange Water .............................................................................................. 6-24
6.6 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................. 6-25
6.6.1 MSWD Regional WRF .......................................................................................................... 6-26
6.6.2 Palm Springs WWTP/DWA WRP ......................................................................................... 6-26
6.6.3 CVWD WRP-10 .................................................................................................................... 6-26
6.6.4 CVWD WRP-7 ...................................................................................................................... 6-27
6.6.5 CVWD WRP-4 ...................................................................................................................... 6-27
6.6.6 Valley Sanitary District WWTP ............................................................................................ 6-28
6.6.7 Coachella Sanitary District WWTP ...................................................................................... 6-28
6.7 Planned Water Reuse ........................................................................................................ 6-29
6.7.1 Use of Recycled Water ........................................................................................................ 6-30
6.8 Other Supplies .................................................................................................................. 6-30
6.8.1 Rosedale-Rio Bravo ............................................................................................................. 6-30
6.9 Supply Risks and Uncertainties .......................................................................................... 6-31
6.9.1 Colorado River .................................................................................................................... 6-31
6.9.2 SWP Exchange ..................................................................................................................... 6-31
6.9.3 Surface Water ..................................................................................................................... 6-32
6.9.4 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................... 6-32
6.10 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-33
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios ...........................................................................7-1
7.1 MODFLOW Model Description ............................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 Previous Versions of the Indio Subbasin MODFLOW Model ................................................ 7-1
7.1.2 Changes Made to Model for Alternative Plan Update ......................................................... 7-2
7.2 Model Input and Construction .............................................................................................7-3
7.2.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages ................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 Model Grid and Layers .......................................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.3 Aquifer Properties and Horizontal Flow Barrier ................................................................... 7-5
7.2.4 Initial Conditions ................................................................................................................. 7-10
7.2.5 Inflows ................................................................................................................................. 7-10
7.2.6 Outflows .............................................................................................................................. 7-21
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5 TODD/W&C
7.3 Model Update Process and Results .................................................................................... 7-26
7.3.1 Historical Model Calibration Results ................................................................................... 7-26
7.3.2 1997-2019 Model Update Process ..................................................................................... 7-28
7.3.3 Water Level Calibration Results .......................................................................................... 7-28
7.3.4 Drain Flow Calibration Results ............................................................................................ 7-37
7.4 Water Budget ................................................................................................................... 7-37
7.4.1 1997-2019 Water Budget ................................................................................................... 7-37
7.5 Plan Scenarios................................................................................................................... 7-43
7.5.1 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 7-43
7.5.2 Baseline (No New Projects)................................................................................................. 7-44
7.5.3 Baseline with Climate Change ............................................................................................ 7-48
7.5.4 5-Year Plan with Climate Change ........................................................................................ 7-52
7.5.5 Future Projects with Climate Change ................................................................................. 7-54
7.5.6 Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change ....................................................................... 7-57
7.6 Scenario Implementation .................................................................................................. 7-60
7.6.1 Inflows ................................................................................................................................. 7-60
7.6.2 Outflows .............................................................................................................................. 7-64
7.6.3 Other Predictive Model Inputs ........................................................................................... 7-65
7.7 Results .............................................................................................................................. 7-65
7.7.1 Baseline Scenarios - Impact of Climate Change .................................................................. 7-66
7.7.2 Climate Change Scenarios – Baseline and with Projects .................................................... 7-75
7.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 7-89
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues ........................................................................................8-1
8.1 Water Quality Policies and Planning ....................................................................................8-1
8.1.1 Basin Plan .............................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.2 Antidegradation Policy .......................................................................................................... 8-5
8.1.3 Recycled Water Policy ........................................................................................................... 8-5
8.1.4 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ......................................................... 8-6
8.1.5 Salinity Management ............................................................................................................ 8-8
8.1.6 Agricultural Drainage Discharge Regulations ..................................................................... 8-10
8.2 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 8-11
8.2.1 Salinity ................................................................................................................................. 8-11
8.2.2 Arsenic ................................................................................................................................ 8-12
8.2.3 Perchlorate ......................................................................................................................... 8-12
8.2.4 Chromium-6 ........................................................................................................................ 8-13
8.2.5 Uranium .............................................................................................................................. 8-13
8.2.6 Nitrate ................................................................................................................................. 8-14
8.2.7 PFAS .................................................................................................................................... 8-14
8.3 Salton Sea Restoration ...................................................................................................... 8-14
8.4 Small Water Systems ........................................................................................................ 8-16
8.4.1 Groundwater Supply Issues ................................................................................................ 8-16
8.4.2 Groundwater Quality Issues ............................................................................................... 8-16
8.4.3 Small Water System Consolidations ................................................................................... 8-17
8.5 Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 8-18
8.5.1 Colorado River Basin ........................................................................................................... 8-18
8.5.2 State Water Project ............................................................................................................ 8-19
8.5.3 Plan Area Supplies and Demands ....................................................................................... 8-19
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6 TODD/W&C
8.6 State Water Conservation ................................................................................................. 8-20
8.7 Subsidence ....................................................................................................................... 8-21
8.8 Other Issues ...................................................................................................................... 8-22
8.8.1 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 8-22
8.8.2 Seismic Response ................................................................................................................ 8-22
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management ............................................................................................9-1
9.1 Sustainability Indicators and Criteria ...................................................................................9-1
9.2 Sustainability Goal and Approach ........................................................................................9-2
9.3 Quantitative Criteria for Groundwater Levels ......................................................................9-4
9.3.1 Description of Undesirable Results ....................................................................................... 9-5
9.3.2 Potential Causes and Effects of Undesirable Results ............................................................ 9-5
9.3.3 Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Levels ..................................................................... 9-6
9.4 Quantitative Criteria for Groundwater Storage .................................................................. 9-13
9.4.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results .................................................... 9-13
9.4.2 Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Storage ................................................................ 9-13
9.5 Quantitative Criteria for Land Subsidence .......................................................................... 9-14
9.5.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results .................................................... 9-14
9.5.2 Sustainability Criteria for Land Subsidence ........................................................................ 9-14
9.6 Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems .......................... 9-15
9.6.1 Background on Indio Subbasin GDEs .................................................................................. 9-15
9.6.2 Identification of GDEs ......................................................................................................... 9-16
9.7 Water Quality Constituents of Concern .............................................................................. 9-19
9.7.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results .................................................... 9-19
9.7.2 Evaluation of Sustainability................................................................................................. 9-20
9.8 Water Quality Management .............................................................................................. 9-21
9.8.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results .................................................... 9-21
9.8.2 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan .................................................................................. 9-22
9.8.3 Continuing Studies of Salinity in Groundwater ................................................................... 9-23
9.9 Drain Flow Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 9-25
9.10 Seawater intrusion ............................................................................................................ 9-26
9.10.1 Background on Monitoring and Management for Seawater Intrusion .............................. 9-26
9.10.2 Water Balance and Inflow from Salton Sea ........................................................................ 9-27
9.10.3 Groundwater Elevations and Salton Sea Inflow ................................................................. 9-27
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program .................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1 Description of Monitoring Network ................................................................................... 10-1
10.1.1 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................................ 10-6
10.1.2 Groundwater Production .................................................................................................... 10-8
10.1.3 Subsidence .......................................................................................................................... 10-8
10.1.4 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 10-9
10.1.5 Seawater Intrusion ............................................................................................................ 10-11
10.2 Field Methods for Monitoring Well Data .......................................................................... 10-12
10.2.1 Protocols for Data Collection and Monitoring .................................................................. 10-12
10.2.2 Field Methods for Groundwater Elevation Monitoring .................................................... 10-13
10.2.3 Field Methods for Groundwater Quality Monitoring ....................................................... 10-13
10.3 Data Management System (DMS) .................................................................................... 10-14
10.4 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Program .................................................... 10-15
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7 TODD/W&C
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions ............................................................................. 11-1
11.1 Project Selection and Implementation ............................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.2 Project Identification .......................................................................................................... 11-3
11.1.3 Project Implementation ...................................................................................................... 11-3
11.2 List of Projects and Management Actions .......................................................................... 11-3
11.3 Water Conservation .......................................................................................................... 11-5
11.3.1 California Water Conservation Laws and Policies............................................................... 11-5
11.4 Water Supply Development ............................................................................................ 11-13
11.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................................... 11-13
11.4.2 SWP Water ........................................................................................................................ 11-13
11.4.3 Potable Reuse ................................................................................................................... 11-15
11.5 Source Substitution and Replenishment .......................................................................... 11-16
11.5.1 Colorado River Water – Non-Potable Water (NPW) Deliveries ........................................ 11-16
11.5.2 Direct Deliveries – Recycled Water ................................................................................... 11-18
11.5.3 Groundwater Replenishment ........................................................................................... 11-20
11.6 Water Quality Protection ................................................................................................ 11-22
11.6.1 Water Quality Programs and Policies ............................................................................... 11-22
11.6.2 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) .................................. 11-25
11.7 Deferred Projects ............................................................................................................ 11-27
11.8 PMA Implementation ...................................................................................................... 11-28
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation .......................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Plan Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.1.1 GSA Priorities ...................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1.2 Water Supply Evaluation .................................................................................................... 12-2
12.2 Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................ 12-8
12.2.1 GSA Program Management ................................................................................................ 12-8
12.2.2 Monitoring Programs .......................................................................................................... 12-9
12.2.3 Tribal Coordination ........................................................................................................... 12-11
12.2.4 Stakeholder Outreach ....................................................................................................... 12-11
12.2.5 Annual Reports ................................................................................................................. 12-12
12.2.6 5-year Plan Update ........................................................................................................... 12-13
12.2.7 Monitoring Network Improvements ................................................................................ 12-14
12.2.8 Refine Subbasin Characterization ..................................................................................... 12-15
12.2.9 Pursue Funding Opportunities .......................................................................................... 12-16
12.2.10 Implement PMAs .............................................................................................................. 12-19
12.3 Implementation Timeline ................................................................................................ 12-19
12.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 12-21
Chapter 13: References ................................................................................................................ 13-1
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8 TODD/W&C
TABLES PAGE
Table 1-1. Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies ............................................................ 1-10
Table 1-2. Public Meetings on the Alternative Plan Update .................................................................... 1-16
Table 2-1. Tribal/Reservation Lands within Plan Area ............................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-2. Land Use Planning Agencies .................................................................................................... 2-14
Table 5-1. Socioeconomic Growth Forecast for GSAs Within Plan Area ................................................... 5-8
Table 5-2. Total Plan Area Population with Seasonal Residents ................................................................ 5-9
Table 5-3. Land Available for Future Development (Acres) ..................................................................... 5-11
Table 5-4. Projected Buildout of Residential Land Uses (Housing Units) ................................................ 5-13
Table 5-5. DOF Vacancy Rates for Plan Area Cities (2016) ...................................................................... 5-15
Table 5-6. ACS Vacancy Rates for Unincorporated Areas (2014–2018) .................................................. 5-16
Table 5-7. Housing Unit Type for Plan Area Cities (2016) ........................................................................ 5-17
Table 5-8. Housing Unit Type for Unincorporated Areas (2014–2018) ................................................... 5-17
Table 5-9. New Units in Plan Area by Housing Type ................................................................................ 5-19
Table 5-10. Housing Units by Type for the Plan Area .............................................................................. 5-20
Table 5-11. Baseline and Forecast Employees by GSAs ........................................................................... 5-22
Table 5-12. Baseline Domestic Water Use for Plan Area GSAs (Acre-Feet per Year) .............................. 5-22
Table 5-13. Non-Domestic Water for Landscape Use (Acre-Feet) ........................................................... 5-24
Table 5-14. Variables Used in Unit Factors Calculation ........................................................................... 5-24
Table 5-15. Baseline Unit Factor Calculations .......................................................................................... 5-25
Table 5-16. CVWD Single-Family Demand Factors by City ....................................................................... 5-26
Table 5-17. Baseline Unit Factor Calculations for Private Wells and Other Water Systems ................... 5-26
Table 5-18. Outdoor Water Use Percentages for GSAs ........................................................................... 5-28
Table 5-19. Municipal Demand Forecast for the Plan Area (acre-feet) ................................................... 5-28
Table 5-20. Water Loss Reporting by Water Provider (3-Year Average) ................................................. 5-29
Table 5-21. Water Loss Projection for Plan Area (AFY) ............................................................................ 5-29
Table 5-22. State and Federal Plumbing Codes ....................................................................................... 5-30
Table 5-23. Parameters Used in Indoor Water Savings Fixtures ............................................................. 5-31
Table 5-24. Parameters Used in Indoor Water Savings Fixtures ............................................................. 5-31
Table 5-25. Indoor Passive Savings in the Plan Area (Acre-Feet)............................................................. 5-32
Table 5-26. Outdoor Passive Water Savings Within the Plan Area (Acre-Feet) ....................................... 5-33
Table 5-27. Municipal Demand Forecast for the Plan Area (Acre-Feet) .................................................. 5-34
Table 5-28. Total Municipal Demand Forecast for GSA Areas (Acre-Feet) .............................................. 5-35
Table 5-29. Agricultural Acres by Geographic Unit (Acres) ...................................................................... 5-38
Table 5-30. Conversion of Agricultural to Urban by Geographic Unit (Acres) ......................................... 5-38
Table 5-31. Agricultural Demand Factors (Based on 2015–2019 Average) ............................................. 5-40
Table 5-32. Projected Agricultural Water Demand (AFY) ........................................................................ 5-41
Table 5-33. Golf Course Demand Projection (AFY) .................................................................................. 5-44
Table 5-34. Other Demand Projection (AFY)............................................................................................ 5-46
Table 5-35. Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area (AFY) ............................................................. 5-46
Table 6-1. Indio Subbasin Groundwater Balance (2000-2009 and 2010-2019) ......................................... 6-3
Table 6-2. Indio Subbasin Groundwater Storage Capacity ........................................................................ 6-4
Table 6-3. Colorado River Water Entitlements (AFY) ............................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-4. SWP Table A Amounts (AFY) ................................................................................................... 6-15
Table 6-5. Historical SWP Table A Allocations, CVWD and DWA (2002-2021) ........................................ 6-18
Table 6-6. Estimated Average, Wet-, and Dry-Period Deliveries of SWP Table A Water ........................ 6-20
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9 TODD/W&C
Table 6-7. DCF Supply Amounts ............................................................................................................... 6-22
Table 6-8. Lake Perris Seepage Recovery Amounts ................................................................................. 6-22
Table 6-9. Sites Reservoir Supply Amounts ............................................................................................. 6-23
Table 6-10. Forecast Split of SWP Delivery to WWR-GRF and MC-GRF Based on Production ................ 6-23
Table 6-11. Forecast of SWP Table A Supplies to WWR-GRF and MC-GRF ............................................. 6-24
Table 6-12. Projected Wastewater Flow in Plan Area (AFY) .................................................................... 6-25
Table 6-13. Recycled Water Supply Based on 2018-2019 Wastewater Flows (AFY) .............................. 6-25
Table 6-14. Planned Water Reuse at WRPs with Tertiary Capacity (AFY)................................................ 6-29
Table 6-15. Projected Wastewater Remaining for Future Reuse (AFY) ................................................... 6-29
Table 6-16. Summary of Projected Non-Groundwater Supplies (AFY) .................................................... 6-34
Table 7-1. Model Calibration Summary Statistics 1997 – 2019 ............................................................... 7-29
Table 7-2. Baseline (No New Projects) Scenario - Modeled Deliveries for Direct Use (AFY) ................... 7-45
Table 7-3. Baseline (No New Projects) Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Replenishment (AFY) .......... 7-45
Table 7-4. Baseline with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Direct Use (AFY) .............. 7-49
Table 7-5. Baseline with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Replenishment (AFY) ...... 7-49
Table 7-6. 5-Year Plan with Climate Change Supply Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Direct Use
(AFY) ............................................................................................................................................ 7-52
Table 7-7. 5-Year Plan with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Replenishment
(AFY) ............................................................................................................................................ 7-52
Table 7-8. Future Projects with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Direct Use
(AFY) ............................................................................................................................................ 7-55
Table 7-9. Future Projects with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for
Replenishment (AFY) ................................................................................................................... 7-55
Table 7-10. Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for Direct
Use (AFY) ..................................................................................................................................... 7-58
Table 7-11. Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change Scenario – Modeled Deliveries for
Replenishment (AFY) ................................................................................................................... 7-58
Table 7-12. Simulated Inflows and Outflows, 25-Year Average (2020-2045) (AFY) ................................ 7-61
Table 8-1. Approved TMDLs for the CVSC.................................................................................................. 8-2
Table 8-2. TMDLs Under Development for CVSC ....................................................................................... 8-3
Table 8-3. TMDLs Under Development for the Salton Sea Watershed ..................................................... 8-3
Table 9-1. Key Well Network for Groundwater Levels .............................................................................. 9-7
Table 9-2. Criteria for Selection of Key Wells for Groundwater Level Monitoring .................................. 9-10
Table 10-1. Summary of the Monitoring Network .................................................................................. 10-2
Table 10-2. Summary of Salton Sea Nested Monitoring Wells .............................................................. 10-12
Table 11-1. Conservation Program Summary .......................................................................................... 11-7
Table 11-2. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels ............................................................................. 11-8
Table 12-1. Demand Forecast with Supply Buffer (AFY) ........................................................................ 12-3
Table 12-2. Comparison of Planned Supplies Under Plan Scenarios, 2045 (AFY) ................................... 12-4
Table 12-3. Potential Funding Sources for 2022 Alternative Plan Implementation .............................. 12-17
Table 12-4. Alternative Plan Update Implementation Timeline ............................................................ 12-20
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10 TODD/W&C
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure ES-1. Plan Area .............................................................................................................................. ES-2
Figure ES 2: Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage since 1970 .................................................... ES-4
Figure ES-3: TDS Concentration Map ....................................................................................................... ES-5
Figure ES-4: Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area (AFY) ............................................................ ES-7
Figure ES-5: Indio Subbasin Supply Forecast Projected Future Supplies with Climate Change (AFY) ..... ES-9
Figure ES-6: Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario .......................................................................... ES-10
Figure ES-7: Cumulative Change in Storage for Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change ............... ES-11
Figure ES-8: Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios ......................................................... ES-12
Figure ES-9: Key Wells ............................................................................................................................ ES-15
Figure ES-10: Categorized Projects and Management Actions .............................................................. ES-18
Figure 1-1. Groundwater Basins ................................................................................................................ 1-3
Figure 2-1. Plan Area .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2-2. Cities and Unincorporated Areas ............................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-3. Federal, State, and Local Government Land ............................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2-4. Tribal/Reservation Lands ......................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-5. Water and Wastewater Facilities ........................................................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-6. Land Use Map ........................................................................................................................ 2-17
Figure 2-7. Disadvantaged Communities and Economically Disadvantaged Areas ................................. 2-19
Figure 2-8. Small Water System Wells ..................................................................................................... 2-21
Figure 2-9. Climate and Streamflow Monitoring Stations ....................................................................... 2-23
Figure 2-10. USGS GPS Stations and Wells used for Subsidence Monitoring .......................................... 2-24
Figure 2-11. Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Well Locations ............................................................ 2-25
Figure 2-12. Wells with Water Quality Data Used for Alternative Plan Update ...................................... 2-28
Figure 2-13. Water Year 2018–2019 Groundwater Production............................................................... 2-29
Figure 3-1. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins ............................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2. Groundwater Subareas of the Indio Subbasin ......................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3. Geologic Map ........................................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-4. Generalized Stratigraphic Column Thermal Subarea .............................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-5. Approximate Extent of Shallow Semi-Perched Aquifer in the Thermal Subarea .................... 3-8
Figure 3-6. Cross Section Locations ......................................................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3-7. Cross Section A to A’ .............................................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-8. Cross Section A’ to A’’ ............................................................................................................ 3-16
Figure 3-9. Cross Section A’’ to A’’’ .......................................................................................................... 3-17
Figure 3-10. Cross Section B to B’ ............................................................................................................ 3-20
Figure 3-11. Cross Section C to C' ............................................................................................................ 3-21
Figure 3-12. Cross Section D to D’ ............................................................................................................ 3-22
Figure 3-13. Cross Section E to E’ ............................................................................................................. 3-23
Figure 4-1. Indio Subbasin Groundwater Elevation Contours WY 2018-2019 ........................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2. Wells with Long-Term Hydrographs ........................................................................................ 4-4
Figure 4-3. Water Level Hydrographs West Valley .................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-4. Water Level Hydrographs East Valley ...................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-5. Water Level Hydrographs Artesian Wells ................................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-6. Depth to Water Contours ....................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-7. Ten-Year Change in Groundwater Elevation (WY 2008-09 to WY 2018-19) ........................ 4-10
Figure 4-8. Historical Change in Groundwater Storage in Indio Subbasin .............................................. 4-12
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11 TODD/W&C
Figure 4-9. Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage since 1970 ..................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-10. Subsidence Map, 2014-2017 .............................................................................................. 4-15
Figure 4-11. TDS Concentration Map ...................................................................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-12. Nitrate as NO3 Concentration Map .................................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-13. Arsenic Concentration Map ................................................................................................ 4-20
Figure 4-14. Chromium-6 Concentration Map ........................................................................................ 4-21
Figure 4-15. Uranium Concentration Map .............................................................................................. 4-22
Figure 4-16. Fluoride Concentration Map ............................................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4-17. Perchlorate Concentration Map ......................................................................................... 4-24
Figure 4-18. DBCP Concentration Map ................................................................................................... 4-25
Figure 4-19. Water Quality Cross Section Location ................................................................................ 4-27
Figure 4-20. Cross Section A-A’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-28
Figure 4-21. Cross Section B-B’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-29
Figure 4-22. Cross Section C-C’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-30
Figure 4-23. Cross Section D-D’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-31
Figure 4-24. Cross Section E-E’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ............................ 4-32
Figure 4-25. Cross Section F-F’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ............................ 4-33
Figure 4-26. Cross Section G-G’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 .......................... 4-34
Figure 4-27. Cross Section H-H’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-35
Figure 4-28. Cross Section I-I’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 .............................. 4-36
Figure 4-29. Cross Section J-J’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ............................. 4-37
Figure 4-30. Cross Section K-K’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ........................... 4-38
Figure 4-31. Cross Section L-L’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ............................ 4-39
Figure 4-32. Cross Section M-M’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 ......................... 4-40
Figure 4-33. Cross Section N-N’ with TDS, Nitrate as NO3, Arsenic, and Chromium-6 .......................... 4-41
Figure 4-34. TDS Time-Concentration Plots ............................................................................................ 4-42
Figure 4-35. Nitrate as NO3 Time-Concentration Plots .......................................................................... 4-43
Figure 4-36. GDE Assessment ................................................................................................................. 4-54
Figure 5-1. Jurisdictions within Plan Area .................................................................................................. 5-4
Figure 5-2. TAZ Based Population Projections for Plan Area ..................................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-3. Socioeconomic Growth Forecast for Plan Area ....................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-4. Parcels Planned for Development by Current Land Use........................................................ 5-12
Figure 5-5. New Housing Units by Type (2000–2020) ............................................................................. 5-18
Figure 5-6. Housing Units by Type for Plan Area ..................................................................................... 5-21
Figure 5-7. Baseline Water Use by GSA (Acre-Feet per Month) .............................................................. 5-23
Figure 5-8. Indoor Water Use Estimation ................................................................................................ 5-27
Figure 5-9. Municipal Demand Forecast for Plan Area ............................................................................ 5-34
Figure 5-10. Municipal Demand Forecast for GSA Areas ......................................................................... 5-36
Figure 5-11. Agricultural Water Use, 2010–2019 (AFY) ........................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-12. Developable Agricultural Lands ........................................................................................... 5-39
Figure 5-13. Golf Course Water Use, 2010–2019 (AFY) ........................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-14. Other Water Use, 2010–2019 (AFY) .................................................................................... 5-45
Figure 5-15. Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area (AFY) ............................................................ 5-47
Figure 6-1. Total Watershed Runoff for Indio Subbasin, 1970–2019 (AFY) ............................................... 6-5
Figure 6-2. Colorado River Water Supply Projections.............................................................................. 6-11
Figure 6-3. Advance Delivery Account Year-End Balance ........................................................................ 6-16
Figure 6-4. 20-Year Table A Allocation History, CVWD and DWA ............................................................ 6-19
Figure 6-5. Delta Conveyance Facility – Proposed Corridor Options ....................................................... 6-21
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12 TODD/W&C
Figure 6-6. Projected Future Supplies with Historical Hydrology ............................................................ 6-36
Figure 6-7. Projected Future Supplies with Climate Change Hydrology .................................................. 6-37
Figure 7-1. Model Area and Boundaries .................................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-2. Base of Model Layer Elevations ............................................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-3. Model Layer Hydraulic Conductivities ..................................................................................... 7-8
Figure 7-4. Model Layer Storage Properties .............................................................................................. 7-9
Figure 7-5. Model Initial Conditions 1997 ................................................................................................ 7-11
Figure 7-6. Model Recharge Sources ....................................................................................................... 7-12
Figure 7-7. Subsurface Inflow from Mission Creek/Desert Hot Springs and San Gorgonio, 1997-
2019 ............................................................................................................................................ 7-13
Figure 7-8. Inflow by Source 1997-2019 .................................................................................................. 7-15
Figure 7-9. Location of Production Wells Known to be Active, 1997-2019 ............................................. 7-22
Figure 7-10. Groundwater Production, 1997-2019 ................................................................................. 7-23
Figure 7-11. Salton Sea Elevations, 1997-2019 ........................................................................................ 7-25
Figure 7-12. Model Calibration Hydrographs, 1936-2008 ....................................................................... 7-27
Figure 7-13. Simulated Shallow and Deep Groundwater Elevations, 2010 ............................................. 7-30
Figure 7-14. Simulated Shallow and Deep Groundwater Elevations, 2020 ............................................. 7-31
Figure 7-15. Shallow and Deep Model Calibration Wells ........................................................................ 7-33
Figure 7-16. Model Calibration Hydrographs, West Valley 1997-2019 ................................................... 7-34
Figure 7-17. Model Calibration Hydrographs, East Valley 1997-2019 ..................................................... 7-35
Figure 7-18. Simulated vs. Measured Drain Flows, 1997-2019 ............................................................... 7-38
Figure 7-19. Annual Model Water Budget, 1997-2019 ............................................................................ 7-39
Figure 7-20. Simulated Salton Sea Inflows and Outflows, 1997-2019 ..................................................... 7-40
Figure 7-21. Simulated Change in Storage, 1997-2019 ........................................................................... 7-42
Figure 7-22. Baseline (No New Projects) Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045 .................................... 7-46
Figure 7-23. Baseline (No New Projects) with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart,
2045 ............................................................................................................................................ 7-50
Figure 7-24. 5-Year Plan with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045 .......................... 7-53
Figure 7-25. Future Projects with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045 .................... 7-56
Figure 7-26. Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045.......... 7-59
Figure 7-27. Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario ............................................................................ 7-62
Figure 7-28. Annual Model Water Budget for Baseline with Climate Change ........................................ 7-67
Figure 7-29. Cumulative Change in Storage for Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change ................. 7-68
Figure 7-30. Model Baseline Scenario Hydrographs, West Valley 2020-2069 ........................................ 7-70
Figure 7-31. Model Baseline Scenario Hydrographs, East Valley 2020-2069 ......................................... 7-71
Figure 7-32. Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045 Baseline Scenario .......................................... 7-73
Figure 7-33. Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045, Baseline Scenario with Climate Change ....... 7-74
Figure 7-34. Total Model Inflow for Future Scenarios ............................................................................ 7-77
Figure 7-35. Simulated Pumping for Future Scenarios ........................................................................... 7-78
Figure 7-36. Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios .......................................................... 7-79
Figure 7-37. Simulated Drain Flow for Future Scenarios ........................................................................ 7-80
Figure 7-38. Simulated Salton Sea Net Outflow for Future Scenarios .................................................... 7-82
Figure 7-39. Model Future Scenario Hydrographs, West Valley 2020-2069 .......................................... 7-83
Figure 7-40. Model Future Scenario Hydrographs, East Valley 2020-2069 ............................................ 7-84
Figure 7-41. Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045, 5-Year Plan Projects Scenario with
Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 7-86
Figure 7-42. Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045, Future Projects Scenario with Climate
Change ........................................................................................................................................ 7-87
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-43. Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045, Expanded Agriculture Scenario with
Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 7-88
Figure 8-1. Flow Weighted Average Annual Salt Concentrations at Numeric Criteria Stations ................ 8-9
Figure 9-1. Selected Key Wells for Groundwater Level Monitoring ......................................................... 9-9
Figure 9-2. Aerial Imagery showing Salton Sea Recession ....................................................................... 9-18
Figure 11-1. Adaptive Management Cycle for PMA Implementation ..................................................... 11-2
Figure 11-2. Categorized Projects and Management Actions ................................................................. 11-4
Figure 12-1. Comparison of Planned Supplies and Demands Under Plan Scenarios, 2045 ..................... 12-6
Figure 12-2. Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario ............................................................................ 12-7
Figure 12-3. Alternative Plan Implementation ....................................................................................... 12-8
Table of Contents FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 14 TODD/W&C
LIST OF APPENDICES
1-A Alternative Plan Assessment, Evaluation of Existing Model and Recommendations
1-B 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Communications Plan
1-C Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Governance of the Indio Sub-Basin Under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
1-D SGMA Tribal Workgroup and Public Workshop Meeting Agendas and Summaries
1-E Public Comments Received and Response to Public Comments
1-F Public Hearing Comment and Support Letters
1-G Adoption Resolutions
2-A Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan and
Groundwater Monitoring Workplan
4-A Groundwater Level Monitoring Well Hydrographs
4-B Indio Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study
5-A Municipal Water Demand Projection for 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan
7-A 1997-2019 Observed vs. Simulated Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs
7-B Additional Future Plan Scenarios
7-C Additional Future Scenario Water Budgets and Model Simulations
9-A Key Well Groundwater Level Hydrographs with Minimum Thresholds
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1 TODD/W&C
MASTER ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST
Term Definition
˚F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/L micrograms per liter
2010 CVWMP 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
2018 Coachella Valley
IRWM/SWR Plan
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater
Resources (IRWM/SWR) Plan Update
AB Assembly Bill
ACS American Community Survey
ACWA Agua Caliente Water Authority
AD Assessment District
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
Alternative Plan
Update
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update: Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act Alternative Plan
AOB area of benefit
AOP Annual Operating Plan
ASR aquifer storage and recovery
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWAG Agricultural Water Advisory Group
AWMP Agricultural Water Management Plan
Basin Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for Plan for the Colorado River Basin—Region 7
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
bgs below ground surface
BLM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
BMP best management practice
BMWD Berrenda Mesa Water District
BPO basin plan objective
BPTC best practicable treatment or control
Bulletin 118 California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003
BWD Borrego Water District
C2VSIM California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CalWARN California Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network
CalWEP California Water Efficiency Partnership
Canal Coachella Canal
CAP Central Arizona Project
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS California Climate Adaptation Strategy
CASGEM Program California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
CAT Climate Action Team
CCLP Coachella Canal Lining Project
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CDPs census-designated plates
CEC California Energy Commission
Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERES California Environmental Resources Evaluation System
Cfs Cubic feet per second
Chromium-6 Hexavalent chromium
CIB capital improvement budget
CII commercial, industrial and institutional
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
CIPs Capital improvement projects
CMP Consolidated Monitoring Program
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO2e CO2 equivalents
COCs constituents of concern
COD College of the Desert
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
CPUC California Public Utility Commission
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CRLA California Rural Legal Assistance Inc.
CRW Colorado River Water
CSD Coachella Sanitation District
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CVCC Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
CVILC Coachella Valley Irrigated Lands Coalition
CVIRWMP Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
CVRWMG Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CV-SNAP Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CVWMR Coachella Valley Water Management Region
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
CWA Coachella Water Authority
CWC California Water Code
CWP California Water Plan
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CY calendar year
DAC disadvantaged community
DACE Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment
DACI Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure
DBCP dibromochloropropane
DCF Delta Conveyance Facility
DCP Drought Contingency Plan
DDW California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water
DEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
DEM digital elevation model
DLR detection limit for purposes of reporting
DMM Demand Management Measures
DMS Data Management System
DOF California Department of Finance
DPR Delivery Reliability Report
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
East AOB East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit
ECVWSP East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project
EDA Economic Development Agency
EDA economically disadvantaged community
EDC Endocrine Disrupting Compound
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ environmental justice
EJCW Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
ET evapotranspiration
ETAF evapotranspiration adjustment factor
ETc ET of a crop
ETo reference evapotranspiration
EVRA East Valley Reclamation Authority
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
feet bgs feet below ground surface
feet msl feet above mean sea level
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FY fiscal year
GAMA Program Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program
Garnet Hill WMP Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan
GDE groundwater-dependent ecosystem
GHB general head boundary
GHG greenhouse gas
GIPSY-OASIS GNSS-Inferred Positioning System and Orbit Analysis Simulation Software
GIS geographic information system
GLC Glorious Lands Company
GMS Groundwater Modeling System
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpd/conn gallons per day per connection
gphud gallons per housing unit per day
GPS global positioning system
GRF groundwater replenishment facility
GRP Groundwater Replenishment Program
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
HCF hundreds of cubic feet
HCM hydrogeologic conceptual model
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFB horizontal flow barrier
HOA homeowners’ association
I-Bank California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission
IC/ID illicit connection/illicit discharge
ICS intentionally created surplus
ID Improvement District
ID-1 Improvement District 1 (Reclamation)
IID Imperial Irrigation District
ILRP Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program
Indio Subbasin GSAs Groundwater Sustainability Agencies created by the Coachella Valley Water District,
the Coachella Water Authority, the Desert Water Authority, and the Indio Water
Authority, respectively
InSAR interferometric synthetic aperture radar
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPR indirect potable reuse
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
IRWM integrated regional water management
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IWA Indio Water Authority
IWFM Integrated Water Flow Model
IWRIS Integrated Water Resources Information System
K conductivity
Kv vertical conductivity
Landscape Ordinance Ordinance No. 1302.4: An Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District Establishing
Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria
LC local concern
LCP Landscaper Certification Program
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
MAR managed aquifer recharge
MC AOB Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit
MCGH WMP Mission Creek-Garnet Hill Water Management Plan
MC-GRF Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDWC Myoma Dunes Water Company
MG million gallons
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
MHI median household income
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
MO Measurable Objective
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MP Mile Post
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
msl mean sea level
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
MT Minimum Threshold
MVP Mid-Valley Pipeline
MWA Mojave Water Agency
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWELO Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCCAG Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater
NCCPA California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NIMS National Incident Management System
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPW non-potable water
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
O&M operations and maintenance
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PD-GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate
PHG public health goal
Plan Area Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Area
PMAs projects and management actions
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPR Present Perfected Rights
ppt parts per trillion
Proposition 1 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
Proposition 84 Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2006
PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RAC replenishment assessment charges
RAP region acceptance process
RCAC Rural Community Assistance Corporation
RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
RCOA Riverside County Operational Area
RCP-06 Riverside County Projections 2006
RECI water contract recreation
RECII water non-contact recreation
Region Coachella Valley Water Management Region
Regional Program Regional Water Conservation Program
RMS resource management strategies
RO reverse osmosis
Rosedale Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District
RTP regional transportation plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCSD Salton Community Services District
SDAC severely disadvantaged community
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEMS California Standardized Emergency Management System
SGM Sustainable Groundwater Management
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
SGWP Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
SOI sphere of influence
SPEIR Subsequent Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
SRWS self-regenerating water softeners
Ss specific storage
SS/TS source of supply/treatment study
SSA Salton Sea Authority
SSMP Salton Sea Management Plan
SWAMP Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
SWN State Well Number
SWP State Water Project
SWQIS California Statewide Water Quality Information System
SWR stormwater resources
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
SWS small water system
Sy specific yield
T transmissivity
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TAZ transportation analysis zones
TDML total maximum daily load
TDS total dissolved solids
TEL-GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, formerly the Dike 4 Recharge
Facility
TM technical memorandum
TMDL total maximum daily load
TRS Township range section
TSS Technical Support Services
Tulare Lake Tulare Lake Water Storage District
ULFT ultra low flow toilet
Master Acronyms and Abbreviations List FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8 TODD/W&C
Term Definition
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Coachella Valley Water Management Region
VSD Valley Sanitary District
WARM Salton Sea’s Warm Freshwater Habitat
WDL Water Data Library
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
West AOB West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit
WET-CAT Climate Action Team, Water-Energy Group
WIIN Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
WMP Water Management Plan
WMWC Whitewater Mutual Water Company
Workplan SNMP Development Workplan
WQO water quality objective
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WRFP Water Recycling Funding Program
WRP Water Reclamation Plant
WRSC Whitewater River Stormwater Channel
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSV Water Supply Verification
WUE water use efficiency
WWR-GRF Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility
WWTP wastewater treatment plan
WY water year
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-1 TODD/W&C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
Groundwater is a critical resource for the sustainability of Coachella Valley communities, agriculture,
economic activities, environmental benefits, and other beneficial uses. The Indio Subbasin (one of four
subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin) provides groundwater supply and a vast
groundwater storage capacity with the natural ability to convey water—through groundwater flow—
from areas of recharge to wells where water is pumped. Since the early 1900s, the Indio Subbasin has
been actively managed to address increasing water demands (with pumping for agricultural, urban, and
rural demands), beginning with capture of local stormwater to supplement the limited natural
groundwater replenishment and later implementing water importation (since 1949) and source
substitution projects. This has been a dynamic process with periods of groundwater depletion followed
by recovery. Groundwater levels and storage reached historical lows in about 2009, but this overdraft
has been stopped and increased groundwater storage has resulted from active water management
planning and projects. In addition, local agencies have recognized the multi-faceted nature of
groundwater issues (including subsidence, water quality, seawater intrusion, and potential impacts on
environmental uses) and have developed relevant management plans, programs, and projects, including
the 2002 Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan (2002 CVWMP) for the Indio Subbasin
(Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD], 2002a) and the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010
Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012a).
In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to
provide a framework for sustainable groundwater management. To implement SGMA in the Indio
Subbasin, four local water agencies formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): CVWD,
Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). In
2016, the Indio Subbasin GSAs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for collaborative
management of the Indio Subbasin under SGMA.
On December 29, 2016, the Indio Subbasin GSAs submitted to the Department of Water Resources
(DWR) the 2010 CVWMP (CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs,
2016), as an Alternative Plan to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Indio Subbasin. On July
17, 2019, DWR approved the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan. In compliance with SGMA,
the GSAs have prepared Annual Reports which can be found on the program website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org). SGMA also requires plan updates every 5 years; this Indio Subbasin
Water Management Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update) fulfills that requirement.
The GSAs conducted extensive stakeholder coordination and public involvement during the
development of the Alternative Plan Update to seek input from property owners/residents,
disadvantaged communities, agricultural interests, and environmental interests. Development of the
Alternative Plan Update was also guided by the SGMA Tribal Workgroup, which included representatives
from the following five Native American Tribes: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band
of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-2 TODD/W&C
ES.2 Plan Area
The Indio Subbasin is one of four subbasins that compose the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
(Basin). The Plan Area is based on the Indio Subbasin and the areas served by, or expected to be served
by, groundwater from the Subbasin, as shown in Figure ES-1. This includes areas to the east of the
Subbasin within the spheres of influence of the cities of Indio and Coachella that account for several
proposed large developments, and areas along the western and eastern shores of the Salton Sea that
are in CVWD’s domestic service area and receive groundwater from CVWD. Undeveloped mountainous
terrain and conservation areas in CVWD’s and DWA’s boundaries are not included in the Plan Area as
they do not receive water from the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin is geographically divided into
West Valley and East Valley.
The Indio Subbasin underlies
the incorporated areas of nine
cities as well as unincorporated
areas in portions of Riverside, San
Diego, and Imperial Counties.
Large tracts of land in the Plan
Area are owned and managed by
state and federal governments.
Five Tribal/Reservation areas for
Native American tribes are also
located within the Indio
Subbasin. The major water
agencies in the Plan Area are
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA.
Mission Springs Water District
(MSWD) and Myoma Dunes
Water Company (MDWC) also
serve smaller portions of the
Indio Subbasin.
Local water resources
management began with early
(19th Century) agricultural
development in the region, which
was initially based on
groundwater supply. However,
local groundwater supply proved
insufficient for irrigation and
subsequent urban water
demand, leading agencies to
acquire and import surface water supplies. The Plan Area currently relies on a combination of local
groundwater, Colorado River water, State Water Project (SWP) exchange water, local surface water, and
recycled water to meet demands for four predominant water user groups: municipal, agriculture, golf,
and other (e.g., fish farms, duck clubs, polo, etc.).
Figure ES-1: Plan Area
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-3 TODD/W&C
ES.3 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) encompasses more than 800 square miles and extends
from the San Gorgonio Pass in the San Bernardino Mountains to the northern shore of the Salton Sea.
The Basin is composed of the San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and Indio
Subbasins. The boundary between the San Gorgonio Pass and Indio Subbasins is a bedrock constriction
and divide; otherwise, the boundaries between the Subbasins are generally defined by faults that
represent barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater.
The Indio Subbasin is bounded on its northern, northwestern, southwestern, and southern margins by
uplifted bedrock; subbasin sedimentary fill consists of thick sand and gravel sedimentary sequences
eroded from the surrounding mountains. Sedimentary infill in the Indio Subbasin thickens from north to
south, and depending on location within the Subbasin, is at least several thousand and as much as
12,000 feet thick. The upper approximately 2,000 feet constitute the aquifer system that is the primary
source of groundwater supply.
Sources of inflow to the Indio Subbasin include infiltration of natural inflows through mountain-front
and stream channel recharge, subsurface inflows, artificial recharge of imported water, wastewater
percolation, and return flows from municipal/domestic use, agriculture, golf courses, and other sources.
From 2000 to 2019, combined return flows have represented the largest source of recharge in the
Subbasin, followed by imported water replenishment and natural watershed runoff and stream channel
recharge. Indio Subbasin groundwater outflows include groundwater pumping, subsurface and drain
flows to Salton Sea, and evapotranspiration. Groundwater pumping is the largest component of outflow
from the Indio Subbasin.
Seven hydrogeologic cross sections were developed to illustrate hydrogeologic conditions across the
Indio Subbasin. Overall, the longitudinal cross sections document a down-valley progression of alluvial
sediment from predominantly sand and gravel to increasing fine sands with clay lenses and then to clay-
dominated sediments at the Salton Sea. The perpendicular cross sections document the relatively
narrow, bedrock or fault-bounded character of the Indio Subbasin in the northwest, the substantial
thickness of the subbasin that occurs along the eastern margin of the Indio Subbasin or along the
subbasin axis, and the coarse-grained sediments along the western mountain front and limit of regional
clay to the west.
ES.4 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater conditions are described with reference to the six sustainability indicators identified in
SGMA: groundwater levels, groundwater storage, potential subsidence, groundwater quality, seawater
intrusion, and interconnected surface water and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs).
Regional groundwater flows are in a northwest-to-southeast direction through the Indio Subbasin. In
Water Year (WY) 2018-2019, groundwater elevations ranged from greater than 1,100 feet msl near the
San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin in the northwest to approximately -220 feet msl in the southeast along the
northern shoreline of the Salton Sea. Average depth to water contours for the Indio Subbasin for
WY 2018-19 show that greatest depths to water are observed in the northwestern portion of the basin
(generally greater than 200 feet). Depths to groundwater generally decrease to about 100 to 250 feet in
the mid-subbasin area and then to zero or above the ground surface in artesian wells near the Salton
Sea. Long-term historical hydrographs depict the groundwater level response to historical pumping and
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-4 TODD/W&C
water management activities identified and implemented in the 2002 CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP
Update. Collectively, the hydrographs illustrate the effectiveness of groundwater replenishment, source
substitution, and conservation programs under varying climatic and water use conditions.
Figure ES-2 shows the cumulative change in storage for the Indio Subbasin since 1970. Since 2009, the
Indio Subbasin has recovered approximately 840,000 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater in storage, or about
45 percent of the cumulative depletion observed from 1970 to 2009.
Figure ES-2: Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage since 1970
Land subsidence is the differential lowering of the ground surface, which can damage structures and
facilities. This may be caused by regional tectonism or by declines in groundwater elevations due to
pumping. Land subsidence, resulting from aquifer system compaction and groundwater level declines,
has been a concern in the Coachella Valley since the mid-1990s and has been investigated since 1996
through an on-going cooperative program between CVWD and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) (Sneed and Brandt, 2020). Analysis of data collected from 1995 to 2017 by the USGS indicates
that as much as 2.0 feet of land subsidence occurred in the Indio Subbasin from 1995 to 2010 near Palm
Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta (Sneed and Brandt, 2020). Since 2010, groundwater levels have
stabilized or increased, and although a few areas continued to subside (albeit at a slower rate), most
areas stopped subsiding from 2010 to 2017 and some even uplifted.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-5 TODD/W&C
Groundwater quality is
documented in the Indio
Subbasin focusing on eight
water quality constituents,
including total dissolved solids
(TDS), nitrate, arsenic,
chromium-6, uranium,
fluoride, perchlorate, and
DBCP. Each of these is
summarized in terms of
sources and maps showing
spatial distribution (see Figure
ES-3). In addition,
concentrations with depth are
shown in 14 vertical cross-
sections for TDS, nitrate,
arsenic, and chromium-6;
concentrations of these
constituents vary with depth.
Time-concentration plots are
shown for TDS and nitrate.
The primary (i.e., health-
based) maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) are stated for
each constituent with the
exception of TDS, which is
regulated by a range of
Consumer Acceptance
Contaminant Levels that are
based on aesthetics (e.g., taste). While concentrations of nitrate, arsenic, or fluoride may exceed MCLs
in some small water systems, County and GSA programs have been implemented to help provide better
water quality. All four GSAs provide drinking water supplies that meet all state and federal health
standards.
Elevated TDS and nitrate concentrations are linked to current and historical water and wastewater
management, agricultural activity, urban land use, septic systems, and natural conditions. In the Indio
Subbasin, arsenic, chromium-6, uranium, and fluoride are naturally occurring and show variable
distribution. DBCP is a soil fumigant historically used in agriculture that has persisted in a few wells.
Perchlorate has industrial, fertilizer, and natural sources with highly localized detections at low
concentrations. Cross-sections showing the vertical distribution of TDS indicate that concentrations
generally are less than 500 mg/L, lowest concentrations occur in deep wells in the central Indio
Subbasin, and highest concentrations found near the Salton Sea. The time-concentration plots indicate
increases in TDS concentrations since 1990, with lower rates of increase generally in deeper zones as
well as in the central and eastern Thermal Subarea. With regard to nitrate, time-concentration plots
Figure ES-3: TDS Concentration Map
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-6 TODD/W&C
show significant variability in shallow nitrate concentrations and local increases in nitrate
concentrations, mostly in the western areas where concentrations are already elevated in shallow wells.
The Indio Subbasin is potentially vulnerable to saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea. Potential
saltwater intrusion is monitored through two sets of nested monitoring wells. Results from these
monitoring wells do not suggest current groundwater degradation due to saltwater intrusion.
GDEs are defined as “ecological communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from
aquifers or on groundwater occurring near the ground surface.” As part of this Alternative Plan Update,
potential GDEs were evaluated using a desk-top survey and field visits. Surface water connected to
groundwater is generally not present in the West Valley because groundwater levels are much lower
than the ground surface. Probable GDEs were identified in three upper canyon areas of the San Jacinto
Mountains associated with springs, seeps, and stream channels that convey snowmelt from the San
Jacinto mountain front. Probable non-GDEs include dry upland areas, cultivated and/or flooded
agricultural land, obvious human-made ponds, lakes, and other features, channelized drains, and areas
with no other indicators of groundwater presence near the surface. The mapping also identified Playa
Wetland areas along the Salton Sea exposed seabed (playa). These wetlands occur generally
downstream of stream, agricultural drain, or stormwater channel outlets. The recession of the Salton
Sea is exposing thousands of acres of playa each year and water from irrigation ditches and other
drainages that previously flowed directly into waters of the Sea now spreads out on the exposed playa
of the Sea where new vegetation and wetlands now exist.
ES.5 Demand Projections
To provide an adequate long-range forecast of future water demands, this Alternative Plan Update uses
a 25-year planning period from 2020 through 2045. This planning is subject to uncertainties and changes
that could affect future water demands, including revised growth forecasts, conversions of agricultural
lands to urban uses, development on Tribal lands, and long-term conservation regulations. Projected
water demands are broken into four major categories: municipal, agricultural, golf, and other.
Total municipal demand for the Plan Area is 235,148 acre-feet (AF) in 2045, which is an increase of
71,143 AF from the 2016 baseline (i.e., 43 percent). The forecast assumes a population increase from
402,392 in 2016 to 616,048 in 2045, primarily in the cities of Coachella and Indio. The forecast also
assumes 57,773 parcels planned for development, as well as 125,232 new housing units by 2045,
corresponding with increased residential and landscape water demands. The projection anticipates
68,149 new jobs by 2045, corresponding with increased future commercial, industrial and institutional
(CII) water demands. The forecast accounts for water loss and includes adjustment factors for indoor
passive conservation and outdoor water use savings.
Total agricultural demand in the Plan Area is projected to decline from 295,150 AF in the 2016 baseline
to 280,243 AF in 2045 (i.e., 5 percent). The forecast assumes that by 2045, 5,973 acres of agricultural
land will be converted for urban land uses, and that 950 acres will be converted from idle to cropped in
the East Valley. As part of the scenario modeling, this Alternative Plan Update also considered the
potential for increased agricultural demand within the Plan Area as conditions in California change (see
Chapter 7, Numerical Modeling and Plan Scenarios).
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-7 TODD/W&C
Total golf industry demand is estimated to increase from 105,300 AF in 2020 to 107,625 AF by 2035 (i.e.,
2 percent). The forecast assumes three future golf courses approximately 150 acres in size.
Total other demand, historically composed of water demands from fish farm and duck clubs, polo/turf
irrigation and environmental water, is estimated to increase from 18,893 AF in 2020 to 21,593 AF by
2045 (i.e., 14 percent). The forecast assumes several new recreational lakes and surf parks, along with
potential water use by the Salton Sea Restoration North Shore pilot project.
Figure ES-4 presents the updated water demand projections for the Plan Area. Total water demand
projected for 2045 is approximately 644,610 AF. Projected water demand for 2045 is about 240,800 AF
lower than the 885,400 AF originally projected in the 2010 CVWMP Update. This reduction is a direct
result of reduced sociodemographic growth projections, along with conservation savings over the last
decade, which are assumed to continue into the future.
Figure ES-4: Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area (AFY)
ES.6 Water Supply
The Planning Area relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, SWP exchange
water, surface water, and recycled water to meet water demands.
Groundwater from the Indio Subbasin has been an important source of municipal, rural, and agricultural
water supply to the Plan Area. Groundwater levels and storage are presented in Chapter 4, Current and
Historical Groundwater Conditions and the water budget for the Indio Subbasin is summarized in
Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios for each planning scenario.
Natural surface water flow in the Coachella Valley occurs as a result of precipitation, precipitation
runoff, and stream flow originating from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, with lesser
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-8 TODD/W&C
amounts from the Santa Rosa Mountains. This watershed runoff is diverted for direct use, percolates
into the streambeds, or is captured in mountain-front debris basins where it recharges the groundwater
basin. The 50-year hydrologic period from 1970 to 2019 had an annual average watershed runoff of
52,506 AFY, with approximately 43,319 AFY in natural infiltration. Runoff during the 25-year period from
1995 to 2019 was below average, with 38,196 AFY in watershed runoff and 29,204 AFY in natural
infiltration.
Colorado River (Canal) water has been a significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the
Coachella Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives
Colorado River water allocations. Total available Colorado River deliveries will increase to 464,000 AF in
2045, with delivery of 436,050 AF after conveyance losses. This includes base entitlement from the 2003
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), 1988 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD)/IID Approval Agreement, IID/CVWD First Transfer, IID/CVWD Second Transfer, Coachella Canal
Lining, Indian Present Perfected Rights Transfer, and QSA SWP Transfer with MWD. Colorado River
supplies face a number of challenges to long-term reliability including the extended Colorado River Basin
drought and shortage sharing agreements, endangered species and habitat protection, and climate
change.
SWP exchange water has been an important component of the region’s water supply mix. In 1962 and
1963, DWA and CVWD, respectively, entered contracts with the State of California that defined a Table
A allocation (i.e., the maximum annual amount of water each contractor can receive excluding certain
interruptible deliveries). Table A deliveries vary annually based on factors including hydrology, reservoir
storage, and environmental requirements for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). DWA and
CVWD currently have a combined maximum annual SWP Table A amount of 194,100 AFY. In 2008,
CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase and conveyance of
supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water Purchase Program (Yuba Accord).
Over the 10-year period from 2010-2019, the average annual amount of Yuba Accord water purchased
by the GSAs was 651 AFY. In 2012, CVWD also entered into an agreement with Rosedale-Rio Bravo
Water Storage District (Rosedale Rio-Bravo) that provides a total of 252,500 AF to CVWD through 2035.
The balance of Rosedale Rio-Bravo water due to CVWD from 2020 to 2035 is 169,000 AFY, or an annual
average of 10,563 AFY.
Since 2007, SWP deliveries have averaged only 45 percent of Table A amounts. The Delta Conveyance
Facility (DCF) is a DWR project that would improve SWP reliability and result in increased deliveries in
the future. CVWD and DWA have approved a 2-year agreement to advance their share of funding for
DCF planning and design costs. MWD, DWR, CVWD and DWA have also begun planning for the Lake
Perris Seepage Recovery Project, which is anticipated to deliver 2,752 AFY to DWA and CVWD starting in
2023. CVWD and DWA have also entered into agreements with the Sites Reservoir Authority for the
purpose of obtaining 10,000 AFY and 6,500 AFY, respectively, from the Sites Reservoir Project.
There are currently eight wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or water reclamation plants (WRPs)
within the Plan Area, with a ninth in construction by MSWD. CVWD and DWA currently deliver recycled
water from three WRPs for irrigation of golf courses, large landscaped areas, and various other irrigation
uses. Forecasted recycled water deliveries from the three WRPs are anticipated to increase from 13,398
AF in 2020 to 20,213 AF in 2045 with additional projects in the planning phases.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-9 TODD/W&C
A summary of future projected supplies is illustrated in Figure ES-5. This summary shows available
imported and local surface water supplies and does not include the groundwater supply; the available
groundwater supply will vary under different management conditions and is quantified with simulations
using the numerical model (see Chapter 7, Numerical Modeling and Plan Scenarios).
Figure ES-5: Indio Subbasin Supply Forecast Projected Future Supplies with Climate Change (AFY)
ES.7 Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios
The Indio Subbasin numerical groundwater flow model and associated water budget were used to
assess groundwater conditions and future sustainability. The groundwater flow model, originally
developed in the mid-1990s and subsequently extended for the 2002 CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP
Update, was updated for this Alternative Plan Update with inflow and outflow data through 2019. Other
improvements included updated Salton Sea elevations, more accurate land surface elevations and
Salton Sea bathymetry, updated information on Garnet Hill subarea, and updated subsurface inflow
boundary conditions from adjacent subbasins. The updated model was applied to simulation of transient
three-dimensional groundwater flow within and between the shallow and deep aquifer zones. It
accounts for specific Subbasin inflows and outflows, and potential flow to and from the Salton Sea.
The model assumes that the Indio Subbasin is recharged through a combination of subsurface inflow
from the San Gorgonio Pass and Mission Creek Subbasins, mountain front and stream channel recharge,
replenishment of imported water, wastewater percolation, and return flows from municipal/domestic,
agricultural, and golf course irrigation, and from septic systems. Outflows include groundwater
production from agricultural, municipal, golf course, and other pumping wells; drain flows;
evapotranspiration; and groundwater outflows to the Salton Sea.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-10 TODD/W&C
The updated Indio Subbasin model meets qualitative and quantitative calibration goals. As documented
with groundwater level hydrographs, the simulations of shallow and deep aquifer water level trends
throughout the Subbasin are consistent with observed groundwater conditions. Simulated groundwater
elevation contour maps for shallow and deep aquifers are well matched with measured levels. Model-
simulated agricultural drain flow also generally matched measured drain flow. The groundwater flow
model is well calibrated with observed groundwater elevation and drain flow trends for both the
historical and updated periods.
Scenarios for the Alternative Plan Update were developed, including baseline scenarios and future Plan
scenarios addressing potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation
of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Except for
the Baseline scenario, climate change conditions were assumed for all Plan scenarios, reflecting that the
Indio GSAs are committed to achieving sustainability under changing climate conditions.
Each scenario was simulated over a 50-year period consistent with SGMA requirements. However, the
planning assumptions were only projected for the first 25 years to the 2045 planning horizon.
Thereafter, growth and supply assumptions were assumed to continue at the same rate for the second
25 years of the simulation. While extending beyond foreseeable land use and water resource planning
projections, the second 25-year projections allow long-term evaluation of water supply and demand
conditions, effectively testing Indio Subbasin sustainability under long-term hydrologic variability over
50 years.
Figure ES-6 illustrates the five scenarios in terms of the subbasin water budgets for each scenario
including the average inflows (upper portion of graph) and average outflows (lower portion) over the
planning period 2020-2045. As shown, all scenarios except Baseline account for climate change
(indicated by CC).
Figure ES-6: Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-11 TODD/W&C
To simulate the range of possible future conditions, two different hydrological cycles were used and
applied to the Plan scenarios. For the Baseline scenario, the observed hydrology for the Whitewater
River watershed from 1970 to 2019 was used. Future climate change is simulated similar to the
observed conditions over the last 25 years, a period marked with recurring drought and below average
rainfall. While all scenarios assume 45 percent reliability of SWP supplies, the climate change scenarios
assume an additional 1.5 percent reduction in SWP reliability by year 2045. Further, given the tendency
for recurring drought in climate change conditions, those scenarios assume CVWD will contribute water
to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water.
Modeling results are presented first with a comparison of the Baseline scenario and the Baseline with
Climate Change scenario. Results are shown in terms of the respective water balances, cumulative
change in storage, hydrographs at twelve wells across the subbasin, and groundwater level change
maps. Modeling results are then presented for all four Plan scenarios with climate change. Results of
these scenarios are shown together to allow comparison in terms of model inflows, simulated pumping,
simulated drain flow, simulated net outflow to Salton Sea, hydrographs, and maps showing change in
groundwater levels.
Simulation of the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios allows direct evaluation of the
effect of simulated climate change on groundwater storage. As indicated in Figure ES-7, a net increase in
Subbasin-wide groundwater storage is predicted for the Baseline scenario, while a net decrease in
Subbasin storage is predicted for Baseline with Climate Change. This indicates that implementation of no
new projects is not sustainable with climate change as simulated with recent hydrologic conditions
projected into the future.
Figure ES-7: Cumulative Change in Storage for Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-12 TODD/W&C
Simulation of the other three scenarios allows assessment of the effects of various water supply projects
packaged as follows: 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, Future Projects with Climate Change, and
Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change. As illustrated in Figure ES-8, while the Baseline with Climate
Change scenario results in net groundwater storage decline, the three other scenarios show a net
increase in storage at the end of the 25-year planning horizon (in 2045) and continuing stability through
the end of the modeling timeframe. Simulation of the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario shows
that already-planned projects and management actions can maintain the water balance, even with
climate change. The Future Projects with Climate Change scenario acknowledges the uncertainties that
exist with regard to future water supplies, water demands, and other circumstances. This scenario also
results in a stable Subbasin water balance.
In addition, all three scenarios of climate change with projects indicate increased net outflow to drains.
All four climate change scenarios show a net outflow to the Salton Sea, indicating no seawater intrusion.
Figure ES-8: Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios
ES.8 Regulatory and Policy Issues
Implementation of the Alternative Plan Update could be affected by regulatory policy and planning
issues. While these issues may represent challenges, the GSAs have identified potential solutions, and
considered opportunities. The 2010 CVWMP Update described emerging issues and these are updated
in the Alternative Plan Update, with some topics (e.g., subsidence) described in detail in terms of current
conditions, sustainable management, and implementation of projects and management actions.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-13 TODD/W&C
Regulatory policies include water quality policies and planning regarding the Colorado River Basin Plan,
anti-degradation policy, recycled water policy, Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-
SNMP), salinity management, and agricultural discharge requirements. Policies and regulations of the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
are updated as part of the regular review by the GSAs.
The Alternative Plan Update addresses water quality constituents including salinity, arsenic, perchlorate,
chromium-6, uranium, and nitrate, and also introduces the potential occurrence and adverse effects on
water supply of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), a group of human-made chemicals that are
persistent in the environment and human body, with potential adverse health effects. Occurrence in
Indio Subbasin of these constituents is summarized, along with monitoring and management actions to
protect drinking water supplies. The GSAs continue to track the specific water quality issues, including
the evolving regulations of emerging contaminants.
Planning is underway for Salton Sea stabilization and restoration. Once known for its recreational uses,
the Salton Sea has shrunk in size and deteriorated in water quality, leading to loss of the fishery and in
recent years, mass die-offs of birds and fish, raising concerns about these beneficial uses. The potential
for seawater intrusion into Subbasin aquifers has diminished as Subbasin groundwater levels have
increased and as the Salton Sea levels have declined and the sea has retreated. State and Federal
legislation has been passed to stabilize Salton Sea levels and support Salton Sea restoration.
In addition, the Alternative Plan Update addresses additional policy issues regarding availability of
suitable water supply for small community water systems. Small water systems, often serving
disadvantaged communities, may face challenges in providing safe, accessible, and affordable water
because they may not have adequate resources to support maintenance, operation, and treatment
costs. In response to these water supply issues, the GSAs with multiple small water systems in their
respective jurisdictions have completed and continue to work on consolidating communities to a
municipal water system to provide a reliable water supply source.
Climate change is another issue that has the potential to affect the availability of imported water supply
and to affect water supply and water demand in the Plan Area. Colorado River supplies may be affected
by the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan implemented as part of the Colorado River Drought
Contingency Plan Authorization Act passed in 2019 to keep Lake Mead above critically low levels.
Similarly, the supply availability and reliability of SWP is forecasted to decrease due to climate change.
Climate change effects on Plan Area water supplies are addressed in the Alternative Plan Update with
projected scenarios for numerical model simulation.
This Alternative Plan Update also addresses changes in water conservation. The Water Conservation Act
of 2009 required urban water suppliers to increase their water use efficiency. All six suppliers in the Plan
Area exceeded the per capita water use reduction of 20 percent by 2020. Subsequently in 2018, the
California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606, which together lay out a new long-
term water conservation framework that affects both urban and agricultural water providers. Urban
water conservation is being promoted by local agencies to enhance cost-effectiveness and to prepare
for water shortages, including drought.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-14 TODD/W&C
ES.9 Sustainable Management
The 2010 CVWMP Update developed an overarching goal for the Valley “to reliably meet current and
future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.” This Alternative Plan Update
continues to be guided by that goal with updated objectives as follows:
• Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer
• Avoid chronic groundwater overdraft
• Manage and protect water quality
• Collaborate with tribes and state and federal agencies on shared objectives
• Manage future costs
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts
• Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts.
The Alternative Plan Update incorporates a comprehensive approach to local groundwater
management. Acknowledged as functionally equivalent to a GSP, it utilizes SGMA sustainability
indicators and criteria as needed. SGMA provides a consistent, state-wide definition of sustainable
management as the use and management of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without
causing undesirable results. Undesirable results are defined as significant and unreasonable effects
caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout a basin. Indicators of undesirable results
include chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion,
land subsidence, degraded water quality, and depletions of interconnected surface water with adverse
impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
SGMA also provides quantitative measures that support demonstration of sustainability. These include
the Minimum Threshold (MT), a numeric value used to define undesirable results for each sustainability
indicator, and the Measurable Objective (MO), a specific, quantifiable goal to track the performance of
sustainable management. This Alternative Plan Update provides quantitative MTs for groundwater
levels, based on groundwater level monitoring data showing that chronic groundwater declines
occurred until about 2009. The potential undesirable impacts on wells (especially shallow domestic
wells) are discussed. No reports are known of wells adversely affected by low groundwater levels
historically, including the years around 2009.
The Key Wells shown in Figure ES-9 are representative of local groundwater elevation conditions and are
appropriate for monitoring groundwater levels relative to MTs. MTs are defined at each Key Well by
historical groundwater low levels. Undesirable results are indicated when groundwater levels are below
the MT for five consecutive same-season monitoring events, in 25 percent or more of the Key Wells in
the Indio Subbasin. The MO is to maintain groundwater levels above the groundwater level MTs within
the historical operating range.
Groundwater storage is the volume of water in the basin. The undesirable result associated with
reduction in groundwater storage would be an insufficient supply to support beneficial uses during
shortage and droughts. Groundwater levels and storage are directly related, as demonstrated by
comparison of groundwater level and storage trends, which reveal similar patterns of historical
overdraft, recovery, and response to different water year types including drought. As such, the
groundwater level MTs will be used as proxy for storage MTs.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-15 TODD/W&C
Land subsidence, the
differential lowering of the
ground surface, can damage
structures and hinder surface
water drainage. The land
subsidence experienced
historically in Indio Subbasin
has been caused by declines
in groundwater elevations
due to an imbalance of
pumping over recharge. As
such, the groundwater level
MTs will also be used as
proxy for subsidence MTs.
As shown in the Alternative
Plan Update, interconnected
surface water generally is not
present in the West Valley
because groundwater levels
are much lower than the
ground surface. In the East
Valley, a shallow semi-
perched aquifer zone is
present and potential GDEs
may occur in this area along
with non-GDE vegetation
around agricultural fields and
along drainage channels.
Evapotranspiration from such
vegetation is included in the
numerical model.
Throughout the Alternative Plan process, the GSAs have addressed groundwater sustainability in terms
of water quality, with maintenance of an extensive water quality monitoring program and
implementation of applicable management responses. Specific topics addressed in the Alternative Plan
Update include selected water quality constituents of concern, the CV-SNMP, drain flows that represent
salt outflow from the Subbasin, and seawater intrusion. Specific water quality constituents (including
fluoride, arsenic, chromium-6, DBCP, TDS, nitrate, uranium, and perchlorate) are discussed in terms of
sources, occurrence in the Indio Subbasin, and GSA actions to assist small water systems that are
adversely affected.
In 2020, work to update the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin (CV-SNMP) was initiated by the CV-SNMP agencies (including CVWD, CWA and Coachella Sanitary
District, DWA, IWA, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, VSD, MSWD, and City of Palm Springs)
working in cooperation with RWQCB staff. This has involved preparing a Groundwater Monitoring
Figure ES-9: Key Wells
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-16 TODD/W&C
Workplan, which was approved by the RWQCB in early 2021, and a SNMP Development Workplan with
implementation scheduled to begin in early 2022. The CV-SNMP update and Alternative Plan Update are
coordinated efforts. Elements of this Alternative Plan Update specifically supporting the CV-SNMP
include (but are not limited to) organization of water quality data into a database; evaluation of the
sources, and trends for TDS and nitrate; improvement of the monitoring program relative to TDS and
nitrate; and identification of projects and actions relevant to water quality management. Additional
study of salinity in groundwater—including analysis of the rate and level of increased salt contents in
groundwater due to Colorado River importation—will be achieved in large part by the CV-SNMP update.
An extensive agricultural drainage system (both subsurface tile drainage systems and surface drains)
was installed in the East Valley to control high water table conditions, to intercept poor quality shallow
groundwater, and to convey the water to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) and Salton
Sea. Drain flows are measured at 27 drains and the CVSC, and also have been simulated using the
numerical model. Relatively large drain flows are beneficial because they are a response to higher
groundwater levels which are protective of the deep aquifer and because they promote export of salt
from the Subbasin. The GSAs have defined a specific, potential undesirable result, which is degradation
of water quality in the deep Principal Aquifer due to downward migration of water with elevated TDS
levels found in shallow groundwater zones. High groundwater levels in the deep zone have a direct
relationship with good water quality at depth, and accordingly, the GSAs are considering groundwater
levels as an appropriate proxy. A drain flow study to document drain flow, groundwater level, and
water quality relationships is planned as part of Alternative Plan implementation.
Seawater intrusion from the Salton Sea has been emphasized as a potentially substantial and irreversible
consequence of overdraft. However, groundwater quality monitoring data (including chloride
concentrations), show no evidence that seawater intrusion is occurring in the Subbasin. This Alternative
Plan Update shows modeled groundwater elevations near the Salton Sea, demonstrates the consistency
of simulated levels with recent measured groundwater levels, and indicates minimal risk of saltwater
intrusion. Moreover, modeling indicates a net outflow of groundwater to the Salton Sea, indicating no
seawater intrusion. The Alternative Plan includes analysis of groundwater level data, modeling of
groundwater storage change, and regular monitoring of groundwater quality data to detect seawater
intrusion potential.
ES.10 Monitoring Program
The Indio Subbasin has been extensively monitored by the GSAs for decades, guided by the primary
objective to evaluate the effectiveness of water management programs and projects and to modify
actions and plans based on factual data. This Alternative Plan Update continues and builds on the
existing monitoring programs. Chapter 10 includes description of the monitoring network, methods and
protocols for data collection, and development and maintenance of the data management system
(DMS). The monitoring program has been assessed with reference to the sustainability goal and
objectives, data gaps have been reviewed, and improvements have been identified for implementation.
The monitoring program includes the following networks: climate, streamflow, subsidence, groundwater
elevations, surface and groundwater quality, pumping, and drain flow.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-17 TODD/W&C
Climate data are available from DWR’s California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
for four active CIMIS stations and for the 12 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District precipitation monitoring stations. Data are used to support groundwater conditions
characterization and evaluation of irrigation water demands (agricultural and golf course).
Streamflow is measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at 19 locations within the Indio
Subbasin. Surface water diversions by DWA from Snow, Falls, Whitewater, and Chino watersheds are
measured by DWA. Streamflow data are compiled annually to support tracking of basin conditions as
part of the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports.
Subsidence is documented in a recently completed comprehensive USGS report of findings (Sneed and
Brandt, 2020). The USGS, in cooperation with the GSAs, continues to study land subsidence in the
Coachella Valley through the USGS land-subsidence monitoring network, which currently includes 24
stations. InSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar) data are also available that use radar images
from satellites to provide broad spatial mapping of vertical displacement of the land surface.
Groundwater Elevations are available for selected wells in the Indio Subbasin dating back to 1910. Over
345 wells are currently monitored by the GSAs as part of their respective groundwater level monitoring
programs. The data are used to characterize Subbasin conditions, evaluate pumping and recharge
operations, and support groundwater modeling and model calibration. As part of this Alternative Plan
Update, 57 Key Wells were selected to assess sustainability in the Indio Subbasin.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality monitoring is performed by multiple agencies in the Plan Area.
For example, water purveyors are required by State law to monitor and report the quality of their water
sources. These data are publicly available on the SWRCB’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and
Assessment Program (GAMA) website. In addition, Tribes monitor the quality of their wells and maintain
records; not all these data are publicly available.
Groundwater Pumping is recognized as critical to Subbasin management. Accordingly, Division 2 Part 5
of the California Water Code requires each person (i.e., well owner/operator) within the counties of
Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura extracting more than 25 AFY of groundwater to file
a “Notice of Extraction and Diversion of Water” with the SWRCB. In addition, the enabling legislation of
CVWD and DWA respectively require that all production subject to replenishment assessment be
reported monthly. The reporting threshold for pumpers (designated minimal producers) within the
CVWD boundary is 25 AFY, while the threshold for DWA is 10 AFY; 550 wells are metered.
Drain Flows and the CVSC receive intercepted shallow groundwater from agricultural areas and convey
the flow to the Salton Sea. A USGS gage station measures flow in the lower CVSC near the Salton Sea,
while CVWD measures drain flows at 27 sites on a monthly basis. The CVSC and drain system also
receive flows from CVWD’s irrigation system in excess of requested deliveries (regulatory water),
treated wastewater, and fish farm effluent. The drain flow data are used in tracking groundwater
outflow and in calibrating the numerical groundwater flow model.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-18 TODD/W&C
ES.11 Projects and Management Actions
A variety of projects and management actions (PMAs) are planned for implementation over the planning
horizon (to 2045) to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. Projects were identified by the GSAs through
a several-month process involving the GSAs, the general public, and interested stakeholders. Project
information was compiled into a draft list that was discussed and presented during the SGMA Tribal
Workgroup and Public Workshops held on March 3, 2020. The project selection process included review
and input from the GSAs and stakeholders, which was used to refine the project list for inclusion in the
Plan. This project list was created based on priorities identified by the GSAs and stakeholders.
The Alternative Plan Update includes a final list, shown in Figure ES-10, of 30 possible PMAs
representing a wide variety of activities by the four GSAs. Projects are classified into four categories
based on project benefits: water conservation, water supply development, source substitution and
replenishment, and water quality protection.
Figure ES-10: Categorized Projects and Management Actions
ES.12 Plan Evaluation and Implementation
This Alternative Plan Update describes the planning process for achieving a reliable and sustainable
water supply. Using an adaptive management process, the GSAs can adjust project implementation if
monitoring shows that water demands and supplies are higher or lower than projected or if tracking of
groundwater levels indicates that undesirable results (including storage depletion and subsidence) could
occur in the foreseeable future.
While overdraft has been reversed in terms of chronic groundwater level declines, storage depletion,
subsidence, and seawater intrusion, the GSAs still face uncertainties in terms of forecasted demands and
water supply availability. Accordingly, the Alternative Plan Update has focused on securing water
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-19 TODD/W&C
reliability and resilience, namely the ability to provide consistent water supply and to respond to
changing future conditions. Water supply reliability in the Indio Subbasin is the GSAs’ ability to
consistently provide adequate water supply to meet projected demands, both for groundwater
replenishment and direct delivery, while sustainably managing the Subbasin. To maintain water
reliability and resilience through the planning horizon, the GSAs established the following priorities (in
no particular order) for use in selection of PMAs:
• Fully use available Colorado River water supplies
• Support improvement of the long-term reliability of SWP supplies, including participation in the
Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF)
• Continue developing recycled water as a reliable local water supply
• Implement source substitution and replenishment for resilience in response to changing
conditions and for maintenance of long-term groundwater supply reliability
• Increase water-use efficiency across all sectors
• Participate in development of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-
SNMP) to address salt and nutrient management in the Indio Subbasin.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs are working collaboratively to implement the Alternative Plan Update and
ensure the sustainability of the Indio Subbasin. This includes implementing PMAs as well as ongoing Plan
implementation and administrative activities. Alternative Plan implementation includes the program
management, tribal coordination, public outreach, ongoing data collection and monitoring, monitoring
network improvements, and funding activities necessary to implement this Plan. Chapter 12 summarizes
the timeline for each of these implementation activities.
GSA operations and Plan implementation will incur costs, which will require funding by the GSAs. The
activities associated with Subbasin-wide management and Plan implementation will be borne by the
four GSAs. Some activities (such as the Annual Reports and 5-Year Plan Updates) will be funded under
the cost-sharing arrangement established by the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016, along
with multiple supplements. Other management activities will be funded by individual GSAs or through
other cost-sharing agreements or amendment to the MOU. Projects will be administered by the GSA
project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs.
The overarching goal of the Alternative Plan Update is to reliably meet current and future water
demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. Implementation of the original 2002 CVWMP and
2010 CVWMP Update has achieved that overarching goal. With the passage of SGMA in 2014, the GSAs
are addressing the sustainability indicators established in the legislation. This Alternative Plan Update
establishes the groundwater conditions and hydrogeological conceptual model for the Indio Subbasin,
forecasts water demands through the planning horizon, describes water supplies available to the GSAs,
defines sustainable management for this region, presents water management projects and programs to
ensure Subbasin sustainability, and models the simulated conditions that would result from
implementation of those project portfolios. This planning process has demonstrated that with the
proposed projects identified in this Plan, and despite anticipated climate changes, the Indio GSAs are
able to meet forecasted demands under a variety of conditions and maintain the Indio Subbasin in
balance, even increasing groundwater storage over time. Subsidence and saltwater intrusion have been
stopped and are not anticipated to occur during Plan implementation.
Executive Summary FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update ES-20 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is a critical resource for the sustainability of Coachella Valley communities, agriculture,
economic activities, environmental benefits, and other beneficial uses. The Indio Subbasin (one of four
subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin) provides groundwater supply and a vast
groundwater storage capacity with the natural ability to convey water—through groundwater flow—from
areas of recharge to wells where water is pumped. Since the early 1900s, the Indio Subbasin has been
actively managed to address increasing water demands (with pumping for agricultural, urban, and rural
demands), beginning with capture of local stormwater to supplement the limited natural groundwater
replenishment and later implementing water importation (since 1949) and source substitution projects.
This has been a dynamic process with periods of groundwater depletion followed by recovery.
Groundwater levels and storage reached historical lows in about 2009, but this overdraft has been
stopped and replaced with increased groundwater storage as a result of active water management
planning and projects. In addition, local agencies have recognized the multi-faceted nature of
groundwater issues (including subsidence, water quality, seawater intrusion, and potential impacts on
environmental uses) and have developed relevant management plans, programs, and projects, including
the 2002 Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan (2002 CVWMP) for the Indio Subbasin (Coachella
Valley Water District [CVWD], 2002a) and the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update
(2010 CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012a).
In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to
provide a framework for sustainable groundwater management. SGMA defines sustainable management
as the use and management of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without causing
overdraft or undesirable results, defined in terms of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of
groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, land subsidence, degraded water quality, and depletion of
interconnected surface water with adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
SGMA promotes local management of groundwater resources in basins that it has designated as high or
medium priority. DWR designated Indio Subbasin as a medium-priority basin. Lower priority basins are
not required to comply with SGMA. To implement SGMA, local authorities have formed Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage the high- and medium-priority basins and to develop, submit,
and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) to manage local groundwater for long-term
sustainability. For basins—such as Indio Subbasin—with established groundwater management, GSAs
were empowered to submit Alternative Plans for GSP compliance.
Four local water agencies—Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA),
Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA)—manage groundwater in the Indio
Subbasin in compliance with SGMA. These agencies have been designated as Exclusive GSAs over their
respective areas and are referred to as the Indio Subbasin GSAs.
On December 29, 2016, the Indio Subbasin GSAs submitted to the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) the 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio
Subbasin GSAs, 2016), as an Alternative Plan to a GSP for the Indio Subbasin. The following additional
documents were submitted as part of the Alternative Plan to document the ongoing commitment of the
Indio Subbasin GSAs to continued assessment of plan assumptions, associated environmental impacts,
and implementation status.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-2 TODD/W&C
• Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) CVWMP and State Water Project (SWP) Entitlement
Transfer (CVWD, 2002b)
• Subsequent Program EIR for the 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012b)
• 2014 Status Report on the 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD and MWH, 2014)
• Annual Engineer’s Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission
Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East
Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit (CVWD)
• Annual Engineer’s Reports Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the
Whitewater River, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill Subbasins (DWA)
On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan. In compliance with
SGMA, the GSAs have prepared Annual Reports,1 which can be found on the program website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org). SGMA also requires plan updates every 5 years; this Indio Subbasin
Water Management Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update) fulfills that requirement.
1.1 Background for Alternative Plan Update
1.1.1 Indio Subbasin
The Indio Subbasin is one of four subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Figure 1-1). The
three neighboring subbasins include the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin to the west, Mission Creek Subbasin
to the north, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasin to the north/northeast. DWR designated the Indio Subbasin
as medium priority, as it did the Mission Creek Subbasin and the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin. DWR
designated the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin as very low priority.
The Indio Subbasin, encompassing 525 square miles of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, is
bounded on its northern, northwestern, and southwestern margins by uplifted bedrock and on the south
by the Salton Sea. The Indio Subbasin is filled with sediments, deposited mostly by the Whitewater River
and its tributaries, that include mostly sand and gravel sequences on the north with increasingly thick
layers of silt and clay on the south. These sediments are as much as 12,000 feet in thickness with the
upper 2,000 feet representing substantial groundwater storage and the primary source of groundwater
supply.
Situated in an arid area with limited sources of natural recharge, the groundwater basin currently receives
most of its inflow from groundwater replenishment facilities and from agricultural and urban return flows.
Groundwater flow generally is from northwest to southeast. Discharge from the Indio Subbasin occurs
mostly through pumping wells, evapotranspiration (ET), outflows from agricultural drainage facilities to
the Salton Sea, and subsurface groundwater outflows to the Salton Sea. Groundwater historically has been
and currently is used for multiple beneficial uses including agricultural, rural domestic, municipal, golf
course, and environmental purposes.
1 Each Annual Report is submitted to DWR by April 1 and documents conditions for the preceding year. For
example, the first annual report submitted April 1, 2018, documented conditions for water year (WY) 2016-17.
Subsequent annual reports in 2019, 2020, and 2021 have documented conditions for WY 2017-18, 2018-19, and
2019-20, respectively.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-5 TODD/W&C
1.1.3 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
The 2002 CVWMP (CVWD, 2002a) and the 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012a) have been critical to
addressing overdraft in the Indio Subbasin. These plans were based on the 1992 Groundwater
Management Planning Act (now superseded by SGMA).
CVWD began development of the 2002 CVWMP (CVWD, 2002a) in 1994 with the general goal of providing
adequate quantities of safe, high-quality water at the lowest cost to local water users. The 2002 CVWMP
identified the groundwater overdraft that had occurred and the threat of continued overdraft, based on
projections of growth and water demand. The primary objective was to eliminate overdraft and associated
adverse impacts including basin storage depletion, declining groundwater levels, subsidence, and water
quality degradation. Additional objectives were to maximize conjunctive use opportunities, to minimize
adverse economic impacts to water users, and to minimize environmental impacts. These objectives were
used as criteria to evaluate four alternatives and select a preferred alternative. The selected alternative,
which was subsequently implemented, involved a combination of water conservation (municipal,
agricultural, and golf course), increased water importation, increased groundwater recharge including
new facilities, and source substitution, which is the delivery of an alternate surface water supply in lieu of
pumping groundwater.
1.1.4 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update
The 2010 CVWMP Update was prepared to respond to changes affecting water supplies, water demands,
and evolving federal and state laws and regulations. Significant changes perceived at the time included
local population growth and land use changes, and external factors including fluctuations in SWP
allocation due to Bay-Delta restrictions, uncertainty of future Colorado River supplies as the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) was negotiated and litigated, and climate change affecting
not only local water demand, but also supplies from the Sierra Nevada and Colorado River watershed.
The 2010 CVWMP Update objectives were stated as follows:
1. Meet current and future water demands with a 10
percent supply buffer.
2. Eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft.
3. Manage and protect water quality.
4. Comply with state and federal laws and regulations.
5. Manage future costs.
6. Minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Each objective was defined to contribute to improved water
supply reliability for the Coachella Valley by ensuring adequate
supplies to meet current and future demands, eliminating the
long-term depletion of groundwater storage, and protecting
basin water quality. Accordingly, the 2010 CVWMP Update
addressed future land use development, potential reductions
in imported water supply reliability, climate change, water
quality issues and changing regulations, subsidence, water
conservation, and other issues. It also included an update and
application of a numerical groundwater flow model. Most
2010 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan Update
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-6 TODD/W&C
importantly, it described projects and management actions for implementation. Environmental review of
projects was provided in the Subsequent Program EIR for the 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012b).
To initiate this Alternative Plan Update, the 2010 CVWMP Update was reviewed in terms of its water
demand projections relative to actual demands between 2010 and 2019, water supply projections relative
to actual supply, status of implementation, and suitability of the numerical model for additional update
and improvement (see Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran, 2020 in Appendix 1-A). Key findings
concerning water demand and supply include the following:
• The 2010 CVWMP Update projected a 40 percent growth in population from 2010 to 2020,
reflecting trends at the time. Actual population within a similar timeframe (2010-2019) was only
10 percent.
• Since the 2010 CVWMP Update, actual demands (for urban, golf course, agricultural and other
uses) have been on average 150,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) lower than projected.
• Since the 2010 CVWMP Update, actual supplies served to users have been lower than projected
due to lower water demands throughout the region. Simply put, more groundwater has been put
into or remained in storage.
Implementation of projects described in the 2010 CVWMP Update included the following:
• Water conservation: The GSAs implemented water conservation programs for both large
irrigation customers and residential customers.
• New supply development: As part of the QSA, CVWD’s Colorado River allocation through the
Coachella Canal will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level until 2047,
decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates. This allocation is
supplemented with 35,000 AFY secured by CVWD as a SWP transfer from Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD). CVWD and DWA have actively participated in statewide
programs to improve the long-term reliability of SWP supply and to secure additional supplies.
• Source substitution: Golf courses connected to the Coachella Canal distribution system in the East
Valley now meet most of their total water use with Coachella Canal water. Improvements
continue to the Mid Valley Pipeline, which helps deliver non-potable water (including Coachella
Canal water and recycled water) to West Valley golf courses.
• Groundwater recharge: WWR-GRF and Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-
GRF) continue to replenish the Indio Subbasin with SWP exchange water and Colorado River
water. In 2019, Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD--GRF) began replenishing
the mid-valley area of the basin with Colorado River supplies.
• Water quality protection: The Indio Subbasin GSAs and other local agencies are developing an
updated Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). GSAs have implemented additional water
quality programs including operating wellhead treatment facilities to address elevated arsenic in
local wells and implementing well abandonment policies.
Evaluation of the model in terms of additional update and improvement indicated the following:
• The original 1936-1999 regional model was well calibrated to measure groundwater elevation and
water budget trends across the basin.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-7 TODD/W&C
• Reassessment of the 2010 CVWMP Update model regarding its simulation of measured data for
the period 1997-2019 indicated that the model accurately reproduces actual groundwater
elevations and trends.
Evaluation of the 2010 model indicated that most of the model recharge and discharge input data for the
period 1997-2008 should be retained, and the simulation period 2009-2019 was updated with actual data
and improved estimates. This Alternative Plan Update included update of model inputs and model
performance reassessment prior to conducting predictive management scenario simulations.
1.1.5 SGMA and Alternative Plan Development
SGMA affords GSAs a 20-year timeframe to implement a GSP or Alternative Plan. SGMA confirms existing
authorities and powers of GSAs and provides tools for GSAs to monitor and manage groundwater levels
and quality, land subsidence, and changes in surface water flow or quality affecting groundwater levels or
quality. SGMA also establishes authority for GSAs to require well registration and reporting of annual
groundwater extractions and surface water diversions for subsurface storage. Additionally, GSAs have
authority to impose limits on groundwater extractions from individual wells, assess fees to implement
local GSPs (and Alternative Plans), and request revisions of basin boundaries and create new subbasins.
As stated in SGMA (§10728.6), CEQA is not applicable to Plan preparation and adoption. However, it is
applicable to a project that would be implemented as an action pursuant to this Plan Update, noting that
projects included in the 2010 CVWMP Update have been addressed in the Subsequent Program EIR
(CVWD, 2012b).
In December 2016, CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA submitted a SGMA Alternative Groundwater
Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin (Bridge Document) (Indio Subbasin GSAs,
2016), which included submittal of the 2010 CVWMP Update. The Bridge Document explained to DWR
how the 2010 CVWMP Update was functionally equivalent to the requirements for a GSP and meets the
requirements of SGMA.
The Bridge Document submitted to DWR identified the following water management elements for
implementation:
• Water conservation measures
• Acquisition of additional water supplies
• Conjunctive use programs to maximize supply reliability
• Source substitution programs
• Groundwater recharge programs
• Water quality protection measures
• Other management activities
In its review and subsequent approval of the Bridge Document, DWR provided an Alternative Assessment
Staff Report (DWR, 2019) for the Indio Subbasin. This DWR Assessment summarized the principles of its
review, the materials submitted as the Alternative Plan, and the required conditions for approval. The
DWR Assessment also provided detailed description and evaluation of the Alternative Plan contents as a
functional equivalent to a GSP. Lastly, the DWR Assessment presented seven recommendations for
improvements to be included in the first 5-year update of the Alternative Plan.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-8 TODD/W&C
1.1.6 Approach to Alternative Plan Update
DWR approved the Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin, concluding that:
…technical information in the 2002 and 2010 [CVWMPs] and related documents demonstrate a
detailed understanding of the geology and hydrology of the Subbasin, the direct and indirect
adverse effects of past groundwater management practices that led to overdraft conditions, and
that the Agencies have demonstrated a commitment to eliminating overdraft to stop those adverse
effects and to prevent them from occurring in the future. The Alternative quantifies objectives for
sustainable management and for correcting groundwater problems and contains a robust set of
plans and management actions designed to eliminate overdraft and associated adverse impacts to
groundwater conditions. Department staff find the Agencies have set forth a reasonable and
feasible approach to eliminating overdraft, which will, in turn, have a beneficial effect to the overall
groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin, sufficient to avoid undesirable results.
While noting that the Alternative Plan elements are functionally equivalent to GSP elements, DWR also
provided seven recommendations to be addressed in this Alternative Plan Update, which would facilitate
DWR’s ongoing evaluation and determination of whether implementation of the Alternative Plan is
achieving the sustainability goal. The GSAs recognize and incorporate applicable and useful elements of
the SGMA framework and GSP preparation process. This Alternative Plan Update document generally
follows the sequence and elements of a GSP (as provided in Article 5 of the GSP Regulations) but also
provides chapters on water supplies, water demands, and regulatory and policy issues. These additional
topics were provided in the 2010 CVWMP Update and are recognized as fundamental to local water
management. In preparing this Alternative Plan Update, the DWR evaluation and recommendations have
been carefully considered and addressed, consistent with local adaptive management. Responses to DWR
evaluation and recommendations are incorporated as appropriate throughout this Alternative Plan
Update and addressed specifically in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management.
This Alternative Plan Update was built on the 2010 CVWMP Update and continues implementation of its
projects and management actions, with some refinements and deferrals based on Subbasin conditions. In
the context of reversing historical overdraft conditions in the Subbasin, this Alternative Plan Update has
been developed to provide documentation of groundwater conditions and a comprehensive and detailed
update of the water supply analysis, demand forecast, and scenario evaluation (to account for climate
change) using the groundwater model. This update also acknowledges and incorporates the Coachella
Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) effort that has recently been initiated.
1.2 Plan Goals and Objectives
The basic goal of this Alternative Plan Update remains the same as the prior iterations of the CVWMP:
• To reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.
During the planning process, and to align with SGMA, the GSAs also established a sustainability goal (see
Chapter 9, Sustainable Management for more detail):
• To maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for
existing and future beneficial uses in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid the
occurrence of undesirable results.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-9 TODD/W&C
The underlying Plan objectives were also refined from the 2010 CVWMP Update to reflect the water
supply uncertainties facing the Indio Subbasin:
1. Meet current and future municipal water demands with a ten percent supply buffer
2. Avoid chronic groundwater overdraft
3. Manage and protect water quality
4. Collaborate with tribes, state, and federal agencies on shared objectives
5. Manage future costs
6. Minimize adverse environmental impacts
7. Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts
1.3 GSA Governance
The GSAs responsible for managing the Indio Subbasin in compliance with the SGMA are listed in Table
1-1 and include the following:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is a public agency of the State of California organized and
operating under the County Water District Law, California Water Code section 30000, et seq, and
Coachella Valley Water District Merger Law, Water Code section 33100, et seq. CVWD has
groundwater management powers across a portion of the Indio Subbasin and manages replenishment
assessment programs under Water Code section 31630-31639. CVWD is governed by a board of five
directors, elected by district voters to 4--year terms.
Coachella Water Authority (CWA) is a joint powers authority formed as a component of the City of
Coachella and the Housing Authority of the City of Coachella and has statutory authority over water
supply.
Desert Water Agency (DWA) is one of the statutorily named, exclusive local agencies given the power
to comply with SGMA (Section 10723(c)(1)). DWA is an independent special district created by an act
of the State Legislature as set for in Chapter 100 of the appendix to the California Water Code. DWA
has groundwater management powers across a portion of Indio Subbasin and manages a
replenishment assessment program in addition to provision of retail water service to a portion of its
service area. DWA is led by a publicly elected, five-member Board of Directors.
Indio Water Authority (IWA) is a joint powers authority formed as a component of the City of Indio
and Housing Authority of the City of Indio and has statutory authority over water supply.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA each successfully filed a Notice of Election to become exclusive GSAs within
their respective jurisdictional areas in the Indio Subbasin.
CVWD has served as the Plan manager for this Alternative Plan Update, led by Zoe Rodriguez de l Rey,
Water Resources Manager, zrodriguezdelrey@cvwd.org.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-11 TODD/W&C
1.4.2 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) Program was established in 2009 by the Coachella
Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG). At that
time, the CVRWMG was composed of CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA,
and MSWD, but has since expanded to include Valley Sanitary
District (VSD) as well. The 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated
Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resources
(IRWM/SWR) Plan Update (2018 Coachella Valley IRWM/SWR
Plan) (CVRWMG, 2018) serves as a combined plan that
addresses the requirements of DWR’s IRWM Program
Guidelines and the State Water Resources Control Board’s
(SWRCB’s) Stormwater Resource Plan Guidelines. Both State
programs provide grant funding to support multi-benefit water
management projects that align with the program goals of
expanding water supply reliability, improving water quality, and
protecting water-based natural resources. The 2018 Coachella
Valley IRWM/SWR Plan presents an integrated regional
approach for addressing water management issues through a
process that identifies and involves water management
stakeholders from the Coachella Valley. Given that the Indio
Subbasin GSAs are all CVRWMG members, this Alternative Plan
Update was coordinated with and shared information with the IRWM program.
1.4.3 Urban Water Management Plan
Under the Urban Water Management Planning Act, DWR requires that urban water suppliers develop
Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) every 5 years. In the 2015 cycle, each of the water purveyors
within the Indio Subbasin prepared and submitted 2015 UWMPs. These UWMPs define their current and
future water use, water use targets, sources of supply, source reliability, and existing conservation
measures. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 set a goal for the State to reduce urban water use by 20
percent by the year 2020. As documented in the 2015 UWMPs, all the GSAs surpassed their established
2015 water use targets. The 2010 CVWMP Update and Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management
Plan (Mission Creek/Garnet Hill WMP) (Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD], Desert Water Agency
[DWA], and Mission Springs Water District [MSWD], 2013) were used as references for development of
2015 UWMPs within their study areas.
In the 2020 cycle, all the region’s water purveyors – CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and Myoma Dunes
Mutual Water Company – prepared a regional 2020 UWMP (CVWD et al., 2021). This 2020 Regional
UWMP (RUWMP) built on the demand forecasting and supply analysis prepared for the Alternative Plan
Updates for the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins. Water supply reliability analysis and drought
assessment were completed at the regional scale assuming supplies available to each water purveyor.
Throughout the planning process for this Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs have ensured ongoing
communication, coordination, and information sharing with the 2020 RUWMP team. As documented in
the 2020 RUWMP, all the GSAs successfully surpassed their respective 20 percent by 2020 water use
targets.
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated
Regional Water Management &
Stormwater Resources Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-12 TODD/W&C
1.4.4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) (CVAG, 2016) is a multi-
agency conservation plan for the entire Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains to address State and
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance in the region. The CVMSHCP, last amended in 2016,
defines a shared regional vision for balanced growth to enhance and maintain biological diversity and
ecosystem processes while also fostering economic growth. The CVMSHCP protects 240,000 acres of open
space and 27 species; enhances infrastructure without environmental conflicts; offers opportunities for
recreation, tourism, and job creation; and ensures the survival of endangered species (CVAG, 2016). The
CVMSHCP was considered in the development of this Alternative Plan Update, with emphasis in the
groundwater dependent ecosystem analysis.
1.4.5 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
The California Recycled Water Policy states that salts and nutrients from all sources must be managed on
a basin-wide or watershed-wide basis to attain water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses. This
is typically through development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP).
The original 2009 Recycled Water Policy required development of a SNMP by 2014 for each groundwater
basin or subbasin in California (later clarified as applicable to priority basins for the GAMA Priority Basin
Project). The 2018 Recycled Water Policy amendment includes a requirement that each Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) evaluate each basin or subbasin in its region before April 8, 2021. The
RWQCB is required to identify basins where salts and/or nutrients are a threat to water quality and
therefore need salt and nutrient management planning to achieve water quality objectives and protect
beneficial uses in the long term. These RWQCB evaluations are to be updated every 5 years.
The amended Recycled Water Policy continues to encourage collaborative development of a SNMP among
SNMP groups, RWQCBs, the agricultural community, IRWM groups, water and wastewater agencies, other
salt and nutrient contributors, stakeholders, and now, GSAs.
In 2015, CVWD, DWA, and IWA created an SNMP for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CVWD, et
al., 2015). Subsequently, the RWQCB provided comments and recommendations on the 2015 SNMP’s
compliance with the updated Recycled Water Policy (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020). In response, a
process to update the Coachella Valley SNMP (CV-SNMP) was begun in 2020 with development of a CV-
SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan that the RWQCB approved in February 2021. The CV-
SNMP process also included preparation of a CV-SNMP Development Workplan, approved by the RWQCB
in October 2021, that describes a detailed scope of work for update of the CV-SNMP through a
collaborative process between the water and wastewater agencies, RWQCB, and other stakeholders.
1.5 Notice and Communication
This Alternative Plan Update has been developed with input from all five tribes located within the Indio
Subbasin, stakeholders, and members of the public. The GSAs established a program website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org), initiated regular stakeholder communications, provided program
updates, and solicited input at public workshops and tribal workgroups.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-13 TODD/W&C
1.5.1 Participating Agencies and Coordination
The four GSAs—CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA—led all stakeholder outreach and communications in
accordance with a Communications Plan that was developed at program outset (see Appendix 1-B). The
Communications Plan contains outreach strategies and methods to address effective communication with
stakeholders during development of the Alternative Plan Update, including building trust between and
among the GSAs and property owners/residents, disadvantaged communities, tribes, agricultural
interests, and environmental interests. In response to tribal feedback, the GSAs held separate tribal
engagement meetings.
1.5.2 GSAs Decision Making Process
The GSAs are the designated decision-making entities for the Alternative Plan Update process. On October
5, 2016, the GSAs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish an agreement for
collaboration and cost-share for management of the Indio Subbasin under SGMA. Each GSA is responsible
for the portion of the Indio Subbasin within their respective jurisdictional area (see Figure 2-1). The MOU
establishes that its intent is to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication among the GSAs
regarding management of the Indio Subbasin.
The 2016 MOU established the GSAs’ intent to develop and submit the Alternative Plan to DWR. On April
3, 2018, the GSAs approved a Supplement to the MOU that outlined the GSAs’ intent to prepare an Annual
Report for Water Year 2017. On October 29, 2018, the GSAs approved a Second Supplement to the MOU
that allowed for ongoing preparation of Annual Reports by April 1 of each water year, along with
preparation of a 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (see Appendix 1-C). The Second Supplement
directs CVWD to serve as the managing entity for selected consultants but allows for input and review of
all SGMA-related deliverables and transmittal of all data and files to each of the four GSAs.
The GSAs met monthly to discuss Alternative Plan Update development and implementation activities,
assignments and consultant management, milestones, and ongoing work progress. The GSAs participated
in all public workshops and directed outreach meetings. Public input, no matter the method received (e.g.,
phone, email, public meeting), was shared with all the GSAs for consideration throughout the planning
process.
1.5.3 Stakeholder Involvement
Public engagement includes both stakeholder coordination and general public involvement. The goal of
the public engagement effort was to understand the needs of stakeholders, increase awareness and
understanding of the Alternative Plan Update, and promote active involvement in the process. Tribes and
stakeholders with interest in water management—including agency representatives, municipalities,
agricultural representatives, golf course industry representatives, Homeowners Associations, other large
irrigators, environmental justice groups, and non-governmental organizations—are the primary audience
for the Alternative Plan Update. The general public was engaged throughout the planning process to share
information about the Indio Subbasin and water management decisions and solicit input to the Alternative
Plan Update.
As the best way to communicate with and consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of
groundwater in the Subbasin, the GSAs established a program website (www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org).
The website provides information to stakeholders during plan development and implementation. From
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-14 TODD/W&C
the website, stakeholders can sign up to receive email updates and announcements. Public workshop and
meeting announcements, agendas, and materials are posted on the website in advance of each meeting.
To encourage stakeholder involvement in the planning process, the GSAs also provided outreach
documents, including the program website, in both English and Spanish to accommodate the primary
languages of many community members.
Indio Subbasin SGMA Website, July 2021
Additionally, a stakeholder email list was compiled and maintained throughout the planning process in
order to communicate with stakeholders. Announcements were sent in English and Spanish to announce
workshops or release of new planning materials. A project-specific email address was advertised and
maintained to receive input and feedback from stakeholders.
The GSAs will continue using the stakeholder email list to communicate items of interest to stakeholders
during Plan implementation, including upcoming workshops, release of Annual Reports, and GSA Board
meetings addressing SGMA topics.
Example of stakeholder email announcement (English on left; Spanish on right).
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-15 TODD/W&C
1.5.4 Public Workshops
Seven public workshops were held (generally on a quarterly basis) during plan development. The public
workshops were intended to inform stakeholders and the general public of the Alternative Plan Update
progress, solicit data and information to support planning and analysis for the Subbasin, and seek input
on key decisions made throughout the planning process. The GSAs recognize the need for and importance
of public participation and worked diligently to make sure that tribes, stakeholders, and participants were
heard. While the public workshops were planned to be held at various locations within the Subbasin, most
workshops were held digitally (video/phone conference) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public workshops were announced through the stakeholder email list and the website. The first workshop
announcement was sent approximately 30 days prior to an upcoming workshop and a reminder
announcement with the agenda was sent approximately 72-hours in advance. Meeting materials (agenda
and presentation) were uploaded to the website approximately 72-hours in advance of each workshop.
At public workshops, members of the public
were invited to provide input and comments
on Alternative Plan Update materials and
analysis. GSAs accepted verbal comments and
questions from any participant at meetings
and encouraged written comments at any
time during the planning process. At each
public workshop, the GSA team provided an
overview and update on different technical
topics and asked for feedback. The workshops
topics are summarized in Table 1-2 below.
1.5.5 SGMA Tribal Workgroup
The Alternative Plan Update process represents an opportunity for communication and cooperation
among GSAs, tribal governments, and other interested stakeholders. Accordingly, implementation of the
Communication Plan has included outreach to the following five tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.
Representatives of the tribal governments and Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs have participated in the
Alternative Plan Update process through quarterly meetings of the SGMA Tribal Workgroup. The meetings
have provided regular updates and opportunities for discussion and input. While the SGMA Tribal
Workgroups were planned to be held in person, most meetings were held digitally (video/phone
conference) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
A tribal email list was also compiled with representatives of all five tribal governments and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings were announced through the tribal email list and the
website. The first announcement was sent approximately 30 days prior to an upcoming meeting and a
reminder announcement with the agenda was sent approximately 72-hours in advance. Meeting
Public Workshop #1 was held in February 2020.
Chapter 1: Introduction FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 1-18 TODD/W&C
1.6 Plan Update Adoption
Each of the GSAs held a public hearing to consider adoption of the final Alternative Plan Update, as listed
in Table 1-2 above. The adoption hearings were publicly noticed under the Brown Act for each individual
GSA, as well as published collectively in The Public Record. Additionally, prior to each adoption hearing,
an announcement with the hearing date and GSA website link was sent to the Indio Subbasin tribal and
stakeholder email lists. The GSAs received several comment letters before the adoption hearings, included
in Appendix 1-F. The final Alternative Plan Update was adopted by all four GSAs. Appendix 1-G has been
added with the adoption resolutions.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 2: PLAN AREA
This chapter describes the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Area (Plan Area), including its geographic,
institutional, land use planning, and water resources management context.
2.1 Geographic Area
The Plan Area is based on the Indio Subbasin and the areas served by, or expected to be served by,
groundwater from the Subbasin. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in California’s
Groundwater Bulletin 118—Update 2003 (Bulletin 118) (DWR, 2003), defines the Coachella Valley Basin
(known as Basin 7-021) as having four subbasins, including the Indio Subbasin (Subbasin 7-021.01). The
other subbasins in this region are the Mission Creek, San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins.
The Indio Subbasin is identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the Whitewater River Subbasin.
Subbasins are further described in Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model.
As shown in Figure 2-1, the Plan Area encompasses the entire Indio Subbasin, which is part of the larger
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, including the Garnet Hill Subarea. The Garnet Hill Subarea is included
in the 2012 Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan (2012 MC/GH WMP) (Coachella Valley
Water District [CVWD], Desert Water Agency [DWA], and Mission Springs Water District [MSWD], 2013),
which was developed in coordination with the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update
(2010 CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012). The Garnet Hill Subarea is also included in the 2022 Mission Creek
Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (Mission Creek GSAs, 2021). Garnet Hill Subarea data collection,
analysis, modeling, and planning is being coordinated to ensure consistency between this Alternative Plan
Update and the 2022 Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan.
Figure 2-1 shows Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) boundaries in the Indio Subbasin. The four
GSAs have been formed by CVWD, Coachella Water Authority (CWA), DWA, and Indio Water Authority
(IWA). In this Alternative Plan Update, these GSAs are referred to as the Indio Subbasin GSAs.
Figure 2-2 shows the incorporated areas of the nine cities that overlie the Indio Subbasin and identifies
communities in the Subbasin’s unincorporated areas. As indicated on both maps, the Plan Area includes
portions of Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties.
While encompassing the Indio Subbasin, the Plan Area also includes lands beyond the Subbasin that are,
or in the future may be, reliant on groundwater pumped from the Subbasin. This includes areas to the
east within the spheres of influence of the cities of Indio and Coachella that account for several proposed
large developments such as Citrus Ranch, Dillon Trails, Desert Lakes, and Lomas del Sol. The Plan Area also
includes areas along the western and eastern shores of the Salton Sea that are in CVWD’s domestic service
area (i.e., Area 23 and the former Improvement District 11) that receive groundwater from CVWD.
As shown in Figure 2-1, portions of CVWD’s and DWA’s boundaries are not included in the Plan Area; these
include undeveloped mountainous terrain and conservation areas (shown by shading) and areas in other
subbasins that do not receive water from the Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-4 TODD/W&C
The Indio Subbasin is geographically divided into the West Valley and the East Valley. The West Valley,
which includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Palm Desert,
has a predominantly resort/recreation-based economy that relies on groundwater as its principal water
source. The East Valley, which includes the cities of Coachella, Indio, and La Quinta, and the communities
of Mecca, Thermal, and Oasis, has a predominantly agricultural economy using groundwater and Colorado
River water imported via the Coachella Canal (Canal). The East Valley is southeast of a boundary line
extending from Washington Street and Point Happy northeast to the Indio Hills near Jefferson Street, and
the West Valley is northwest of this line (shown in red on Figure 2-1).
2.2 Water Management and Land Use Planning Agencies
This section introduces the key water resource management agencies and shows portions of the Plan Area
under the jurisdiction of water management and land use planning agencies at the local, state, and federal
levels. As discussed below, some agencies have both water and land use management roles. Consistent
with Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements and local management, the Indio
Subbasin GSAs maintain ongoing collaborative relationships with multiple agencies at local, state, and
federal levels. Cooperative efforts among water agencies have included data sharing and collaboration on
water budget analyses and numerical model development for the Indio, Mission Creek, and San Gorgonio
Pass Subbasins, respectively (see Figure 1-1 for Subbasin locations). Land use plans are listed in Section
2.5, Land Use Planning.
2.2.1 Water Agencies
As described below, the major water agencies in the Plan Area are CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA (refer to
Figure 2-1). MSWD and Myoma Dunes Water Company (MDWC) also serve portions of the Indio Subbasin.
CVWD was formed in 1918 under the County Water District Act provisions of the California Water Code.
The water-related services provided by CVWD include irrigation water delivery and agricultural drainage,
urban and domestic water delivery, wastewater reclamation and recycling, stormwater protection, and
groundwater management achieved through replenishment, source substitution, and conservation.
CVWD imports Colorado River water via the Coachella Canal (Canal) primarily for agricultural and golf
course irrigation and for groundwater replenishment. CVWD is a California State Water Project (SWP)
contractor and imports SWP water through an exchange of Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) water with
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). SWP exchange water is used for groundwater replenishment. CVWD
operates more than 95 wells for domestic supply. It also operates five wastewater reclamation plants,
two of which provide recycled water for irrigation.
CWA was established in 1957 as City of Coachella’s water department. CWA is a retail water supplier that
meets its demand through groundwater pumped from six CWA-owned and operated wells. The water-
related services provided by Coachella include domestic water delivery, wastewater collection and
reclamation, and local drainage control. Coachella also operates a secondary treatment wastewater
facility.
DWA was founded in 1961 as a groundwater management agency. DWA provides domestic water
delivery, irrigation water delivery, and water reuse and groundwater replenishment. DWA is a SWP
contractor and imports SWP water through an exchange of CRA water with MWD for groundwater
replenishment. DWA pumps groundwater from more than 25 wells for delivery to its retail customers in
Cathedral City and Palm Springs. It also uses local surface water from Whitewater River and three
mountain streams in its service area. DWA’s local surface water is diverted to WWR-GRF subsurface
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-5 TODD/W&C
storage and is recovered by means of nearby production wells. DWA receives secondary treated
wastewater from Palm Springs, treats it to tertiary standards for water recycling, and delivers it to large
irrigation customers, including golf courses.
IWA was formed in 2000 as a Joint Powers Authority to serve as the legislative and policy entity
responsible for delivering water to Indio residents for all municipal water programs and services. IWA
provides water supply to most of Indio, and some unincorporated areas of Indio Hills, operating more
than 20 wells throughout its service area to meet its customers’ domestic water needs.
As described above, these four water agencies are the Indio Subbasin GSAs, and together in 2016 they
submitted the approved 2010 CVWMP Update as the region’s Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan (Alternative Plan) to comply with SGMA. Since then, the Indio Subbasin GSAs have been collaborating
on the Alternative Plan implementation. While the Indio Subbasin GSAs also collaboratively led
development of this Alternative Plan Update, other public agencies are also responsible for, and involved
in, water and land use management both in and near the Plan Area.
The MSWD service area overlies a portion of the northernmost Indio Subbasin, including part of the
Garnet Hill Subarea, which is included in the MC/GH WMP and the 2022 Mission Creek Subbasin
Alternative Plan Update (Mission Creek GSAs, 2021).
Other local water purveyors include the Myoma Dunes Water Company (MDWC), which is a retail urban
water supplier serving the community of Bermuda Dunes with groundwater from five wells.
In addition, numerous small private water systems serve local communities (e.g., mobile home parks) and
rural businesses.
2.2.2 Local Agencies: Cities and Counties
Figure 2-2 identifies the incorporated areas of the nine cities overlying portions of the Plan Area. As
described in the preceding section, two of these cities, Coachella and Indio, have water management roles
in addition to land use planning authority.
As shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, the Plan Area overlaps Riverside, Imperial, and San Diego Counties.
Riverside County encompasses most of the Plan Area, with small portions of the Plan Area in the San Diego
and Imperial Counties. County governments have direct local groundwater management roles in well
permitting and regulation of small water systems. Most relevant to Indio Subbasin, Riverside County has
a well ordinance administered by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health that
regulates construction, reconstruction, abandonment, and destruction of wells throughout the county.
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health is also the permitting agency for small water
systems.
SGMA enabled county governments to elect to become GSAs; Riverside County did not elect to become a
GSA for Indio Subbasin, nor did San Diego County. San Diego County portions of the Indio Subbasin are
within CVWD’s boundaries. CVWD is the exclusive GSA for these areas. Imperial County elected to become
GSA for all groundwater basin areas within its boundaries. Additionally, CVWD and Imperial County
resolved overlap issues through a Memorandum of Understanding such that CVWD is the exclusive GSA
for Indio Subbasin areas in Imperial County.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-9 TODD/W&C
The 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resources
(IRWM/SWR) Plan Update (2018 Coachella Valley IRWM/SWR Plan) (Coachella Valley Regional Water
Management Group [CVRWMG], 2018) provides detailed information about regional Tribal nations, Tribal
water resources, and key water resources issues, including Tribal water rights, groundwater quality,
potential for long-term overdraft, and Tribal participation in regional water planning. Tribal government
representatives and the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs have participated in the Alternative Plan Update
process via quarterly meetings of the SGMA Tribal Workgroup (see Section 1.5.5).
2.3 Water Resources Management
Local water resources management began with early (19th Century) agricultural development in the
region, which was initially based on groundwater supply. However, local groundwater supply proved
insufficient for irrigation and subsequent urban water demand, leading agencies to acquire and import
surface water supplies. These early development efforts included the following:
• Developing local surface water for replenishment (e.g., Whitewater River) or diversion (e.g., from
Snow, Falls, and Chino Canyon creeks)
• Importing Colorado River water supply through the Canal beginning in 1949 delivered to farmland,
golf courses, and replenishment facilities
• Contracting for SWP supply (exchanged for water from the CRA and used for replenishment
beginning in 1973)
• Developing recycled water used for landscape and golf irrigation
Water sources are further described in Section 2.4, Water Sources.
Development of farmland subsequently necessitated construction of agricultural drainage systems in the
form of both tile drainage systems, subsurface, and surface drains (from 1930s to 1990s). In addition,
stormwater drainage systems have been developed by local agencies over the years, including the
Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC).
Major systems and facilities are shown on Figure 2-5 and include the Canal, the CRA, GRFs, water
reclamation plants (WRPs), and agricultural drain systems.
Other water resource management programs have included implementation of water conservation,
source substitution, and water quality programs.
As noted in Section 2.1, Geographic Area, the original 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan for
the Indio Subbasin (CVWD, 2002) was developed to eliminate overdraft and provide comprehensive water
resources management; in 2010, this plan was updated as the 2010 CVWMP Update with the following
water management elements:
• Water conservation
• Acquisition of additional water supplies
• Conjunctive use
• Source substitution
• Groundwater recharge
• Water quality improvements
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-11 TODD/W&C
With passage of SGMA, the Indio Subbasin GSAs developed the original Alternative Plan consisting of the
2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012) and the SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge
Document for the Indio Subbasin (Bridge Document) (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016), which was approved by
DWR in 2019. Subsequently the Indio Subbasin GSAs have prepared Annual Reports 1; these documents
together have served as major planning and reporting documents for water resource management.
2.4 Water Sources
The Plan Area currently relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, SWP
exchange water, local surface water, and recycled water to meet water demands. Details about each
water source are provided in Chapter 6, Water Supply.
2.4.1 Local Groundwater
Local groundwater is pumped from the Indio Subbasin for water supply in the Plan Area. Groundwater
has been the principal source of urban water supply in the Plan Area since the early part of the 20th
century. Groundwater also supplies water for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf courses,
greenhouses, and industrial uses.
The Indio Subbasin is not adjudicated. It experienced chronic groundwater level declines and storage
depletion (i.e., overdraft) until the Subbasin was at its minimum storage level in 2009. Overdraft was
reversed through management including substantial replenishment and source substitution by CVWD and
DWA, and significant water conservation by local communities with the support of the GSAs.
The following three replenishment facilities are currently operated in the Indio Subbasin (refer to
Figure 2-5):
• Whitewater River Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF)
• Palm Desert Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF)
• Thomas E. Levy Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF)
For replenishment, the Subbasin is divided
into two management areas, the West
Whitewater River Subbasin management
area (i.e., West Valley) and the East
Whitewater River Subbasin management
area (i.e., East Valley). The Subbasin is
divided into areas of benefit (AOBs). The
West Valley is composed of two AOBs, one managed by CVWD and one by DWA, collectively referred to
as the West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area. The West Whitewater River Subbasin
Management Area and the WWR-GRF are jointly managed by CVWD and DWA under the terms of the
1976 Water Management Agreement as revised December 15, 1992 and July 15, 2014. CVWD also
operates the PD-GRF, which is located in the City of Palm Desert to replenish the Indio Subbasin’s mid-
1 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/alternative/print/23; refer to Section D.
CVWD operates the PD-GRF.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-12 TODD/W&C
valley area. The East Valley is composed of one AOB (see red dividing line on Figure 2-1); the East
Whitewater River Subbasin AOB and the TEL-GRF are managed by CVWD.
In the designated AOBs, groundwater replenishment programs are funded through Replenishment
Assessment Charges (RACs) paid by groundwater pumpers (other than minimal pumpers 2) on a per acre-
foot basis; this charge covers applicable costs of importing water and recharging the Subbasin.
2.4.2 Colorado River Water
Colorado River water has been a major source
of supply for the Plan Area since 1949 with the
completion of the Coachella Canal. The
Colorado River is managed and operated in
accordance with the Law of the River, which is
the collection of interstate compacts, federal
and state legislation, various agreements and
contracts, an international treaty, a U.S.
Supreme Court decree, and federal
administrative actions that govern the rights
to use of Colorado River water in the seven
Colorado River Basin states.
The Coachella Canal (refer to Figure 2-5) is a
branch of the All-American Canal that brings
Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Initially, water delivered from the Canal was
used exclusively for agricultural irrigation. As urban growth increased, other water users (primarily golf
courses and homeowners’ associations) began using Colorado River water for large landscape irrigation.
Use of Canal water for non-potable purposes helps conserve the Coachella Valley's groundwater supply
for domestic use.
Water imported via the Coachella Canal is also used at the TEL-GRF and conveyed through the Mid-Valley
Pipeline to the PD-GRF for groundwater replenishment. Colorado River water obtained through transfer
agreements with MWD is also used at WWR-GRF. As documented in the Indio Subbasin Annual Report for
Water Year 2018-2019 (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2020), approximately 76 percent of delivered Colorado River
water conveyed through the Canal was for agricultural use, about 11 percent was delivered for urban and
golf course irrigation uses, and about 13 percent was replenished at TEL-GRF and PD-GRF.
2.4.3 State Water Project
The SWP is managed by DWR and includes 705 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending
from Lake Oroville in northern California to Lake Perris in the south. DWA and CVWD initially contracted
for water from the SWP in 1962 and 1963, respectively. CVWD and DWA purchased additional SWP
transfers from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District in Kings County and from the Berrenda Mesa
Water District in Kern County.
2 CVWD’s enabling legislation defines a minimal pumper as any producer who produces 25 or fewer acre-feet (AF)
in any year. DWA’s legislation defines a minimal pumper as any producer who produces 10 or fewer AF in any
year.
The Coachella Canal was completed in 1949.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-13 TODD/W&C
There are no physical facilities to deliver SWP water to the Plan Area. CVWD’s and DWA’s SWP water is
exchanged with MWD for an equal amount of Colorado River water from MWD’s CRA.
SWP exchange water (i.e., Colorado River water) is recharged at the WWR-GRF and at the Mission Creek
Groundwater Replenishment Facility (MC-GRF) in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
2.4.4 Surface Water
Natural surface water flow in the Plan Area occurs as a result of precipitation and concentrated stream
runoff originating from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, with lesser amounts originating
from the Santa Rosa Mountains. DWA operates stream diversion facilities on Snow, Falls, and Chino Creeks
and captures subsurface flow from the Whitewater River Canyon for urban water supply in DWA’s service
area. Local surface water is also used for agricultural irrigation near Whitewater River.
2.4.5 Recycled Water
Recycled water is a reliable, locally
produced and managed water supply.
Figure 2-5 shows WRP locations and other
wastewater treatment facilities in the Indio
Subbasin. Currently, three WRPs provide
recycled water for irrigation in the Indio
Subbasin. Of these, two recycled water
facilities are operated by CVWD (WRP-7 and
WRP-10) and the DWA WRP is operated by
DWA in cooperation with the City of Palm
Springs. Recycled water from WRP-7 is
applied to golf courses in the Sun City area
and recycled water from WRP-10 is
delivered for golf course irrigation and
homeowners’ association landscaping. The
DWA WRP provides tertiary treatment for irrigation of golf courses, parks, and other landscaping in the
Palm Springs area.
In addition, a new wastewater treatment plant, to be operated by MSWD, has begun construction in the
Garnet Hill Subarea. Upon startup, secondary treated wastewater will be percolated; later, tertiary
treatment will be added and the water reused in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
For other wastewater treatment facilities in the region, treated effluent is discharged either to onsite
percolation/evaporation ponds or to the CVSC that runs from Indio to the Salton Sea. However, because
recycled water is a reliable source and suitable for landscape irrigation in lieu of groundwater pumping,
expansion of water recycling facilities is planned (see Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions).
Additional water recycling in the region could be gained not only through continuing population growth
but also through connecting currently unsewered areas (i.e., some rural portions of the Subbasin and
urban areas that use septic tank/leachfield systems to treat and dispose wastewater).
WRP-10 provides recycled water to large irrigation
customers in the mid-Valley area.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-16 TODD/W&C
• Overlay Areas—Includes special land use designations that provide standards in addition to those
of the underlying land use; typically to protect historical areas or limit development in hazard areas
• Agricultural—Includes row and truck crops, nurseries, citrus and date palm groves, vineyards,
ranches, poultry farms, and other agricultural related uses
Figure 2-6 shows existing land use in the region. Detailed information about land use patterns and trends
was compiled and analyzed to develop water demand projections; this is documented in Chapter 5,
Demand Projections.
Under SGMA, water supply and land use decision-making policy was amended to require closer
coordination and consultation among GSAs and land use approval agencies. SGMA aims to improve water
supply planning and management and accommodate projects that may result in increased water supply
demand or may impact water resource management. In the Coachella Valley, land use plans and growth
forecasts are periodically reviewed by water agencies in conjunction with preparing water management
plan updates like this Alternative Plan Update and urban water management plans (UWMPs). These
activities are consistent with SGMA, which states that close coordination between water agencies and
land use approval agencies is vital. SGMA requires water agencies to provide a city or county with its
current GSP or Alternative Plan and other relevant information like UWMPs, capital improvements or
plans, and descriptions of water supplies and demands (California Water Code Section 65352.5).
Before adopting a General Plan, or any substantial General Plan amendment, planning agencies must
review and consider the approved GSP or Alternative Plan and must refer the proposed adoption or
substantial amendment to any affected GSA. SGMA also requires that a GSP or Alternative Plan account
for the most recent planning assumptions stated in local General Plans.
While nothing specified in SGMA or contained in a GSP can be interpreted as superseding the land use
authority of cities or counties, Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 require that this information should be
included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by a city
or county for projects subject to CEQA that are of a specific size. As a result, local water agencies prepare
and adopt water supply assessments and written verifications of water supply availability for large
developments as required by SB 610 and SB 221.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-18 TODD/W&C
2.6 Disadvantaged Communities
Figure 2-7 shows the extent of disadvantaged communities (DACs), severely disadvantaged communities
(SDACs), and economically disadvantaged areas (EDAs) as indicated by unemployment percentage and
local financial hardship. DWR maintains two mapping tools for DACs and EDAs with periodic updates
based on the American Community Survey (DWR, 2021a and DWR, 2021b). In the Indio Subbasin, these
communities are diverse and include farm workers, urban and rural residents, and low-income seniors.
Groundwater is the water source, so ensuring that groundwater remains safe and reliable is a priority.
Historically, localized water quality issues have included arsenic, chromium-6, nitrates, total dissolved
solids, radionuclides, and bacteria (see Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues).
Organizations in the Coachella Valley have interacted and coordinated with DACs (inclusive of SDACs and
EDAs) for many years. In 2007, the DAC Planning Group was formed regionally to track the progress of
DAC programs under California’s Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). Since 2009, the Coachella Valley IRWM Program,
which is a partnership among CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and Valley Sanitary District (VSD), has
engaged in targeted outreach to DACs. The DAC Outreach Program was implemented in 2012 to improve
DAC participation in the Coachella Valley IRWM process and has continued to evolve to this day. The 2018
Coachella Valley IRWM/SWR Plan and the 2020 Colorado River Funding Area Water Needs Assessment
(Colorado River Funding Area Partners, 2020) summarizes known water and wastewater needs of DACs
and includes opportunities for future engagement and projects related to system consolidations,
education, safe drinking water, and wastewater treatment.
General outreach efforts conducted by the CVRWMG aim to encourage DAC participation in the Coachella
Valley IRWM Program and to ensure that DAC needs and concerns are incorporated into current and
future planning documents. The Coachella Valley IRWM Program has also provided increased technical,
engineering, and grant support for DACs that apply for IRWM grant opportunities. Through Proposition
84 and the California Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1),
the IRWM Program has provided millions of dollars to support DAC planning and construction projects.
The DAC Infrastructure Task Force, which is a collaboration between CVWD, non-profit organizations,
regulatory agencies, and municipalities, meets bimonthly to secure access to safe affordable drinking
water, wastewater, and flood control services in historically disadvantaged Coachella Valley regions
through strategic planning, funding procurement, needs assessment, and reporting. This continued,
consistent level of outreach over the years has allowed for relationship building with the DAC community.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-20 TODD/W&C
2.7 Water Use Sectors
Water use in the Plan Area includes four predominant water user groups: municipal, agriculture, golf, and
other. Water demand in the Plan Area is met through a supply combination of groundwater, surface
water, and non-potable water, including recycled water and imported Canal water. Major water use
sectors and sources are described below; detailed information is provided in Chapter 5, Demand
Projections.
• Municipal—The municipal group includes all water uses related to urban development, including
residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional. Municipal water supplies predominantly
consist of groundwater in the Plan Area, with some local surface water in portions of the DWA
service area and non-potable water (i.e., recycled water and Canal water) for irrigation in the CVWD
and IWA service areas. Supplies are generally served by the local water agencies (i.e., CVWD, CWA,
DWA, and IWA). In some areas, small public water systems, private pumpers, and private mutual
water companies and purveyors supply water in their services areas, with most using groundwater.
• Golf—The golf group consists of water uses related to golf course irrigation and maintenance. Golf
courses primarily use groundwater from private wells, Canal water, or recycled water. In a few
limited areas, golf courses use domestic water supply. Some golf water users also provide water
stored in onsite ponds to municipal users (e.g., homeowners’ associations) for irrigation.
• Agriculture—The agriculture group consists of water uses related to irrigation of crops and
agricultural production. Canal water is the predominant agricultural water supply with some surface
water use and with groundwater pumped from private wells in areas where Canal water is not
available.
• Other–The other group consists of water uses related to recreational lakes, fish farms, duck clubs,
and planned surf parks. These demands are met using Canal water, potable water, or water pumped
from private wells.
In the Plan Area, a number of rural communities are not connected to the GSAs’ domestic water system(s).
Residents in these communities depend on individual domestic wells or private wells connected to
independent small water systems to supply their drinking water. The local groundwater supplies of several
small water systems have shown elevated concentrations of arsenic and other constituents that are
currently regulated or may be in the near future (e.g., chromium-6). CVWD and CWA are actively pursuing
consolidation of small water systems in their domestic service areas. Figure 2-8 shows the locations of
small community water systems using wells, which was compiled from DWR’s Groundwater Ambient
Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program website and cross-referenced with California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) data.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-22 TODD/W&C
2.8 Water Resources Monitoring
In general, water resources monitoring addresses climate (i.e., temperature, precipitation, evaporation),
streamflow, subsidence, groundwater elevations, surface water and groundwater quality, groundwater
pumping, and drain flows. For this Alternative Plan Update, water resources monitoring discussions are
focused on the Indio Subbasin. Monitoring programs are briefly described below, and Chapter 10,
Monitoring Program, provides additional information along with recommendations for improvement.
2.8.1 Climate
Climate data are available from DWR’s California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for
four active CIMIS stations in the Indio Subbasin (Figure 2-9). Precipitation data have been collected for
the 12 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District precipitation monitoring stations,
which are also shown in Figure 2-9. Data were used to support groundwater conditions characterization
and an evaluation of irrigation water demands for agricultural and golf course uses.
2.8.2 Streamflow
USGS measures streamflow at 19 locations in the Indio Subbasin, which are also shown on Figure 2-9.
DWA measures surface water diversions from Snow, Falls, Whitewater, and Chino watersheds.
Streamflow data are compiled annually to support tracking of Subbasin conditions as part of the Indio
Subbasin Annual Reports.3
2.8.3 Subsidence
USGS, in cooperation with CVWD, has been studying land subsidence in the Coachella Valley since 1997,
and recently completed a comprehensive report of findings (USGS, 2020) that documents historical
subsidence, plus recent cessation of subsidence and uplift. Figure 2-10 shows the USGS land-subsidence
monitoring network, which consists of geodetic monuments used as global positioning system (GPS)
stations that can be surveyed repeatedly. This monitoring network has grown over time and currently
includes 24 stations. In addition to these stations, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data
are available that use radar images from satellites to provide broad spatial mapping of land surface vertical
displacement. These InSAR data are used by USGS, as documented in the comprehensive report of
findings, and are now also provided by DWR on its SGMA Data Viewer.4
2.8.4 Groundwater Elevations
Groundwater level monitoring data are available for selected wells in the Indio Subbasin dating back to
1910. Figure 2-11 illustrates the distribution of monitored wells as of water year (WY) 2018–2019, when
levels were measured in 345 wells by the Indio Subbasin GSAs as part of their respective groundwater
level monitoring programs. As shown, 52 of these wells were monitored by the Indio Subbasin GSAs and
MSWD as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program. DWR
established the CASGEM Program in 2009 to track seasonal and long-term groundwater elevation trends
in California’s groundwater basins. The CASGEM Program continues today as a tool to support SGMA. In
general, elevation monitoring data are used to characterize basin conditions, evaluate pumping and
recharge operations, and support groundwater modeling and model calibration.
3 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/alternative/print/23; refer to Section D.
4 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-26 TODD/W&C
2.8.5 Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Surface water and groundwater quality monitoring is performed by multiple agencies in the Plan Area.
For example, water purveyors are required by State law to monitor and report on the quality of their
water sources, and report to each customer and the SWRCB DDW. These data are publicly available on
the SWRCB’s GAMA Program website. In addition, Tribes monitor water quality in their wells and maintain
records; not all these data are publicly available. Local water agencies conduct water quality monitoring
as summarized below.
• CVWD—CVWD monitors domestic wells and wells to monitor recharge areas, conduct special
studies to address a specific parameter (such as chromium-6) or a specific area, and conducts
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) monitoring
• CWA—CWA monitors its domestic wells and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
• DWA—DWA monitors streams and its domestic wells, monitors for State emerging contaminants
(e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFASs]), and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
• IWA—IWA monitors its domestic wells and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
Figure 2-12 shows the locations of
groundwater wells with available water
quality data examined for characterization
of groundwater quality as part of this
Alternative Plan Update (i.e., wells reporting
recent water quality data). These
groundwater wells include supply,
irrigation, and monitoring wells. These wells
include those installed near GRFs and two
nested monitoring wells near the Salton Sea
that monitor changes in groundwater levels
and quality as potential indications of saline
intrusion.
In 2020, the GSAs – in collaboration with
local water and wastewater agencies,
RWQCB, and other stakeholders – initiated
an update to the 2015 CV-SNMP. The process began with development of a CV-SNMP Groundwater
Monitoring Program Workplan that the RWQCB approved in February 2021. The CV-SNMP process also
included preparation of a CV-SNMP Development Workplan that the RWQCB approved in October 2021.
These two Workplans are included as Appendix 2-A and describe the actions to be undertaken by the GSAs
to monitor, evaluate, and protect groundwater quality.
2.8.6 Groundwater Pumping
Information about groundwater production is critical to Indio Subbasin management. California Water
Code Division 2 Part 5 requires each well owner or operator in the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino,
Los Angeles, and Ventura extracting more than 25 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater to file a Notice
of Extraction and Diversion of Water with the SWRCB. In addition, the enabling legislation of CVWD and
DWA respectively require that all production subject to replenishment assessment must be measured,
Monitoring wells are sampled by the GSAs for a variety
of water quality constituents.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-27 TODD/W&C
and replenishment assessment invoices based on quantities produced are billed monthly or quarterly. The
reporting threshold for pumpers within CVWD’s boundary is 25 AFY, while the threshold for DWA is 10
AFY. All production wells exceeding these thresholds are required to have a measuring device capable of
measuring and registering the amount of water produced; 550 wells in these areas subject to the
replenishment assessment are metered (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2020). Both CVWD and DWA maintain
production records for wells in their respective areas. Figure 2-13 illustrates the distribution of
groundwater production wells in the Indio Subbasin.
2.8.7 Drain Flows
The CVSC and associated subsurface and
open drains receive intercepted shallow
groundwater from agricultural fields and
convey flow to the Salton Sea. A USGS gage
station measures flow in the lower CVSC
near the Salton Sea (Figure 2-7), while
CVWD measures drain flows at 27 sites on a
monthly basis. The CVSC and drain system
receive not only shallow groundwater but
flows of Canal water in excess of requested
deliveries (i.e., regulatory water), treated
wastewater, and fish farm effluent. Drain
flow data are used to track groundwater
outflow and to calibrate the Subbasin’s
numerical groundwater flow model.
CVWD measures drain flows at 27 sites on a
monthly basis.
Chapter 2: Plan Area FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 2-30 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 3: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL
This chapter describes the Indio Subbasin hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM), and establishes the
Plan Area’s geologic framework, including hydrogeologic boundaries, geologic formations and structures,
and principal aquifer units. This chapter also summarizes groundwater recharge and discharge areas,
describing how and where water flows into and out of the Subbasin. An important aspect of this system
is artificial recharge of groundwater (i.e., replenishment), which is conducted at Plan Area groundwater
replenishment facilities (GRFs). GRF operation has been critical to halting and reversing groundwater level
declines and storage depletion, which are key criteria for sustainability in the Indio Subbasin.
The HCM presented here is a summary of relevant aspects of the Subbasin hydrogeology that influence
groundwater sustainability. Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios and Chapter 9, Sustainable
Management, refer to the technical information summarized here.
3.1 Physical Setting
Figure 3-1 shows the extent of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin), which encompasses more
than 800 square miles and extends from the San Gorgonio Pass area in the San Bernardino Mountains to
the northern shore of the Salton Sea. The Basin is bordered by the San Bernardino Mountains on the
north, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west, the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the
east and Salton Sea on the south. The San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains impede
eastward movement of storms and create a rain shadow, which results in an arid climate and greatly
reduces the contribution of direct precipitation as a source of natural recharge to the Basin. Figure 3-1
also shows the GRF locations.
The Basin is composed of the San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and Indio Subbasins
(Figure 3-1). The boundary between the San Gorgonio Pass and Indio Subbasins is a bedrock constriction
and divide; otherwise, the boundaries between Subbasins within the Basin are generally defined by faults
that represent barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater. This discussion focuses on the Indio
Subbasin.
The western half of the Indio Subbasin is characterized by an urban resort/recreation-based economy and
includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and
Indian Wells. The eastern half has a predominantly agricultural-based economy and includes the cities of
Indio, Coachella, and La Quinta, along with the unincorporated communities of Mecca, Thermal, and
Oasis.
As shown in Figure 3-2, the Indio Subbasin has been described in terms of five Subareas: Garnet Hill, Palm
Springs, Thermal, Thousand Palms, and Oasis.
3.2 Geologic Setting
The Indio Subbasin is bounded on its northern, northwestern, southwestern, and southern margins by
uplifted bedrock; Subbasin sedimentary fill consists of thick sand and gravel sedimentary sequences
eroded from the surrounding mountains. Sedimentary infill in the Indio Subbasin thickens from north to
south, and depending on location within the Subbasin, is at least several thousand and as much as
12,000 feet thick. The upper approximately 2,000 feet constitute the aquifer system that is the primary
source of groundwater supply (DWR, 1979). Figure 3-3 is a geologic map encompassing the Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-4 TODD/W&C
From about the City of Indio southeasterly to the Salton Sea, the Indio Subbasin is characterized by
increasingly thick layers of silt and clay, especially in the shallower portions of the Indio Subbasin. These
silt and clay layers are remnants of ancient lakebed deposits and impede the percolation of water applied
for irrigation (DWR, 1964).
3.2.1 Garnet Hill Subarea
The Garnet Hill Subarea, located
between the Garnet Hill Fault and the
Banning Fault, is considered part of
the Indio Subbasin as defined in
DWR's California’s Groundwater:
Bulletin 118—Update 2003 (Bulletin
118) (DWR, 2003) and as shown in
Figure 3-2. The relative scarcity of
wells in the Garnet Hill Subarea limits
available geologic information and
understanding of groundwater
interactions between this Subarea
and the adjoining Mission Creek and
Indio Subbasins. The 2013 Mission
Creek/Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan (CVWD, DWA, and MSWD, 2013) states that
groundwater production is low in the Garnet Hill Subarea and is not expected to increase significantly in
the future due to relatively low well yields compared to those in the Mission Creek Subbasin. Groundwater
levels in the western and central portions of the Subarea show response to large replenishment quantities
from the Whitewater River GRF (WWR-GRF), while levels are relatively flat in the eastern portion of the
Subarea.
While the Garnet Hill Subarea receives subsurface inflow from Mission Creek Subbasin and some natural
recharge from occasional high flows of Mission Creek and other streams, the chemical character of the
groundwater and its direction of movement indicate that the main source of inflow to the Subarea comes
from percolation associated with the Whitewater River (CVWD, DWA, and MSWD, 2013).
3.2.2 Palm Springs Subarea
Located in the northwestern portion of the Indio Subbasin, the Palm Springs Subarea is bounded by the
Garnet Hill Fault to the north and the eastern slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south and extends
southeast to Cathedral City. Alluvial fan deposits consist of heterogeneous, coarse-grained sediments with
a total thickness in excess of 1,000 feet. Although there is no lithologic distinction apparent based on
water well driller’s logs, the total thickness of recent deposits suggests that Ocotillo Conglomerate
underlies recent Fanglomerate deposits at a depth ranging from 300 to 400 feet (DWR, 1964). Substantial
natural and artificial recharge (i.e., replenishment) occurs through the thick sequence of coarse sediments
in this Subarea.
Water from the Colorado River Aqueduct is conveyed through
the Whitewater Hydropower Plant and ultimately feeds
WWR-GRF.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-6 TODD/W&C
3.2.3 Thermal Subarea
Groundwater in the Palm Springs Subarea moves southeastward into the Thermal Subarea. As shown in
Figure 3-2, the division between the Palm Springs Subarea and the Thermal Subarea is near the City of
Cathedral City.
Figure 3-4 presents a generalized stratigraphic column of the Thermal Subarea showing local geologic
units and groundwater zones. As illustrated, the hydrostratigraphy is characterized by the following:
• A shallow semi-perched and confining zone consisting of recent silts, clays, and fine sands
• An upper aquifer with unconfined (water table) conditions
• A semi-confining aquitard of fine-grained materials
• A lower aquifer with confined and artesian conditions
As shown on Figure 3-4, fine-grained clay deposits of the upper Ocotillo Conglomerate Formation separate
the upper and lower aquifers. The clay deposits are not regionally extensive or sufficiently thick enough
to completely restrict vertical groundwater flow between the upper and lower aquifer zones and are thus
referred to as an aquitard.
The aquitard is absent, and no distinction between the upper and lower aquifer zones occurs, along the
southwestern margins of the Thermal Subarea at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, such as the
alluvial fans at the mouth of Deep Canyon and near the City of La Quinta.
The lower aquifer, composed of Ocotillo Conglomerate Formation, consists of silty sands and gravels with
interbeds of silt and clay. The lower aquifer contains the greatest quantity of stored groundwater in the
Indio Subbasin. The top of the lower aquifer occurs at a depth ranging from 300 to 600 feet below ground
surface (bgs). The thickness of the zone is undetermined, as the deepest wells in the Coachella Valley do
not fully penetrate the formation. Available data indicate that the zone is at least 500 feet thick and can
be in excess of 1,000 feet thick. The thickness of the aquitard overlying the lower aquifer zone ranges
from 100 to 200 feet, although in some areas near the Salton Sea it may be in excess of 500 feet.
Capping the upper aquifer zone in the Thermal Subarea is a shallow fine-grained zone in which semi-
perched groundwater occurs (Figure 3-5). This zone consists of recent silts, clays, and fine sands and is
relatively persistent southeast of the City of Indio. It ranges from 0 to 100 feet thick and is an effective
barrier to deep percolation. The low permeability of the materials southeast of the City of Indio has
contributed to irrigation drainage challenges in the area. Semi-perched groundwater has been maintained
by irrigation water applied to agricultural lands, necessitating construction of an extensive subsurface tile
drain system (DWR, 1964). North and west of the City of Indio, the zone is composed mainly of clayey
sands and silts, and its effect in retarding deep percolation is limited.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-9 TODD/W&C
3.2.4 Thousand Palms Subarea
The Thousand Palms Subarea (Figure 3-2) is located along the southwest flank of the Indio Hills and is
differentiated from the Thermal Subarea by groundwater quality differences (DWR, 1964). In brief,
groundwater in the Thousand Palms Subarea is characterized by sodium sulfate chemistry that is distinct
from the calcium bicarbonate water of the Thermal Subarea. The differences in water quality indicate that
replenishment to the Thousand Palms Subarea comes primarily from the Indio Hills and is limited in
supply. The relatively sharp boundary between chemical characteristics of water derived from the Indio
Hills in the Thousand Palms Subarea and groundwater in the Thermal Subarea suggests there is little
intermixing between the two Subareas.
The configuration of the water table north of the community of Thousand Palms is such that the generally
uniform, southeasterly gradient in the Palm Springs Subarea diverges and steepens to the east along the
base of Edom Hill. This steepened gradient suggests the presence of a barrier to groundwater flow in the
form of a reduction in sediment permeability or a southeast extension of the Garnet Hill Fault. Gravity
surveys by DWR (1964) do not indicate a subsurface fault. Accordingly, the sharp increase in gradient is
attributed to lower sediment permeability to the east.
3.2.5 Oasis Subarea
Another peripheral zone of unconfined groundwater, with different chemical characteristics from water
in the major Indio Subbasin areas, is found underlying the Oasis Subarea that extends along the base of
the Santa Rosa Mountains. Water-bearing materials underlying the Subarea consist of highly permeable
alluvial fan deposits. Although groundwater data suggest that the boundary between the Oasis and
Thermal Subareas may be a buried fault extending from Travertine Rock to the community of Oasis, the
remainder of the boundary is a lithologic change from the coarse fan deposits of the Oasis Subarea to the
interbedded sands, gravel, and silts of the Thermal Subarea. Little information is available as to the
thickness of the water-bearing materials, but it is estimated to be in excess of 1,000 feet.
3.3 Faults
The Indio Subbasin is bordered on the southwest by the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The
boundaries between Subbasins within the Basin are generally defined by faults that serve as effective
barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater. The Indio Subbasin is separated from the Mission Creek
Subbasin by the Banning Fault, and from the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin by the San Andreas Fault
(Figure 3-3). Both faults represent effective barriers to groundwater flow.
The Garnet Hill Subarea lies between the Garnet Hill and Banning Faults, which act as partially effective
barriers to lateral groundwater movement. The Garnet Hill Fault partially impedes groundwater flow from
the Garnet Hill Subarea toward the south. This effect is revealed by close inspection of groundwater level
information on either side of the Garnet Hill Fault; for example, the groundwater level contour map in the
Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2018-2019 (see Figure 3-2; Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2020) shows
differences of as much as 220 feet across the Garnet Hill Fault; such elevation differences also are
illustrated on the hydrogeologic cross section B-B’ (Figure 3-10). The Garnet Hill Fault does not reach the
surface and is probably effective as a barrier to lateral groundwater movement only below a depth of
about 100 feet (CVWD, DWA, and MSWD, 2013). A comparison of Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 indicates that
the Palm Springs Subarea is bounded by the Garnet Hill Fault to the north.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-10 TODD/W&C
3.4 Recharge and Discharge Areas
This section identifies groundwater inflows and outflows and describes the respective recharge and
discharge areas of the Indio Subbasin. Quantification of the inflows and outflows will be described in more
detail in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions and Chapter 7, Numerical Model and
Plan Scenarios.
3.4.1 Groundwater Inflows
Sources of inflow (i.e., recharge) to the Indio Subbasin include the following:
• Infiltration of natural inflows through mountain-front and stream channel recharge
• Subsurface inflows
• Artificial recharge of imported water (i.e., replenishment)
• Wastewater percolation
• Return flows from municipal/domestic use, agriculture, golf courses, and other sources
From 2000 to 2019, combined return flows have represented the largest source of recharge in the
Subbasin, followed by imported water recharge and natural mountain front and stream channel recharge.
3.4.1.1 Infiltration of Natural Inflows
Precipitation that falls in the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Little San Bernardino Mountains is the primary
source of natural recharge in the Indio Subbasin with only minor recharge from precipitation in the Little
San Bernardino Mountains. Mountain-front recharge includes subsurface inflow from canyons and
surface runoff from minor tributaries along the mountain fronts. The Whitewater River is the major
stream channel contributing recharge with additional infiltration along other channels such as Snow and
Falls Creeks in the upper valley and several smaller streams in the lower portion of the valley that only
flow during wet years. The annual volume of natural recharge varies significantly as the annual volume of
precipitation varies widely. During normal and wet years, mountain front recharge from these streams
and smaller watersheds percolates into the Subbasin as additional subsurface flow.
3.4.1.2 Subsurface Inflows
Natural inflow to the Indio Subbasin includes subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin
through the bedrock constriction, subsurface inflow from the Mission Creek Subbasin across the Banning
Fault, and subsurface inflow from Desert Hot Springs Subbasin across the Banning and San Andreas Faults.
In addition, subsurface inflow occurs from beneath the Salton Sea to deep zones in the Indio Subbasin.
3.4.1.3 Artificial Recharge of Imported Water (Replenishment)
Artificial recharge is accomplished as follows:
• In the western portion of the Indio Subbasin at the WWR-GRF
• In the mid-valley at the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF)
• In the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment
Facility (TEL-GRF) (formerly the Dike 4 Recharge Facility)
The source of replenishment water for the WWR-GRF is State Water Project (SWP) exchange water (i.e.,
water exchanged for Colorado River water via the Colorado River Aqueduct [CRA]), while the source of
replenishment water for the Palm Desert GRF (PD-GRF) and Thomas E. Levy GRF (TEL-GRF) is Colorado
River water via the Coachella Canal (Canal).
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-11 TODD/W&C
3.4.1.4 Wastewater Percolation
The urban portions of the Indio Subbasin are served primarily by municipal sewer systems that convey
wastewater to municipal wastewater treatment plants. A portion of the treated wastewater that is not
recycled and reused or discharged to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) is disposed to
percolation/evaporation ponds.
3.4.1.5 Return Flows from Use
Deep percolation of water applied to agricultural fields, golf courses, and urban landscapes represents a
major inflow to the groundwater system and is referred to as irrigation return flow. In addition to the
wastewater percolation that occurs at wastewater treatment ponds, some inflow occurs from septic
tank/leachfield systems that are used to treat and percolate wastewater. These are grouped with return
flows because they are individually small and distributed across rural portions of the Indio Subbasin and
a few urban areas without access to sewer systems. There are also some septic systems in areas with
access to sewer services that have not connected.
3.4.2 Groundwater Outflows
Indio Subbasin groundwater outflows consist of the following:
• Groundwater pumping
• Subsurface and drain flows to Salton Sea
• Evapotranspiration (ET)
3.4.2.1 Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater pumping is the largest component of outflow from the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater is
pumped for agricultural, municipal, golf course, and other beneficial uses within the Indio Subbasin;
additional groundwater is pumped from the Indio Subbasin and exported for use within the Plan Area in
adjacent Subbasins.
3.4.2.2 Subsurface and Drain Flows to Salton Sea
In the eastern Indio Subbasin, the confining unit of the upper aquifer impedes deep percolation of applied
water, resulting in saturated soil conditions that reduce agricultural productivity. In the 1930s, a network
of open drainage ditches was constructed to alleviate this condition. Subsurface (i.e., tile) drainage
systems were installed to control high water table conditions and to intercept higher salinity, shallow
groundwater. The CVSC and associated drains receive intercepted shallow groundwater from agricultural
fields and convey flows to the Salton Sea. The CVSC and drain system also receive flows of Canal water
that exceed requested deliveries (i.e., regulatory water), treated wastewater, and fish farm effluent.
Historically, with relatively high groundwater levels, groundwater naturally flowed toward the Salton Sea.
With groundwater level declines in the southeastern Indio Subbasin, the rate of outflow to the Salton Sea
decreased. Since about 2015, groundwater level increases have resulted in restoration of net outflow of
groundwater to the Salton Sea (see Section 7.2.5).
3.4.2.3 Evapotranspiration
Prior to development, water outflow through ET was significant above the semi-perched aquifer in the
southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley. As native landscapes were converted to agriculture,
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-12 TODD/W&C
groundwater outflow to ET decreased. Additionally, a portion of the imported water used for groundwater
replenishment and/or disposed as wastewater is lost to evaporation.
3.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections
Seven hydrogeologic cross sections were developed to illustrate hydrogeologic conditions across the Indio
Subbasin. Figure 3-6 shows the locations of the cross sections along with the GRF locations. Cross sections
A-A’, A’-A’’, and A‘’-A’’’ (Figures 3-7 through 3-9) form a contiguous 50-mile cross section oriented along
the central longitudinal axis of the Indio Subbasin, starting in the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin in the
northwest and ending at the northern shore of the Salton Sea in the southeast.
3.5.1 Longitudinal Cross Sections
Cross Section A-A’ (Figure 3-7) runs along the axis of the Indio Subbasin from the San Gorgonio Pass
Subbasin to just southeast of Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City in the Palm Springs Subarea. Permeable
sands and gravels comprise most of the Subbasin deposits with smaller lenses of fine sand and clay, which
increase in frequency to the southeast. Depth to bedrock (bottom of Subbasin) is about 1,400 feet at the
northwest edge and increases to the southeast, where depths to bedrock are greater but known only to
the extent that depth to bedrock exceeds the maximum depth of local wells.
The Figure 3-7 legend indicates use of two different groundwater elevation sources. The solid triangle
indicates the water year (WY) 2018-2019 groundwater elevation, which was derived from contours shown
in Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2018-2019 (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2020). Subsequently, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has installed three new wells in the area at the northwest end of the cross
section where groundwater monitoring points had been sparse. To provide a more accurate depiction of
groundwater elevations in this area, groundwater elevations measured in 2019 in the three new wells
were used; these are denoted in the legend as “measured 2019 groundwater elevation data from wells
projected onto the section,” and are shown as open triangles. This new information provides a more
accurate depiction of groundwater levels in an area characterized by substantial changes over short
distances in ground surface elevation, groundwater levels, and depth to bedrock.
Groundwater flow is from northwest to southeast and groundwater elevations range from greater than
1,100 feet above mean sea level (msl) near the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin to about 500 feet above msl
near the southeast end of the section. Groundwater elevations and gradients are strongly influenced by
groundwater replenishment activities at WWR-GRF.
Cross Section A’-A’’ (Figure 3-8) runs along the axis of the Subbasin continuing the A-A’ cross section
through the northwest portion of the Thermal Subarea. Increasing fine sands and clay lenses are noted
when compared with cross section A-A’. The approximate boundary between the upper and lower aquifer
is illustrated on the cross section. As illustrated, depths to bedrock are greater than 1,300 feet based on
maximum well depths.
Cross section A’’-A’’’ (Figure 3-9) runs along the axis of the Subbasin continuing the A’-A’’ cross section
through the northwest portion of the Thermal Subarea to the Salton Sea. Increasing fine sands and clay
lenses are noted when compared with cross section A’-A’’. The approximate boundary between the upper
and lower aquifer is illustrated in the cross section. Depths to bedrock are greater than 1,500 feet based
on maximum well depths.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-13 TODD/W&C
Groundwater flow is from northwest to southeast and groundwater elevations range from nearly
1,200 feet above msl at the northwest end of the Subbasin to at or above the ground surface (at about
240 feet below msl) at the southeast end of the Subbasin. The extent of artesian conditions is shown on
Figure 3-9.
Overall, these longitudinal cross sections document a down-valley progression of alluvial sediment from
predominantly sand and gravel to increasing fine sands with limited clay lenses and then to the clay-
dominated sediments at the Salton Sea. Highlights of this evaluation are summarized below.
• With the significant thickness of coarse sediments and depth to groundwater, the northwestern
portion is the primary forebay area for substantial groundwater recharge, including artificial
recharge at WWR-GRF.
• The middle portion is transitional, with increasing fine sand and silt and more clay lenses,
recognition of upper and lower aquifers, and decreasing depth to groundwater.
• The distal portion shows a progression to predominant clay, the clear definition of upper and lower
aquifers, and shallow groundwater and artesian conditions that would indicate Subbasin discharge
under natural conditions.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-18 TODD/W&C
3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections
Cross sections B-B’, C-C’, D-D’, and E-E’ (Figures 3-10 through 3-13) were constructed perpendicular to the
main axis of the Indio Subbasin. Collectively, these cross sections incorporate hydrogeologic information
from the five main Subareas of the Indio Subbasin except the Indio Hills and Barton Canyon Subareas,
which are semi-water bearing and generally lack subsurface information. The Subbasin bottom is not well
defined but extends beyond the maximum depth of groundwater wells drilled in the Indio Subbasin (i.e.,
1,500 feet).
Cross section B-B’ (Figure 3-10) runs roughly north-south intersecting cross section A-A’. Cross section B--
B’ crosses the Palm Springs Subarea in the south and the Garnet Hill Subarea and the Mission Creek
Subbasin in the north. Cross section B-B’ shows sands and gravels with fine sand and clay lenses, with
deposits thickening toward the center of the Indio Subbasin. Displacements of geologic materials along
the Garnet Hill and Banning Faults are shown in Figure 3-10. These faults provide the boundaries between
the Palm Springs and Garnet Hill Subareas of the Indio Subbasin and between the Indio and Mission Creek
Subbasins. Cross section B-B’ is roughly perpendicular to the northwest to southeast flow direction in the
Indio Subbasin. Significant change in groundwater elevations is shown across the two faults confirming
that the faults act as partial barriers to groundwater flow.
Cross section C-C’ (Figure 3-11) runs perpendicular to cross section A’-A’’. Cross section C-C’ crosses the
Thermal and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio Subbasin in the southwest and the Mission Creek and
Desert Hot Springs Subbasins in the northeast. Cross section C-C’ shows sands and gravels with increasing
frequency of fine sand and clay lenses compared with cross section B-B’. Subbasin sediments thicken
toward the center of the Indio Subbasin. Displacement of the Banning Fault provides the boundary
between the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins. Cross section C-C’ shows the boundary between the
upper and lower aquifers. This cross section is roughly perpendicular to the northwest to southeast flow
direction in the Indio Subbasin with depths to water of about 200 feet in the central portion of cross
section C-C’.
Cross section D-D’ Figure 3-12) runs perpendicular to Cross Section A’’-A’’’. Cross section D-D’ crosses the
Oasis and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio Subbasin in the southwest and the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasins in the northeast. Cross section D-D’ shows sands and gravels with increasing frequency of fine
sand and clay lenses compared with Cross Section C-C’. Basin sediments thickening toward the center of
the Indio Subbasin. The San Andreas Fault provides the boundary between the Indio and Desert Hot
Springs Subbasins. Cross section D-D’ shows the boundary between the upper and lower aquifers. Cross
section D-D’ is roughly perpendicular to the northwest to southeast flow direction in the Indio Subbasin
with shallow depths to water, typically less than 40 feet in the central portion of the cross section.
Cross section E-E’ (Figure 3-13) runs perpendicular to Cross Section A’’-A’’’. Cross section E-E’ crosses the
Oasis and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio Subbasin in the southwest and the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasins in the northeast. Cross section E-E’ shows sands and gravels with increasing frequency of fine
sand and clay lenses compared with cross section D-D’. Basin sediments thicken toward the center of the
Indio Subbasin. The San Andreas Fault is the boundary between the Indio and Desert Hot Springs
Subbasins.
Cross section E-E’ shows the boundary between the upper and lower aquifers. The cross section is roughly
perpendicular to the northwest to southeast flow direction in the Indio Subbasin with shallow depths to
water. The extent of artesian conditions is shown in Figure 3-13.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-19 TODD/W&C
The perpendicular cross sections provide
additional insights into the hydrogeology of
the Indio Subbasin as listed below.
• The relatively narrow, bedrock or
fault-bounded character of the Indio
Subbasin in the northwest
• The substantial thickness of the
Subbasin that occurs along the
eastern margin of the Indio Subbasin
or along the Subbasin axis
• The greater proportion of coarse-
grained sediments along the western
mountain front and limit of regional
clay to the west, indicating a narrow
mountain-front forebay for natural
recharge and for artificial recharge (e.g., TEL-GRF on Section D-D’, Figure 3-12).
TEL-GRF utilizes a narrow mountain-front forebay for
artificial recharge.
Chapter 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 3-24 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
This chapter describes the current and historical groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin. The Indio
Subbasin is the primary source of groundwater supply for the Plan Area (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Plan
Area) and is a California Department of Water Resources (DWR)-designated Subbasin (No. 7-021.01) of
the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. Adjoining groundwater basins and Subbasins are shown in Figure
1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction. While the Plan Area overlies portions of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin
and the Orocopia Valley, Chocolate Valley, and West Salton Sea basins, these are not major sources of
regional groundwater supply.
Groundwater conditions are described with reference to the six sustainability indicators identified in the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). These include:
1. Groundwater elevations
2. Groundwater storage
3. Potential subsidence
4. Groundwater quality
5. Seawater intrusion
6. Interconnected surface water and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs)
Descriptions of groundwater conditions focus on the period 1990 through 2019. While historical data also
are provided (for example, historical change in groundwater storage from 1970), this 30-year period
encompasses varying climatic conditions (including state-wide drought) and represents current
operations relative to water importation, groundwater replenishment, water recycling, and water
conservation, among other management actions. This period is also consistent with the update of the
numerical groundwater flow model. The original numerical model was calibrated from 1936 to 1996 and
was updated through 2019 as part of this Update.
4.1 Groundwater Elevations
This section summarizes groundwater conditions in terms of elevations, flows, trends over time, vertical
groundwater gradients and depth to groundwater, and regional groundwater level changes. The
groundwater elevation monitoring program is described briefly in Chapter 2, Plan Area.
4.1.1 Groundwater Elevations, Flow, and Trends
Figure 4-1 shows the Water Year (WY) 2018-2019 groundwater elevation contour map for the Indio
Subbasin. Groundwater elevations of the principal aquifer are averaged over the water year; this is most
representative, as local groundwater levels do not exhibit strong seasonal trends. As shown on the figure,
regional groundwater flows are in a northwest-to-southeast direction through the Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-7 TODD/W&C
4.1.2 Vertical Groundwater Gradients (Artesian Conditions)
Historically, eastern portions of the Indio Subbasin experienced artesian conditions with sufficient
pressure to cause groundwater levels in wells to rise above the ground surface; such artesian-flowing
wells attracted early settlers to farm in this area. Artesian conditions declined in the late 1930s as a result
of increased local groundwater pumping. The completion of the Coachella Canal by the United States
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in 1949 brought Colorado River water to the eastern Coachella Valley for
agricultural irrigation purposes. Artesian conditions returned in the early 1960s through the 1980s, as
imported Colorado River water was substituted for groundwater production. Beginning in the late 1980s,
groundwater use increased again, resulting in declining water levels and loss of artesian conditions.
Groundwater water management programs (including groundwater replenishment, source substitution,
and water conservation) are restoring local groundwater levels, and artesian conditions have recurred in
the eastern Indio Subbasin. Benefits associated with artesian conditions include reduced groundwater
pumping costs and water quality protection of the deeper, confined production zone aquifers
Figure 4-5 shows the location of ten artesian well hydrographs through WY 2018-2019. The area of
artesian conditions has remained relatively stable in comparison to WY 2017-2018. The wells show either
stable groundwater levels or increasing trends since about 2010.
4.1.3 Groundwater Occurrence (Depth to Water)
Figure 4-6 shows averaged depth to water contours for the Indio Subbasin for WY 2018-19. Greatest
depths to water are observed in the northwestern portion of the basin (generally greater than 200 feet).
The effect of the Garnet Hill Fault is seen in the abrupt change in groundwater levels across the fault.
Depths to groundwater generally decrease to about 100 to 250 feet in the mid-Subbasin area and then to
zero or above the ground surface in artesian wells near the Salton Sea (see Figure 4-2 for approximate
extent of artesian conditions). In addition to relatively shallow or artesian conditions in the principal
aquifer, the East Valley (Thermal Subarea) is characterized by a shallow semi-perched aquifer (see extent
in Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model). The occurrence of shallow groundwater in
the East Valley led to construction of an agricultural drain system, shown in Figure 2-5 of Chapter 2, Plan
Area. As described in the 2010 CVWMP Update, the shallow groundwater is associated with a risk of
liquefaction, a process by which sediments below the water table lose strength and deform (typically due
to seismic shaking) and can cause damage to buildings. The Riverside County General Plan has recognized
liquefaction, mapped areas of risk, and defined protective land use policies (County of Riverside, 2020).
4.1.4 Groundwater Elevation Change
Figure 4-7 shows a 10-year groundwater elevation change map for the Indio Subbasin, including two
zoomed-in maps to show water level changes for the numerous wells in the mid-valley area and TEL-GRF
vicinity. The change in groundwater elevation is based on the difference between the average
groundwater elevations for wells monitored by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water
Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) between WY 2008-2009
and WY 2018-2019 (10 years).
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-9 TODD/W&C
Figure 4-6. Depth to Water Contours
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-11 TODD/W&C
Groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin have increased significantly over the 10 years from
WY 2008--2009 to WY 2018-2019. The largest groundwater increases are observed in the vicinity of the
WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF, with water level increases as much as 200 feet and 100 feet in the immediate
vicinity of the two facilities, respectively. In the mid-valley area near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and
La Quinta, groundwater level increases have ranged from 7 to 15 feet, reflecting the benefits of source
substitution and conservation programs. Some localized declines in groundwater levels are observed in
the Palm Desert area to northeast of Bermuda Dunes. Replenishment at the PD-GRF began in February
2019 and is expected to raise groundwater levels in the mid-valley region. Groundwater levels in the
southeastern portion of the Indio Subbasin have increased between 10 and 40 feet, reflecting storage
benefits from replenishment operations at the TEL-GRF and decreased pumping.
4.2 Changes in Groundwater Storage
The Indio Subbasin Annual Reports and Engineer’s Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment
Assessment have previously assessed annual changes in groundwater storage. These assessments are
intended to detect overdraft and, if overdraft were to occur, to track overdraft as a basis for sustainability
planning. This section briefly defines Subbasin change in storage; a more detailed numerical description
is in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
Long-term sustainability is typically assessed based on changes in groundwater storage over a historical
period on the order of 10 to 20 years including wet and dry periods. Figure 4-8 shows the annual change
in groundwater storage from 1970 through WY 2018-2019 (gray columns). The starting year of 1970 was
selected because it is 3 years before imported water replenishment commenced in the Indio Subbasin.
The data used to prepare this figure are based on calendar year until WY 2016-2017, when data sources
were compiled for the water year for the first Annual Report.
Figure 4-8 also shows the annual inflows, outflows, groundwater production, and 10- and 20-year running-
average changes in groundwater storage. As shown on the chart, annual inflows to the Indio Subbasin
(dark blue line) are highly variable with years of high inflows generally corresponding to wet years when
State Water Project (SWP) delivery volumes were greater. Higher inflows in the mid-1980s occurred when
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) commenced large-scale advanced water
deliveries to the Indio Subbasin. The chart shows that after an extended period of decline, both the
10- and 20-year running average changes in storage have shown upward trends since 2009, and the
10--year running average has been positive since 2017.
Figure 4-9 shows the cumulative change in storage since 1970. The goal of the 2010 CVWMP Update is to
eliminate groundwater overdraft, not to restore the Subbasin to historical conditions. Since 2009, the
Indio Subbasin has recovered approximately 840,000 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater in storage, or about
45 percent of the cumulative depletion observed from 1970 to 2009.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-14 TODD/W&C
4.3 Land Subsidence and Potential for Subsidence
Land subsidence is the differential lowering of the ground surface, which can damage structures and
facilities. This may be caused by regional tectonism or by declines in groundwater elevations due to
pumping. The latter process is relevant to Subbasin management and the Alternative Plan. As
groundwater elevations decline in the subsurface, dewatering and compaction of predominantly fine-
grained deposits (such as clay and silt) can cause the overlying ground surface to subside.
Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals can be temporary (elastic) or permanent (inelastic).
Elastic deformation occurs when sediments compress as pore pressures decrease but expand by an equal
amount as pore pressures increase. A decrease in groundwater elevations from groundwater pumping
causes a small elastic compaction in both coarse- and fine-grained sediments; however, when compaction
is small, conditions can return to normal once water levels recover. Because elastic deformation is
relatively minor and fully recoverable, it is not considered an impact. Land subsidence, resulting from
aquifer system compaction and groundwater level declines, has been a concern in the Coachella Valley
since the mid-1990s and has been investigated since 1996 through an on-going cooperative program
between CVWD and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Sneed and Brandt, 2020). Global
Positioning System (GPS) surveying, using GNSS-Inferred Positioning System and Orbit Analysis Simulation
Software (GIPSY-OASIS) and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) methods have been used to
determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the vertical land-surface changes in the Coachella
Valley.
The network of GPS stations in the Subbasin is shown in Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Plan Area. The GPS
measurements have been used to determine elevation changes at specific locations, while InSAR
measurements have documented the geographic extent of elevation changes for the Indio Subbasin.
Analysis of InSAR data collected from 1995 to 2017 by the USGS indicates that as much as 2.0 feet of
subsidence occurred in the Indio Subbasin from 1995 to 2010 near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and
La Quinta (Sneed and Brandt, 2020).
Figure 4-10 shows basin-wide subsidence and uplift from December 28, 2014, to June 27, 2017. Since
2010, groundwater levels have stabilized or have been partially recovered in response to the
implementation of source substitution, conservation, and groundwater replenishment programs included
in the 2010 CVWMP Update. Up to 1 inch of uplift has been measured since 2011 in the Palm Springs area,
corresponding to higher groundwater levels in response to upgradient WWR-GRF recharge. In the Thermal
area, the ground surface has also rebounded about 2 inches over the past 10 years, returning to elevations
observed in 2001. This rebound roughly coincides with commencement of recharge operations at the
TEL--GRF in 2009. The Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) plan to continue
monitoring water levels and subsidence to track the effects of management actions on land subsidence.
Water levels in wells near the subsidence geodetic monuments 1, in and near the three subsiding areas
shown by InSAR, and throughout the Subbasin generally indicate longer-term stability or rising
groundwater levels since about 2010. These results mark a reversal in trends of groundwater level declines
during the preceding decades.
1 Most geodetic monuments consist of flat metal disks that are anchored in the ground or to a structure and can
be surveyed repeatedly.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-16 TODD/W&C
Although many areas have stopped subsiding, and a few have even uplifted, a few areas did subside during
2010–2017, though at a slower rate, partly reflecting the character of sediments in the basin. Subsidence
when groundwater levels are stable or recovering indicates that residual compaction may have occurred.
At the same time, coarse-grained materials and thin aquitards may have expanded as groundwater levels
recovered. The continued Subbasin-wide stabilization and recovery of groundwater levels since 2010 is
likely a result of various projects designed to increase recharge or to reduce reliance on groundwater.
4.4 Groundwater Quality
The 2010 CVWMP Update considered groundwater quality issues including salinity, nitrate, arsenic,
hexavalent chromium(chromium-6), uranium, and perchlorate. In its Alternative Assessment Staff Report,
DWR recommended that the Alternative Plan Update provide additional documentation in maps,
specifying fluoride, arsenic, chromium-6, and dibromochloropropane (DBCP) distributions. This
Alternative Plan Update has included substantial collection of water quality data into a database and
evaluation of the areal extent, vertical distribution, and time trends for these selected constituents.
4.4.1 Constituents of Concern
Constituents of concern include total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, arsenic, chromium-6, uranium,
fluoride, perchlorate, and DBCP. Elevated TDS and nitrate concentrations are linked to current and historic
water and wastewater management, agricultural activity, urban land use, septic systems, and natural
conditions. In the Indio Subbasin, arsenic, chromium-6, uranium, and fluoride are naturally occurring and
geologically derived. DBCP is a soil fumigant historically used in agriculture. Perchlorate can be found in
some fertilizers and was first detected in Colorado River water in 1997. Atmospheric deposition of
perchlorate can also occur naturally with concentration in groundwater particularly in desert regions
(USGS, 2014).
4.4.2 Data Sources for Water Quality Mapping
Groundwater quality data have been collected from CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, the USGS National Water
Information System, and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) website. Data included samples from monitoring wells, public supply wells,
and private agricultural and domestic wells. Monitoring wells and relatively deep public supply wells have
been the source of the most frequent and recent measurements. Wells are identified on cross sections
and plots using state well numbers (SWN). An abbreviation of the full SWN is used on some maps, such as
vertical water quality cross sections. For this evaluation, data were used only for raw (untreated)
groundwater samples, only for wells with verified locations, and only for years 1990 or later.
To best characterize conditions, available groundwater quality data were assessed spatially with plan-view
maps, vertically in cross sections, and, for TDS and nitrate, temporally in time-concentration plots. The
graphics are presented and then followed by a discussion of each constituent of concern.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-17 TODD/W&C
4.4.3 Plan View Concentration Maps
Water quality maps (Figures 4-11 to 4-18) show the spatial distribution of the constituents. For each well
with water quality data during the period 1990-2019, the most recent water quality measurement is
shown on the plan-view maps and cross sections. The most recent measurement at each well was used,
as opposed to the median or mean of a given period, because constituents of concern may show
increasing or decreasing trends over time in some wells. Such trends are depicted on the time-
concentration plots for TDS and nitrate.
The water quality measurements were interpolated across the Subbasin for each constituent as indicated
by the color-ramping in each map legend. Some areas of the Subbasin that lack monitoring wells and data
were excluded from the analysis.
Constituent concentrations typically vary with depth (see water quality cross sections). However, depth-
specific data are limited and insufficient for mapping water quality of different depth zones. The mapping
presented here is intended to depict water quality in vertical zones that generally provide groundwater
supply to production wells. These wells are typically greater than 300 feet deep; accordingly, monitoring
wells with screened intervals less than 300 feet deep were not included. Information on screened intervals
is lacking for some wells, but these were included because most Subbasin wells are screened at depths
greater than 300 feet. For nested wells (groups of monitoring wells at one location with a range of
screened interval depths), water quality data are shown for the nested well with depth commensurate
with nearby public supply wells.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-26 TODD/W&C
4.4.4 Water Quality Cross Sections
To evaluate vertical variations in groundwater quality, 14 vertical cross sections (A-A’ through N-N’) were
prepared. The cross-section locations are shown in Figure 4-19 and the cross sections are shown in Figures
4-20 through 4-33, each of which documents the most recent concentrations reported from 1990 to 2019
for TDS, nitrate, arsenic, and chromium-6. Because the cross sections are intended to show vertical
variations, shallow monitoring wells are included. The well screens on each cross section are color-coded
according to the most recent concentration, which is shown at the bottom of the well profile. Vertical
scales may vary between figures.
4.4.5 Time-Concentration Plots for TDS and Nitrate
Figure 4-34 and Figure 4-35 present selected time-concentration plots that represent temporal trends in
TDS and nitrate, respectively. Time-concentration plots were created for all wells with at least five TDS or
nitrate measurements. These plots were then evaluated within the context of the water quality maps,
water quality cross sections, and hydrogeologic cross sections to represent groundwater quality trends in
various Subareas. The wells shown in the time-concentration plots were selected based on the following
criteria:
• Location – Wells were selected to provide a broad distribution across the Subbasin.
• Ongoing and/or recent monitoring – Wells were prioritized with recent and frequent
measurements over the 1990-2019 period.
• Trends – Wells that best represent groundwater quality trends in each Subarea were selected.
• Well construction – Wells with known screened depths were prioritized. Groups of wells with
different screened intervals were selected to illustrate relationships between temporal water
quality trends and depth.
In some cases, multiple wells are plotted on one chart and differentiated by different color lines. On the
map the wells are circled with the corresponding chart color. Where wells are nested or are in essentially
the same location, only one color is provided around the well symbol.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-44 TODD/W&C
4.4.6 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater in the Indio Subbasin shows a wide range of salinity, measured in terms of TDS
concentrations. No fixed Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Level has been established for TDS. Instead,
TDS is regulated by Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs), or Consumer Acceptance
Contaminant Level Ranges, set by the SWRCB: a recommended 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) level, an
upper 1,000 mg/L level, and a short-term 1,500 mg/L limit. While primary maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) are health-based standards, SMCLs, such as those for TDS, are based on aesthetic concerns such
as taste, color, and odor.
4.4.6.1 Sources
TDS in the Subbasin is derived from natural sources, return flows from agricultural and landscape
irrigation, recharge of imported Colorado River water, wastewater discharge (municipal and septic tanks),
and subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins, such as the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin, which is
characterized by poor water quality (DWR, 1964). Natural elevated TDS concentrations occur in the upper
aquifer, typically along the Coachella Valley margins. Potential saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea is
addressed in Section 4.5.
Completion of the Coachella Canal in 1949 allowed use of Colorado River water for agricultural irrigation,
with subsequent use for golf course and large landscape irrigation. As shown in the land use map
(Figure 2-6 in Chapter 2, Plan Area) agriculture is most extensive in the East Valley. Irrigation results in
evaporative concentration of TDS in shallow groundwater; the agricultural drain system helps alleviate
such salt loading locally (see Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2, Plan Area).
Colorado River water has been used to replenish the Indio Subbasin and reverse overdraft. Deliveries have
occurred from the Coachella Canal to Dike 4 (1994-2008), TEL-GRF (since 2009) and PD-GRF (since 2019),
as well as from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) to the WWR-GRF since 1973. The CRA supply has lower
TDS concentration than the Coachella Canal supply, because it is diverted higher along the Colorado River.
Water use for domestic purposes results in salt loading to wastewater. Locations of water reclamation
plants (WRPs) and other wastewater treatment facilities are shown in Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2, Plan Area.
As described in Chapter 2, Plan Area, three WRPs currently provide recycled water for irrigation. For the
other WRPs, treated effluent is discharged either to onsite percolation/evaporation ponds or to the
Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC) that conveys water to the Salton Sea. Some portions of the
Subbasin (mostly rural) use septic tank/leachfield systems to treat and dispose wastewater.
4.4.6.2 Distribution and Trends
TDS concentrations in the Indio Subbasin reflect multiple factors affecting geographic and vertical
distribution as well as trends. These factors have changed over time as a result of changing land uses and
water and wastewater management activities.
Figure 4-11 shows the spatial distribution of the most recent TDS concentrations results from wells
included in this analysis. As noted in Section 4.4.3, the map shows the most recent value for each well
with water quality data between 1990 and 2019, and shallow monitoring wells were excluded.
Figure 4-11 shows that groundwater over large portions of the Indio Subbasin has TDS concentrations less
than 500 mg/L. While TDS concentrations are depth-dependent in many portions of the Indio Subbasin, a
few spatial patterns are observed on the map. Groundwater in the center of the Subbasin has low TDS
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-45 TODD/W&C
concentrations, often less than 250 mg/L. The highest TDS concentrations (>1,500 mg/L) are observed
near the Salton Sea. TDS concentrations along the perimeter of the Subbasin are frequently greater than
500 mg/L. The median TDS concentration in all wells included in the analysis is 308 mg/L. Of total wells
sampled, 10 percent indicate most-recent TDS values greater than 1,000 mg/L, 32 percent indicate most-
recent concentrations greater than 500 mg/L, and most wells show concentrations below 500 mg/L.
The top left portions of Figures 4-20 through 4-33 illustrate the vertical distribution of TDS concentrations
for the 14 cross sections (A-A’ through N-N’; see Figure 4-19 for locations). As shown, TDS concentrations
generally are less than 500 mg/L and lowest concentrations occur in deep wells in the central Indio
Subbasin. Several of the cross sections show shallow wells with screens at or just below the water table.
These are few in number and not distributed evenly across the Subbasin but provide information on local
shallow groundwater quality including in the vicinity of WRPs and groundwater replenishment facilities.
TDS trends are shown as selected time-concentration plots in Figure 4-34; note that the vertical scales
mostly are 100 to 1,100 mg/L with three exceptions having scales up to 2,100 mg/L to accommodate
higher concentrations. The time-concentration plots include some groupings of wells that are near one
another but with screens in different vertical zones. The plots indicate that TDS concentrations in shallow
zones typically are higher and more variable than in deeper zones.
As summarized in the 2002 CVWMP, TDS concentrations in groundwater averaged less than 250 mg/L in
the 1930s; and in the 1970s, groundwater typically contained 300 mg/L TDS in the shallow aquifer and
150 to 200 mg/L TDS in the deep aquifer. The 2002 CVWMP reported then-current TDS concentrations in
the shallow aquifer averaging 544 mg/L, and in the deep aquifer averaging 204 mg/L (CVWD, 2002). The
2015 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP, 2015) reported that the median TDS concentration was
520 mg/L in the shallow aquifer of the West Valley and 195 mg/L in the deep aquifer of the West Valley.
In the East Valley, the median TDS concentration was reported as 698 mg/L in the shallow aquifer and 160
mg/L in the deep aquifer. Increases in TDS concentrations since 1990 are indicated on Figure 4-34, with
lower rates of increase generally in deeper zones as well as in the central and eastern Thermal Subarea.
The various factors contributing to salt loading are being evaluated and managed to protect groundwater
quality in the context of other sustainability criteria such as potential storage depletion, seawater
intrusion, and chronic groundwater level declines. Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, provides
updates on salinity management, the 2015 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, and other salinity-related
issues.
4.4.7 Nitrate
Groundwater in the Indio Subbasin shows a range of nitrate concentrations from very low background
levels (less than 1 mg/L) to concentrations exceeding the drinking water standard. The drinking water
standard or primary MCL for nitrate is 45 mg/L when measured as nitrate.2
Nitrate concentrations were reported from 932 wells between 1990 and 2019. The most recent
measurements from each well show a median nitrate concentration of 3.6 mg/L. For 104 wells, or 11
percent of all wells sampled, the most recent nitrate concentrations were greater than 45 mg/L. Shallow
monitoring wells (associated with local monitoring around facilities such as WRPs) are not included in this
2 The MCL is 10 mg/L for nitrate when measured as nitrogen. All nitrate as nitrogen concentrations were converted
to nitrate as nitrate for this groundwater quality assessment.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-46 TODD/W&C
accounting because the mapping is intended to depict water quality in vertical zones that generally
provide groundwater supply to production wells. In general, wells with high nitrate concentrations are
relatively shallow wells. However, one well with a recent detection greater than 45 mg/L is a relatively
deep well (400 feet deep well MW-4D) providing monitoring downgradient from CVWD’s Water
Reclamation Plant 7 (WRP-7) in an area that was historically used for agriculture.
Elevated nitrate was identified as an emerging issue in the 2010 CVWMP Update. In Chapter 8, Regulatory
and Policy Issues, an updated focus is on small water systems. Since 2010, nitrate as nitrogen was
measured from 85 wells serving small water systems. Of these, nitrate concentrations exceeded the
primary MCL in 5 wells.
Quantification of nitrate loading to the groundwater system is being addressed through the SNMP
process.
4.4.7.1 Sources
Historical land uses have contributed to nitrate currently detected in groundwater. Such legacy nitrate
loading has occurred from historical agriculture and agricultural development of mesquite lands as well
as rural septic systems (prior to development of centralized wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal systems). Historically, portions of the now-urban Indian Wells were characterized by extensive
mesquite forests (Huberty, et al., 1948). Under natural conditions, moisture was insufficient to
decompose leaves and twigs and consequently, large amounts of nitrogen-containing litter accumulated
under the trees. When the lands were cleared, leveled, and irrigated for agriculture, the organic matter
was decomposed and nitrate was leached by irrigation return flow and migrated to the underlying water
table. In addition, irrigated agriculture historically extended farther northwestward into now-urban areas
(DWR, 1964, see Plate 13); assuming fertilizer use, such agriculture represents legacy loading of nitrate.
Ongoing activities that currently contribute nitrate loading include use of nitrogen-based fertilizers for
agriculture, golf courses, and landscaping; septic tank percolation; and wastewater disposal through
percolation.
4.4.7.2 Distribution and Trends
Nitrate concentrations in Indio Subbasin groundwater vary spatially, with depth, and temporally, as
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Figure 4-12 shows the spatial distribution of most recent nitrate concentrations in groundwater. As
discussed in Section 4.4.3, the map shows the most recent value for each well with water quality data
between 1990 and 2019, and shallow monitoring wells were excluded.
As shown, the highest nitrate concentrations occur mostly along the western margins of the Indio
Subbasin. Some of these areas, such as northwestern portions of the Thermal Subarea, have a long history
of agricultural and urban development, as well as nitrate loading from multiple sources associated with
native vegetation, agricultural processes, and wastewater percolation. A study was conducted in 2019
(Todd, 2019) of shallow groundwater near the WRP-10 in Palm Desert. Analysis of the groundwater using
nitrate and oxygen isotopes indicated that the primary source of nitrate in groundwater near WRP-10 is
soil nitrate; in other words, the nitrate derived from mesquite tree debris stored in soils. The study also
revealed the isotopic signatures of nitrate from fertilizer, manure, and wastewater.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-47 TODD/W&C
The cross sections (Figures 4-20 to 4-34) indicate that nitrate concentrations generally are higher in
shallow groundwater compared with deeper groundwater. Cross Sections D-D’, G-G’, and I-I’ particularly
illustrate the contrast of high nitrate concentrations in shallow wells and lower concentrations in deeper
wells. While deeper groundwater tends to be higher quality, the occurrence of nitrate loading, pumping,
and the vertical transport of water through screened well intervals can cause nitrate-rich water to migrate
downward.
Nitrate trends are documented in the time-concentration plots on Figure 4-35.3 Review of the plots shows
significant variability in shallow nitrate concentrations and local increases in nitrate concentrations,
mostly in the western areas where concentrations are already elevated in shallow wells. The occurrence
of high nitrate concentrations in shallow zones and increasing nitrate concentrations in nearby deeper
wells is also revealed in Figure 4-35 (for example, see lower left plots), which suggests local downward
migration.
4.4.8 Arsenic
Arsenic was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue. An update is provided in Chapter
8, Regulatory and Policy Issues. Arsenic is found to have carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects on
health if ingested at high levels over a long period of time. Both the federal and California state
governments have established a primary drinking water MCL for arsenic of 10 μg/L.
Both the areal and vertical distributions of arsenic were examined. Arsenic naturally occurs in
groundwater, generally derived from basin sediments, and often dissolved in groundwater with anoxic or
high-pH conditions. As shown on Figure 4-13, arsenic concentrations are highest in the southern portion
of the Indio Subbasin, directly northwest of the Salton Sea. Review of the cross sections indicates low
arsenic concentrations except in the southernmost sections (see Figures 4-32 and 4-33). Figure 4-32 (Cross
Section M-M’) indicates that arsenic concentrations are higher in deeper groundwater. Arsenic could be
more prevalent in deeper groundwater because the deeper groundwater has anoxic conditions, a longer
residence time, or geothermal activity.
Of the most recently measured arsenic concentrations in all wells, arsenic levels were below the detection
limit (ranging from 0.06 to 3.95 μg/L) in 55 percent of wells. While most arsenic concentrations are low,
153 wells, or 16.9 percent of all wells, had the most recent arsenic measurements greater than the 10 μg/L
MCL. As shown in Figure 4-13, elevated arsenic concentrations occur in the eastern portion of the Indio
Subbasin, near the Salton Sea. The maximum arsenic measurement observed was 136 μg/L.
Arsenic is primarily a concern for small water systems and private domestic wells. As described in Chapter
8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, arsenic in small water systems is being addressed by Riverside County and
by CVWD's Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Task Force. Large public water systems are able to
selectively drill wells in areas or to depths with low arsenic concentrations, decommission affected wells,
or provide water treatment to remove arsenic prior to delivery. These activities are less accessible to small
water systems or private domestic well owners. Only 10 out of 234 CVWD, DWA, CWA, or IWA public
supply wells show arsenic concentrations greater than 10 μg/L in their most recent measurement; 4 of
these 10 wells have not been sampled in the past 15 years. All four wells are CVWD wells, inactive, and
no longer permitted under the SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) program for municipal use.
3 Note that vertical scales on Figure 4-35 are mostly 0 to 25 mg/L except five plots with scales of 0 to 60 mg/L to accommodate
high nitrate concentrations along the western Subbasin margin.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-48 TODD/W&C
CVWD has installed three treatment plants between 2004 and 2006 to reduce arsenic levels in wells
serving groundwater to communities located along the eastern and northern shores of the Salton Sea
including Mecca, North Shore, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Spa, Thermal, Oasis, and Valerie Jean.
4.4.9 Chromium-6
Chromium-6 is the oxidized form of the metal chromium and occurs in oxygen-rich groundwater near
chromium-bearing rocks. It was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue (see update
in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues) because of the State assessment occurring at the time to
establish a lower public health goal and MCL. The total chromium (hexavalent and trivalent) MCL is 50
μg/L. In 2014, California adopted a 10 μg/L MCL for chromium-6, but this MCL was rescinded in 2017 due
to a court ruling that the California Department of Public Health “had failed to consider the economic
feasibility of complying with the MCL.” While the MCL for total chromium currently remains at 50 μg/L,
the SWRCB is evaluating relevant water treatment options and costs as a basis for establishing a MCL for
chromium-6 in accordance with the court order (see discussion in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues).
Both the geographic and vertical distributions of chromium-6 were examined. Figure 4-14 shows the
geographic extent of elevated chromium-6 concentrations in the Indio Subbasin. While chromium-6 can
be due to anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution, its extent in Indio Subbasin and its geologic
occurrence in surrounding formations clearly signals that chromium is naturally occurring. Groundwater
in the mid-to-southeastern portion of the Indio Subbasin often contains chromium-6 concentrations
greater than 10 μg/L. Several cross-sections (see Figures 4-20 to 4-33) show higher chromium
concentrations in deeper groundwater (I-I’, E-E’), but others show that chromium-6 occurrence varies
more horizontally (J-J’, F-F', G-G’).
Chromium-6 is stable in aquifers with oxidizing groundwater conditions. In some portions of California,
elevated chromium-6 conditions have been linked to nitrate-rich irrigation return flow from agriculture
(Hausladen et al., 2018; McClain et al., 2019). Agriculture does not appear to increase chromium
concentrations in Indio Subbasin because chromium does not co-occur with high nitrate concentrations
and chromium-6 concentrations are lower in shallow groundwater.
Chromium-6 concentrations are stable in most wells and have decreased in areas where Colorado River
water is used to replenish natural groundwater. Chromium-6 concentrations in Colorado River water are
far below the total chromium and withdrawn chromium-6 MCLs, ranging from not-detected to 0.09 μg/L
in 2016 and 2018 (CAP, 2017 and 2019) at Lake Havasu (above the Colorado River Aqueduct and All-
American Canal intakes). For example, the chromium-6 map (Figure 4-14) indicates an area of relatively
low concentrations in the vicinity of the TEL-GRF where groundwater quality changes have been observed.
Cross section J-J’ (Figure 4-29) extends north-south from a high-concentration area toward TEL-GRF and
shows the location and depth of CVWD Well 06S07E34A01S. While Figure 4-29 indicates a most recent
chromium-6 concentration of 8.7 ug/L (from 2016) review of available total chromium data from 2017 to
2019 indicates that total chromium concentrations (and hence chromium-6 concentrations) have
decreased to below detection limits as recharge water from the TEL-GRF has reached this well, and total
chromium concentrations have decreased from 16 μg/L to below detection limits.
Of the most recent measurements in wells, the maximum chromium-6 concentration is 22 μg/L, and the
median concentration is 6.2 μg/L. In total, 76 wells (31.5 percent of all wells with chromium-6
measurements) have their most-recent samples showing chromium-6 concentrations of at least 10 μg/L.
A higher density of wells has been tested for chromium-6 in regions known to have elevated chromium-6
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-49 TODD/W&C
concentrations, which may contribute to the high observed frequency. Total chromium concentrations
appear to be fully represented by chromium-6 occurrence and show a similar distribution of
concentrations. A comprehensive comparison of CVWD well data showed that 102 percent of the
chromium was chromium-6. The chromium-6 analytical test is more sensitive than the total chromium
analytical test and is one explanation for the small difference. For most-recent measurements of total
chromium, 98 wells (29.5 percent of total wells) have concentrations greater than 10 μg/L, and the median
concentration is 5.45 μg/L.
Out of 180 CVWD, DWA, CWA, or IWA public supply wells, 6 wells had chromium-6 concentrations over
20 μg/L, 67 had concentrations greater than 10 μg/L, and the remainder indicate concentrations less than
10 μg/L. As discussed in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, the GSAs have anticipated a chromium-
6 MCL that is lower than the total chromium MCL and have investigated possible water treatment options.
4.4.10 Uranium
Uranium has a MCL of 20 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), or about 30 μg/L. At this concentration, the effect of
radiation is negligible, but the chemical properties of uranium can cause kidney damage over time.
As shown in Figure 4-15, uranium concentrations are higher in the northwestern portion of the Indio
Subbasin. The 2010 CVWMP Update discussed Colorado River water as a potential source of uranium.
Recent uranium sampling at Lake Havasu, the diversion point for the CRA, has indicated the presence of
uranium at levels less than 5 μg/L (Central Arizona Project, 2015, 2017, 2019). Available data indicate that
the likely source of uranium in the Subbasin is from local geologic sources. Uranium is often derived from
eroded granite (Jurgens et al., 2010), such as the granites to the west of the northern Indio Subbasin or
the bedrock northeast of the Subbasin. Uranium often occurs in shallow, oxygen-rich groundwater and in
iron oxides on the surfaces of aquifer sediment. Soluble uranium often occurs in association with calcium
and bicarbonate (Jurgens et al., 2010), and groundwater in the Palm Springs Subarea has been
characterized as a calcium-bicarbonate water type (DWR, 1964).
In the Indio Subbasin, uranium concentrations greater than 20 pCi/L MCL were only detected in four
shallow monitoring wells, which are not considered in the basin-wide analyses because they do not
represent regional conditions or production well depths. The median uranium concentration in the
Subbasin is 3.34 pCi/L.
4.4.11 Fluoride
Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found in concentrations exceeding the California primary MCL
(2 mg/L) in portions of the Indio Subbasin. While fluoride is a necessary component of a healthy diet to
prevent dental cavities, fluoride at concentrations greater than 4 mg/L (the federal EPA MCL) can cause
mottled teeth and bone disease.
As shown on Figure 4-16, elevated fluoride concentrations are observed along the eastern side of the
Indio Subbasin and northern boundary of the Salton Sea. Of the most-recent fluoride measurements from
wells, the median concentration is 0.6 mg/L, and the maximum concentration is 12.0 mg/L. In total, 93
wells, or 10.1 percent of all wells sampled, have their most-recent fluoride measurement greater than the
2 mg/L MCL. These higher concentrations are likely due to proximity to the San Andreas Fault and
geothermally active areas near the Salton Sea. Other parts of the United States also see higher
concentrations occurring near faults and geothermically active areas (McMahon et al., 2020).
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-50 TODD/W&C
Fluoride is primarily a concern for small water systems and private domestic wells. Review of available
data indicate that 54 small water systems have reported fluoride data since 2010. Thirteen small water
systems reported fluoride concentrations greater than 2 mg/L and six detected fluoride at concentrations
greater than 4 mg/L. As summarized in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, CVWD has an active
program to assist small water systems in disadvantaged areas that have water supply problems including
water quality issues. Large water systems are able to selectively drill wells in areas with low fluoride
concentrations or provide treatment to meet the MCL, while these activities are less accessible to small
water systems or private domestic well owners. Only 3 out of 233 CVWD, DWA, CWA, or IWA public supply
wells had the most recent measurement show fluoride concentrations greater than 2 mg/L in their most
recent measurement. None of the three wells have been sampled in the past 15 years and they are known
to be inactive.
4.4.12 Perchlorate
Perchlorate was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue (see Chapter 8, Regulatory
and Policy Issues), because of historical contamination in the Colorado River that originated from two
manufacturing facilities. Perchlorate may also occur naturally in arid basin settings. Cleanup activities have
since mitigated perchlorate levels in Colorado River water. Perchlorate loading into Las Vegas Wash has
decreased more than 90 percent since 1998 and levels have consistently remained below 2 μg/L since
2009 at MWD’s Lake Havasu intake (MWD, 2020). CVWD monitors the Coachella Canal at Avenue 52.
Perchlorate results at this location have been below detection limits from 2017 to 2020. By way of
comparison, the California MCL is set at 6 μg/L. As documented in Figure 4-17, detections of perchlorate
in the Indio Subbasin have been highly localized with concentrations less than 2 μg/L.
4.4.13 Dibromochloropropane
DBCP is a pesticide banned in the United States since 1979 because it is hazardous to gastrointestinal and
pulmonary health. California has an MCL of 0.2 μg/L for DBCP. While it is broken down in sunlight, it can
remain in groundwater for decades; because it is denser than groundwater, it tends to sink to the bottom
of aquifers. DBCP has been detected in public supply and private irrigation wells but has not been detected
in public supply wells above the MCL. Three private irrigation wells have most-recent DBCP concentrations
greater than 0.2 μg/L. The maximum concentration observed was 0.4 μg/L. As shown in Figure 4-18, the
wells with high DBCP measurements are relatively localized in the central Thermal Subarea. The DBCP
occurrence is limited to unconfined portions of the Subbasin where specific historical irrigated agricultural
practices occurred.
4.5 Seawater Intrusion
The Indio Subbasin is located over 60 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not vulnerable to seawater
intrusion in the traditional sense. However, it is potentially vulnerable to saltwater intrusion from the
Salton Sea. Percolation of high TDS groundwater from the shallow aquifer may also be a source of
degradation to the deep aquifer. High rates of production in the lower aquifer near the Salton Sea could
pull in dense, saline water, and thus degrade groundwater quality in deep portions of the aquifer.
Potential saltwater intrusion along the Salton Sea northwestern boundary is monitored through two sets
of nested monitoring wells, installed and managed by CVWD. Results from these monitoring wells do not
suggest current groundwater degradation due to saltwater intrusion.
Chapter 4: Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 4-51 TODD/W&C
The Salton Sea is about 30 feet deep, 35 miles long, and 15 miles wide. Its primary source of water is
agricultural drainage, transported through the Alamo River, New River, Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel, and agricultural drains. The Salton Sea has no outflowing streams, but the rate of evaporation is
higher than the rate of inflows, causing a decline in the surface elevation, decrease in surface area and
volume, and salinization. Salton Sea levels measured by the USGS have dropped 9.6 feet from January
2000 to January 2020, and the shoreline has retreated. Salinity levels have increased over the past two
decades, and TDS levels in the Salton Sea during 2019 were greater than 69,000 mg/L (Salton Sea
Authority, 2020).
While increasing salinization of the Salton Sea suggests an increased potential for saltwater intrusion, the
dropping Salton Sea levels and retreating shoreline suggest a groundwater gradient from the Subbasin
toward the sea and therefore less potential for intrusion from the sea. However, local groundwater
gradients can change based on changes in groundwater pumping, recharge, and density differences
between groundwater and Salton Sea water.
To detect and track potential saltwater intrusion, two sets of dedicated nested monitoring wells have
been installed. The northernmost set of nested monitoring wells, about 2.1 miles north of the Salton Sea,
was installed in 1996 with perforation depths at 300-390, 730-770, 1220-1260, and 1,430-1,470 feet
below ground surface (bgs) (see Figure 4-33). All wells but the deepest well have shown stable or
decreasing TDS concentrations, indicating that saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea is not currently
occurring in this region. The shallowest well (labelled 07S09E30R04S on Figure 4-34), shows a decreasing
TDS trend during 1996-2019, from about 500 mg/L to under 200 mg/L. Well 07S09E30R03S, with the 730-
770 feet bgs screen, has maintained TDS concentrations under 300 mg/L, excepting occasional data spikes
(Figure 4-34).
High TDS concentrations are observed in the two deepest nested wells in this set (see Figure 4-33). TDS
concentrations in 07S09E30R02S, with the screened interval 1,220-1,260 feet bgs, have ranged from 3,500
to 4,000 mg/L from 2016 through 2019. TDS concentrations in the deepest well, 07S09E30R01S, decreased
from over 17,000 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L from 1997 through 2013. Concentrations began to increase after
2015. In recent years concentrations have increased to 12,000 mg/L. While the recent TDS concentrations
have remained lower than concentrations during 1996 through 2000, the recent increase in TDS
concentrations as indicative of saltwater or deep poor-quality groundwater. The deepest well is likely not
representative of conditions found in the portion of the Subbasin historically containing freshwater.
The second set of nested wells is located north of Oasis and about one mile west of the Salton Sea’s shore
with screened intervals at 420-480, 720-780, 1035-1095, and 1315-1375 feet bgs (Figure 4-33). All four
wells have maintained stable TDS concentrations of less than 500 mg/L since measurements began in
2003. The two deepest wells show TDS concentrations of less than 250 mg/L. These results indicate that
saltwater intrusion is not occurring in this area.
4.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
A GDE is defined in the GSP Regulations as “ecological communities or species that depend on
groundwater emerging from aquifers or on groundwater occurring near the ground surface.” In its
Alternative Assessment Staff Report, DWR recommended that the Alternative Plan Update identify GDEs
in the Indio Subbasin. This has been accomplished using best available information (including data
available from DWR) and by applying the expertise of a professional wetland scientist.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 5: DEMAND PROJECTIONS
5.1 Introduction
Water resources planning requires reliable estimates of future water demands. Many factors can affect
the amount of water used in the future, including local climate, existing water use patterns, population
growth, seasonality, employment, economic trends, environmental needs, and water conservation
efforts. As demographic changes occur within a region over time, future demand projections may also
change. For example, population projections were much higher in the 2010 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD], 2012) and
have been reduced to reflect more tempered growth over the last decade (refer to Chapter 1,
Introduction). Revising the demand forecast with updated demographic projections is important for
anticipating future water use more accurately when compared to projected supplies identified in Chapter
6, Water Supply.
To provide an adequate long-range forecast of future water demands, this 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative
Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update) uses a 25-year planning period from 2020 through 2045. Projected
water demands are broken into four major categories: municipal, agricultural, golf, and other. Projections
for each of these four categories were developed separately and then summed in the final section of this
chapter.
5.2 Factors Affecting Future Water Demands
There are a number of uncertainties and changes in the region and state that could affect future water
demands in the Plan Area. These uncertainties include the following:
• Revised Growth Forecast—The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) released
new socioeconomic growth forecasts in early 2020 (Connect SoCal)1 that significantly reduced
previously projected increases in population, housing, and employment. The SCAG forecast was
developed in coordination with City and County municipalities and was based on the land use
designations in their respective adopted General Plans. Connect SoCal reduced projected growth in
the Plan Area to levels more similar to those published in the 2002 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan (2002 CVWMP) (CVWD, 2002).
• Agricultural Land Conversions—Connect SoCal identified specific parcels that were currently vacant
or used for agriculture but are planned for conversion to urban uses. Connect SoCal relied on those
developable parcels, coupled with the housing and employment growth projections, to estimate
increases in municipal demand and associated decreases in agricultural demand. Given changes in
agricultural pumping statewide as a result of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), cropped lands in the Plan Area may increase faster than expected.
• Development on Tribal/Reservation Lands—There are over 28,000 acres of Tribal/Reservation
lands in the Plan Area. While much of the Tribal/Reservation lands in the West Valley has been
developed to varying degrees, a substantial amount of Tribal/Reservation land in the East Valley is
largely undeveloped. All five Tribal governments in the Plan Area were contacted by the
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) with requests for land use and water demand
1 https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-2 TODD/W&C
projections for their Tribal/Reservation lands. Several of the Tribes indicated that projected
Tribal/Reservation land uses were already included in municipal General Plans; therefore, Connect
SoCal adequately captures Tribal/Reservation growth. Others did not respond; for the purposes of
analysis, all Tribal/Reservation lands were assumed to grow in accordance with Connect SoCal.
• Long-Term Conservation Regulations—Following the 2012–2016 drought, California passed two
major pieces of conservation legislation: Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 (Friedman) and Senate Bill (SB)
606 (Hertzberg). As outlined in Making Conservation A California Way of Life (California Department
of Water Resources [DWR] and California State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], 2018), the
legislation requires establishing, implementing, reporting, and enforcing urban water use
objectives, along with agricultural water use efficiency. These objectives and standards are currently
under development and future impacts are uncertain.
5.3 Municipal Demands
This section summarizes the process used to develop the municipal water demand projections for the Plan
Area, which includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert,
Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, and unincorporated areas in Riverside and Imperial Counties. Water
agencies serving as GSAs for this Alternative Plan Update include CVWD, Coachella Water Authority
(CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). A small portion of the Plan Area
extends into San Diego County. However, this area is not included in this analysis, which uses SCAG’s
population, housing, and employment forecasts that do not address San Diego County. This small area is
mostly rugged uplands, contains minimal development, and is not likely to be developed further. This
section documents the datasets, methodologies, and assumptions used to develop water demand
projections for all municipal uses within the Plan Area boundary.
5.3.1 Municipal Demand Methodology
The municipal demand forecast used unit demands and adjustment factors based on a variety of
information, including customer billing data and a geographic information system (GIS) database with
parcel-level land use information. The base projection year was established as 2016 based on the
availability of detailed demographic data from SCAG via Connect SoCal. Future water demand projections
were based on SCAG growth projections for 2020,2 2035, and 2045. Future water demands were projected
in 5-year increments with linear projections used for the other 5-year increments. The methodology used
to develop municipal water demand projections was as follows:
1. SCAG Regional Growth Forecast—SCAG provided socioeconomic forecasts for population,
households, and employment. These SCAG data served as the starting point for analysis. Additional
information was required to estimate total housing units for the region.
2. SCAG Land Use Inventories—SCAG GIS data about local land use planning was used to ensure future
growth projections did not exceed allowable land uses in the region. GIS mapping was used to
identify vacant and agricultural lands identified by local jurisdictions for future development.
3. Housing Unit Analysis—Additional information about vacancy rates was used to estimate baseline
and projected housing units for the Plan Area, including housing units used by seasonal residents
2 2020 forecast is a projection based on SCAG demographic data and does not reflect actual 2020 water use.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-3 TODD/W&C
and other part-time uses. Recent development data and land use information were used to allocate
future housing units into the single-family and multiple-family sectors.
4. Employment Analysis—SCAG employment forecasts were used to allocate future commercial,
industrial, and institutional (CII) demands.
5. Unit Demand Factors—Customer billing data provided by the GSAs from July 2014 to June 2019
was averaged by GSA to determine baseline water demands for each GSA. The multiple-year
average was used to capture annual weather variations. Water demand projections were calculated
using gallons per housing unit for residential and landscape uses, and gallons per employee for CII
uses.
6. Water Loss—Water loss estimates were based on validated Water Loss Audit reports provided by
the GSAs. An average 3 years of available water loss audits (for 2016, 2017, and 2018) were used to
develop a water loss estimate.
7. Adjustment Factors—Future demands were adjusted for indoor passive conservation based on
savings from the natural replacement of indoor devices and from implementation of DWR’s 2015
Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (DWR, 2015) for future developments. No
additional adjustments were made to reflect required AB 1668 and SB 606 implementation in the
baseline demand projection.
The basic unit of municipal demand projections are jurisdictions (i.e., cities and unincorporated county
areas) in the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 5-1. Within each jurisdiction, demographic factors were
considered homogeneous. For example, the average vacancy rate for a city was considered the same in
instances where a city was split between multiple water agencies or when a city was both inside and
outside the Plan Area boundary. Unincorporated areas were separated into distinct estimates for the
West Valley and the East Valley. The East Unincorporated geographic area (see Section 5.3.2 below)
includes both Riverside and Imperial Counties.
For each of the GSAs, socioeconomic data and demand projections were totaled by each GSA Area, which
is defined as being limited to the portion of the GSA’s jurisdictional area in the Plan Area. For example,
the CVWD Area includes all of CVWD’s jurisdictional area in the Plan Area, whether or not those demands
are currently served by their domestic water system. For customers that are not connected to the CVWD
domestic water system but are in the CVWD Area, demands met by private wells or small water systems
are allocated to CVWD as the overlying GSA.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-4 TODD/W&C
Figure 5-1. Jurisdictions within Plan Area
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-5 TODD/W&C
5.3.2 SCAG Regional Growth Forecast
Socioeconomic projections of population, households, and employment were provided by SCAG, which is
a joint powers authority that encompasses six counties (i.e., Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura Counties). These data were originally prepared for the 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, also known as Connect SoCal.3 Initial work on
the growth forecast was based on draft materials released in November 2017 as part of SCAG’s local input
and envisioning process.4 These data include base year estimates for 2016 and projections for 2020, 2035,
and 2045. Forecasts for 2025, 2030, and 2040 were based on linear interpolation. The draft datasets were
released in November 2018. The final socioeconomic growth projections were released with the final
version of Connect SoCal, which was adopted by SCAG on May 7, 2020.5 SCAG made some adjustments to
the draft projections based on feedback received from local jurisdictions (for example, projections were
reduced for the Cities of Indian Wells and La Quinta), and these adjustments were reflected in the final
Connect SoCal totals.6
Connect SoCal’s regional growth forecast is comprised of the most recent and detailed data available for
the Plan Area. This regional growth forecast is based on jurisdictional General Plans and is intended to
represent the most likely growth scenario considering a combination of recent and past trends and
regional growth policies. In the Coachella Valley, this forecast anticipates less growth than in previous
forecasts. SCAG has reduced projections downward for Coachella Valley, particularly in the
unincorporated areas of Riverside County in the East Valley. Traditionally, developing previously
undeveloped land on the urban fringe (i.e., greenfield development) has been the method for
accommodating growth in the Coachella Valley. SCAG’s recent forecasts have increasingly looked toward
infill development on vacant land in urbanized areas and redeveloping land use types to accommodate
future growth.
The growth forecast in the 2010 CVWMP Update was based on Riverside County Projections 2006 (RCP-06)
(Riverside County Center for Demographic Research, 2006) and was adopted by the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments and SCAG. SCAG then used this forecast to develop its 2008 Regional
Transportation Plan (SCAG, 2008). The RCP-06 forecast was prepared in late 2006 and early 2007; it was
developed during a period of significant economic growth and development in the Coachella Valley before
the housing market collapse and economic recession. Between 2000 and 2008, Riverside County’s
population increased by over 500,000, making it one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the
United States over that period. This rate of growth slowed following the economic recession, which
impacted housing development and population growth in the Coachella Valley. Although Connect SoCal
substantially reduced its regional growth forecast from its RCP-06 projection, the current rate of growth
in Connect SoCal is higher on average than recent development data suggest. Despite fluctuations in
projections, current Plan Area growth is consistent with long-term growth trends (i.e., the growth rate
effectively averages boom and bust periods) in the Coachella Valley over the last 30 years.
3 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176
4 http ://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/DataMapBooks.aspx
5 https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/default.aspx
6 2045 population projections for the cities of Indian Wells and La Quinta were reduced by 2,900 and 1,300 persons,
respectively.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-6 TODD/W&C
SCAG growth estimates are benchmarked to the U.S. Census Bureau’s (Census Bureau’s) 2010 Census,
which is currently more than 10 years out of date. The more current 2020 Census data are not expected
to be released until mid-2021, and there have been additional delays as a result of the coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Once 2020 Census data are released, the GSAs will be able to confirm the
accuracy of SCAG’s baseline estimates. In addition, the current COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in
increased work-from-home patterns that may result in additional short- and long-term socioeconomic
changes for the region. In the short term, water demands are likely to decrease as a result of the
COVID--19 related economic downturn and decreases in recreational/tourism activity. In the long term,
the Plan Area may experience an increase in population due to relocation from larger metropolitan areas
where working from home is more expensive. Given the uncertainty of these potential changes, Connect
SoCal growth projections have not been adjusted.
5.3.2.1 Seasonal Population
The Coachella Valley is unique in that it includes a high number of homes identified as vacant for
“seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses” as defined by the Census Bureau. These homes are not the
primary residence of owners or renters based on where they spend most of their time. Past reports
indicate that a significant percentage of these properties are used as part-time retirement homes, with
fewer units used as weekend homes or as short-term rentals. In the Coachella Valley, these include homes
for people who live in one primary location, but also have a second home in a warmer location to spend
winters and/or weekends. Tourism is also an important part of the region’s economy, and many homes
are used as short-term rentals. The emergence of the sharing economy and internet-based platforms such
as Airbnb for short-term rentals has more recently resulted in changes to the short-term rental market.
The region’s seasonal population is not counted under the Census Bureau’s definitions of households and
population used by SCAG.
For the purposes of this Alternative Plan Update, growth in residential water demand is a function of
current and projected housing units, which includes all vacant and seasonal units. Housing unit counts
provide a strong correlation to water demand. Vacant housing units and other amenities such as municipal
parks and common areas that serve the seasonal population have year-round water uses, particularly for
outdoor irrigation. Due to the seasonality of the tourist industry and outdoor irrigation requirements in
the summer, these homes often use the most water when they are vacant. SCAG’s population forecast
was expanded for this Alternative Plan Update to reflect seasonal population in the Plan Area.
5.3.2.2 Growth Forecast for the Plan Area
SCAG provided socioeconomic forecasts at various levels of geographic units, including 11,267
transportation analysis zones (TAZs), which were developed independently by SCAG and resemble the
Census Bureau’s block groups. These TAZs were used to split forecasts of population, households, and
employment by water agency and by Plan Area. To split individual TAZs, data were clipped along
jurisdictional boundaries for further analysis using parcel-level land use data. Using land use data provided
greater precision when locating population centers. Figure 5-2 is a map of the Plan Area showing the
largest growth in population by TAZ.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-10 TODD/W&C
5.3.3 SCAG Land Use Inventories
Land use information was used during analysis to ensure that municipal water demand projections were
consistent with local General Plans and did not exceed allowable land uses in the Plan Area. This land use
information was also used to quantify future development of agricultural land. Land use data were
retrieved from SCAG’s 2016 Combined Land Use Datasets for Riverside County.7 SCAG then encoded this
data layer into GIS. These data are available in various formats, including SCAG’s GIS Open Data Portal.8
SCAG’s land use data include existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use, Specific Plan land use, and
adopted zoning codes for each jurisdiction as of 2016. Since each jurisdiction in the region has their own
approach to categorizing land uses, SCAG aggregated these categories into their own land use definitions.
These land use data were then reviewed by local jurisdictions beginning in summer 2017, and SCAG’s final
dataset reflects each jurisdiction’s local input.
5.3.3.1 Parcels Identified for Development
Future land use projections were based on future development of parcels identified as vacant,
agricultural, or under construction as of 2016 in SCAG’s existing land use database. SCAG identified
existing land uses by using the most recent County Assessor’s property information. These data represent
the best available estimate of current land uses at a regional level.
Parcels identified as remaining vacant, agricultural, or identified as undevelopable or protected in local
General Plans, or as part of a conservation area, were excluded from analysis and not considered
developable. While some redevelopment of existing parcels is anticipated in the region, SCAG land use
data do not provide estimates about the extent to which existing land uses would be available for
redevelopment. This information would need to be developed through additional participation from City
planning departments.
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show the availability of land identified for development by jurisdiction. Vacant
land accounts for 71 percent of land identified for development in the Plan Area, with future development
in the West Valley being primarily on vacant land. Agricultural land accounts for 25 percent of the land
identified for development, with most of that land in the East Valley. The cities of Coachella and Indio
have the largest acreage in agriculture identified for development. These cities are also projected to be
the fastest growing in the region. Portions of Imperial County in the Plan Area were excluded from the
calculated agricultural to urban conversion, as projected development in Imperial County was assumed
to occur on vacant land.
7http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/GIShome.aspx
8http://gisdata-scag.opendata.arcgis.com/
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-14 TODD/W&C
5.3.4 Housing Unit Projections
The growth forecast for residential and landscape used in this Alternative Plan Update is based on a
forecast of total housing units. SCAG’s Connect SoCal provides socioeconomic projections of households,
or occupied housing units, which exclude all vacant units. Additional information about vacancy rates and
housing type was used to transform SCAG projections into estimates of total housing units and to separate
housing units into the categories of single-family, multiple-family, and mobile home. Additional housing
data for the Plan Area are based on the following data sources:
• DOF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State—January 1, 2011–
2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020.
• ACS, 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2014–2018)
For the Plan Area cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm
Springs, and Rancho Mirage, DOF provides the most current and most accurate annual estimates of
vacancy rates and total housing units by type. For unincorporated areas in Riverside and Imperial
Counties, the most current estimates are from ACS, which derived from an annual survey conducted by
the Census Bureau. Unlike the 2010 Census, the ACS is based on a sample and has a margin of error. Multi-
year estimates are also provided as part of the ACS to increase statistical reliability. The most current ACS
estimates are the 5-year estimates from 2014 to 2018.
ACS data are based on census place, which includes cities and census-designated places (CDPs) in the
region. CDPs are concentrations of population defined by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes.
Unincorporated areas in Riverside County include the Bermuda Dunes, Desert Palms, Thermal, Thousand
Palms, and Vista Santa Rosa CDPs in the West Valley, and the Mecca, North Shore, and Oasis CDPs in the
East Valley. Unincorporated areas of Imperial County include Bombay Beach, Desert Shores, Salton City,
and Salton Sea Beach.
5.3.4.1 Vacancy Rates
SCAG’s Connect SoCal counts are limited to occupied households and had to be increased to account for
vacant housing units. Vacancy rates were applied to SCAG household projections for each jurisdiction to
develop estimates of total housing units for the 2016 base year. Vacancy rates were then used to calculate
total housing units based on the formula shown in Equation 5-1.
Equation 5-1. Calculation of Total Housing Units
Housing Units = Households
(1-Vacancy Rate)
Vacancy rates were used instead of a vacant unit count to account for jurisdictions that were split between
water agencies or that were both inside and outside of the Plan Area. It was also assumed these vacancy
rates would remain constant for each jurisdiction across future projections. A review of historical data
from DOF indicate that vacancy rates have been stable over time. According to Connect SoCal, the fastest
growing areas have lower average vacancy rates, and as a result, the vacancy rate for new units is lower
than the average for the Plan Area.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update TODD/W&C
Figure 5-12. Developable Agricultural Lands
5-39
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-42 TODD/W&C
5.6 Golf Demand
The golf industry represents a significant water demand sector in the Plan Area, comprising over
18 percent or an average 105,300 AFY of Plan Area water use between 2015 and 2019. Demand for golf
course irrigation is met with groundwater, Coachella Canal water, and recycled water. Figure 5-13 shows
golf water use over the 2010–2019 timeframe. The 2010 CVWMP Update assumed a proportional increase
in golf courses to population growth. Anticipated golf water demand projected in this Alternative Plan
Update is based on an assumed continuation of existing golf courses, and minimal growth based on trends
in golf course construction over the last 10 years per conversations with the Golf Task Force and Southern
California Golf Association, and a review of planned golf courses in approved Water Supply Assessments.
A 5-year average from 2015 to 2019 was used to calculate a golf industry demand baseline of 105,300 AFY.
Three future golf courses were assumed when developing golf industry demand projections, based on a
list of approved Water Supply Assessments provided by CVWD staff (dated July 23, 2020) for upcoming
development approvals. These three new 18-hole golf courses were assumed to comply with CVWD’s
Ordinance No. 1302.4: An Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District Establishing Landscape and
Irrigation System Design Criteria (Landscape Ordinance) (CVWD, 2019b), which mandates golf course
water use efficiency (see discussion below). Assuming three new golf courses would be approximately 150
acres in size, analysis projected water use for each golf course under the Landscape Ordinance at 775 AFY
per course or 2,324 AFY total.
CVWD WRP-10 recycled water serves golf demands in the mid-
Valley area.
Chapter 5: Demand Projections FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 5-48 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 6: WATER SUPPLY
6.1 Overview of Water Supply
The Plan Area relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, State Water Project
(SWP) exchange water, local surface water, and recycled water to meet water demands. This chapter
describes the existing water supplies available to the Plan Area and discusses the key assumptions
associated with each water supply source. For the purposes of discussion in this chapter, separate
accounting is provided in the following subsections for local groundwater (Section 6.2), local surface water
(Section 6.3), Colorado River water (Section 6.4), SWP exchange water (Section 6.5), and recycled water
(Section 6.6). Plan scenarios, which assume variable supply assumptions to meet future demands, are
described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
6.2 Local Groundwater
Groundwater from the Indio Subbasin
represents a source of supply for domestic,
agricultural, and municipal water demands.
In this arid region, natural recharge to
groundwater is limited and groundwater
supply historically has been insufficient to
satisfy local water demands without leading
to overdraft. However, groundwater
remains a key part of the supply portfolio
for the Plan Area. Moreover, the Indio
Subbasin serves an important role in
providing storage capacity that is
replenished when surface water is available
and then utilized when needed, such as
during drought or shortage. The Indio
Subbasin also serves to convey water through groundwater flow from areas of recharge to areas of
discharge, including production wells. For example, the Indio Subbasin receives substantial replenishment
with imported water at three Groundwater Replenishment Facilities (GRFs) and distributes this water
through the aquifer to production wells.
The overall purpose of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is to establish a plan for
basin management that achieves long-term groundwater sustainability. A sustainable groundwater basin
is one in which the groundwater use is balanced with the replenishment from natural sources, return
flows, and artificial recharge. The Indio Subbasin is described in detail in Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic
Conceptual Model and Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions.
6.2.1 Uses of Groundwater
Local groundwater was the principal source of not only municipal and rural domestic supply, but also of
agricultural water supply, until construction of the Coachella Canal in 1949. Groundwater continues to
supply municipal, agriculture, golf courses, and other demands such as fish farms and duck clubs (see
Chapter 5, Demand Projections). Managed aquifer recharge with imported water at the GRFs ensures an
Mountain-front runoff and Whitewater River flows
replenish the Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-2 TODD/W&C
adequate supply for users extracting groundwater through numerous production wells. Chapter 2, Plan
Area, briefly describes the uses of groundwater, and Figure 2-13 illustrates the distribution of
groundwater production wells across the Indio Subbasin.
6.2.2 Groundwater Supply
Groundwater has been a principal source of water supply in the Coachella Valley since the early part of
the 20th century. Management of groundwater resources requires knowledge of the groundwater
balance which is an estimate of the inflows (gains) and outflows (losses) from the groundwater system.
Historically, the demand for groundwater annually exceeded the limited natural inflows of the arid Indio
Subbasin. Sources of natural inflow to the Indio Subbasin average approximately 60,000 acre-feet per year
(AFY) from watershed runoff and subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. Limited natural recharge
has been supplemented with imported water supplies beginning with the delivery of Colorado River water
through the Coachella Canal in 1949. Imported water is now a major component of the inflows to the
groundwater balance of the Indio Subbasin through return flows of applied Colorado River water and
managed aquifer recharge. This section discusses the sources of inflows and outflows of the Indio
Subbasin and compares the average groundwater balance for the 10-year periods of 2000 to 2009 and
2010 to 2019.
6.2.2.1 Groundwater Inflows
The groundwater inflows to the Indio Subbasin consist of a combination of sources, as listed below.
• Watershed runoff including subsurface inflow from mountain front areas and surface runoff from
the Whitewater River, Snow and Falls Creek channels, minor tributaries along the San Jacinto,
Santa Rosa, and Little San Bernardino mountain front, and several smaller streams that flow
during wet years (excluding outflow to Salton Sea and surface water diversions);
• Subsurface inflows from the San Gorgonio Pass and Mission Creek Subbasins (note that the
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin is a no-flow boundary);
• Return flow of applied water, treated wastewater, and septic including deep percolation of
water applied to agricultural fields, golf courses, and urban landscapes; septic tanks/leachfield
systems, which are distributed across rural portions of the Indio Subbasin and some urban areas;
and treated wastewater from municipal wastewater treatment plants; and
• Imported water recharge using Colorado River and SWP Exchange supplies, as described in
Sections 6.4 and 6.5 below.
Of the above, irrigation return flows and imported water recharge are now the major source of inflows to
the Indio Subbasin. Table 6-1 below provides an overview of estimated groundwater inflows comparing
the 10-year periods of 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2019. Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios,
provides estimates of future groundwater inflows for various management scenarios.
6.2.2.2 Groundwater Outflows
Groundwater outflows are part of the Subbasin’s water balance, as listed below.
• Net drain flow and subsurface outflows including subsurface flow from the agricultural tile drain
system to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) or directly to the Salton Sea and
subsurface outflows to the Salton Sea at the Subbasin boundary; and
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-7 TODD/W&C
assumes DWA will increase annual surface water diversions to 6,000 AFY in 2023. Although only a small
portion of the current watershed runoff is diverted for municipal and agricultural use, the Indio Subbasin
still benefits from the natural infiltration of watershed runoff that is not diverted. This Alternative Plan
Update assumes approximately 96 percent of undiverted flows recharge the groundwater aquifer, while
four percent outflows to the Salton Sea, based on calculation of outflow at the Indio gage on the
Whitewater River (USGS 10259300).
This Alternative Plan Update considers two local hydrology scenarios:
1) Historical hydrology conditions – Natural infiltration based on the 50-year historical average
(1970 to 2019) of 52,500 AFY for watershed runoff, minus outflows to the Salton Sea and surface
water diversions. With projected surface water diversions at 6,000 AFY after 2023, natural
infiltration is estimated to average 43,300 AFY through the planning horizon. These assumptions
are used only in the baseline scenario in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
2) Climate change conditions – Natural infiltration based on the drier 25-year hydrologic period
(1995 to 2019) that includes reoccurring droughts and aligns with climate change forecasts that
predict increasingly drier conditions. Watershed runoff for the 25-year hydrologic period
averaged 38,200 AFY. With projected surface water diversions at 6,000 AFY after 2023, natural
infiltration is estimated to average 29,200 AFY through the planning horizon. These assumptions
are used in all future project scenarios in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
6.4 Colorado River Water
Colorado River water has been a significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the Coachella
Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives Colorado River
water allocations.
The Colorado River is managed and operated in accordance with the Law of the River, a collection of
interstate compacts, federal and state legislation, various agreements and contracts, an international
treaty, a U.S. Supreme Court decree, and federal administrative actions that govern the rights to use
Colorado River water within the seven Colorado River Basin states. The 1922 Colorado River Compact
apportioned the waters of the Colorado River Basin between the Upper Colorado River Basin (i.e.,
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (i.e., Nevada, Arizona, and California)
(USBR, 1922). The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates 15 million AFY of Colorado River water as
follows: 7.5 million AFY to the Upper Basin and 7.5 million AFY to the Lower Basin, plus up to 1 million AFY
of surplus supplies. The Lower Basin’s water was further apportioned among the three Lower Basin states
by the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act (USBR, 1928) and the 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement
(USBR, 1931), typically called the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, which allocates California’s apportionment
of Colorado River water among Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), Imperial Irrigation District (IID),
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), City
of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona
v. California established Arizona’s basic annual apportionment at 2.8 million AFY, California’s at 4.4
million AFY, and Nevada’s at 0.3 million AFY. Mexico is entitled to 1.5 million AFY of the Colorado River
under the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers
and of the Rio Grande (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946). However, this treaty did not specify a
required quality for water entering Mexico. In 1973, the United States and Mexico signed Minute No. 242
of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) requiring certain water quality standards
for water entering Mexico (IBWC, 1973).
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-8 TODD/W&C
California’s Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act (USBR, 1968),
which provides that in years of insufficient supply on the main stem of the Colorado River, supplies to the
Central Arizona Project shall be reduced to zero before California will be reduced below 4.4 million AF in
any year. This assures full supplies to the Coachella Valley, except in periods of extreme drought.
The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All-
American Canal that brings Colorado River
water into the Imperial and Coachella
Valleys. Under the 1931 Seven Party
Agreement (USBR, 1931), CVWD receives
330,000 AFY of Priority 3A Colorado River
water diverted from the All-American Canal
at the Imperial Dam. The Coachella Canal
originates at Drop 1 on the All-American
Canal and extends approximately 123 miles,
terminating in CVWD’s Lake Cahuilla. The
service area for Colorado River water
delivery under CVWD’s contract with the
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) is defined as
Improvement District No. 1 (ID-1), which encompasses 136,400 acres covering most of the East Valley and
a portion of the West Valley north of Interstate 10. Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has
water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million AFY allocated to California. CVWD is
in the third priority position along with IID.
6.4.1 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA)
In 2003, CVWD, IID, and MWD successfully negotiated the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement
(2003 QSA) (CVWD, 2003), which quantifies Colorado River allocations through 2077 and supports the
transfer of water between agencies. Under the 2003 QSA, CVWD has a base entitlement of 330,000 AFY.
CVWD negotiated water transfer agreements with MWD and IID that increased CVWD supplies by an
additional 123,000 AFY. CVWD’s net QSA supply will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that
level until 2047, decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates (Secretary of the
Interior, 2003). CVWD’s available Colorado River diversions through 2045, this Alternative Plan Update
horizon, are shown on Table 6-3.
As of 2020, CVWD’s available Colorado River water diversions at Imperial Dam under the QSA were
394,000 AFY. This includes the base entitlement of 330,000 AFY, the MWD/IID Transfer of 20,000 AFY,
IID/CVWD First Transfer of 50,000 AFY, and IID/CVWD Second Transfer of 23,000 AFY. CVWD’s QSA
diversions also deducts the -26,000 AFY transferred to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) as part
of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and the -3,000 AFY transfer to Indian Present Perfected Rights.
The Coachella Canal extends approximately 123 miles to
terminate in Lake Cahuilla.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-12 TODD/W&C
6.4.3.1 QSA Litigation
The 2010 CVWMP Update cautioned against the reliability of CVWD’s Colorado River supplies because of
ongoing QSA litigation at the time. However, the QSA has held up to scrutiny under several unsuccessful
legal challenges in state and federal court. Immediately following passage of the QSA, in November 2003,
IID filed a complaint in Imperial County Superior Court to confirm the validity of the QSA and 12 of the 34
QSA-related agreements. The case was coordinated for trial with other lawsuits challenging QSA
environmental and regulatory approvals in the Sacramento County Superior Court. CVWD, IID, MWD,
SDCWA, and the State defended these suits, which sought validation of the contracts. In February 2010,
a California Superior Court judge ruled that the QSA and 11 related agreements were invalid because the
QSA-JPA Agreement created an unconditional obligation for the State to pay for excess environmental
mitigation costs, in violation of California’s constitution. The court declined, for jurisdictional reasons, to
validate the thirteenth agreement, the IID-CVWD Salton Sea Flooding Settlement Agreement.
The QSA parties appealed this decision. In March 2011, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District issued a temporary stay of the trial court judgment. In December 2011, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case back to trial court for decision on the
environmental challenges to the QSA Program EIR. In July 2013, a Sacramento Superior Court entered a
final judgment validating the QSA and rejecting all of the remaining legal challenges. In May 2015, the
California Court of Appeal issued a ruling that dismissed all remaining appeals.
6.4.3.2 Colorado River Interim Guidelines
Since 2000, drought conditions in the Colorado River basin have led to significant fluctuations and
decreases in water elevations at key Colorado River reservoirs. Each year, the Secretary of the Interior is
required to declare the Colorado River water supply availability conditions for the Lower Basin States in
terms of normal, surplus, or shortage. In 2007, USBR adopted Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower
Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines).
These 2007 Interim Guidelines will remain in effect for determinations to be made through December
2025 regarding water supply and reservoir operating decisions through 2026 and provide guidance for
development of the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for Colorado River reservoirs (USBR, 2007).
The purposes of the 2007 Interim Guidelines are to:
• Improve USBR’s management of the Colorado River by considering trade-offs between the
frequency and magnitude of reductions of water deliveries and considering the effects on water
storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. USBR will also consider the effects on water supply, power
production, recreation, and other environmental resources;
• Provide mainstream U.S. users of Colorado River water, particularly those in the Lower Basin
states, a greater degree of predictability with respect to the amount of annual water deliveries in
future years, particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions; and
• Provide additional mechanisms for the storage and delivery of water supplies in Lake Mead to
increase the flexibility of meeting water use needs from Lake Mead, particularly under drought
and low reservoir conditions (USBR 2007).
In October 2020, USBR released a Review of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin
Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (7D Review; USBR 2020a). The 7D
Review acknowledged the operational stability provided by the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-13 TODD/W&C
cooperation of participating agencies in providing information to inform the post-2026 operations of Lake
Powell and Lake Mead. Negotiations began in 2021 for the 2027 Interim Guidelines that may affect
available supplies of Colorado River water.
6.4.3.3 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan
In May 2019, CVWD entered into the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (USBR, 2019) to
provide an additional mechanism to prevent Lake Mead from reaching critically low elevations by
establishing that certain Colorado River users in the Lower Basin make Drought Contingency Plan (DCP)
contributions if Lake Mead reaches certain elevations. The Implementation Agreement (CVWD 2019c)
explains that the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (Lower Basin DCP) provides that USBR's annual
24-month study's projection of Lake Mead's January 1 elevation will determine the amount of California
DCP contributions for the subsequent year, if any. CVWD's portion of California DCP contributions under
the Lower Basin DCP is seven percent (which is approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY). CVWD will
implement its portion of the Lower Basin DCP contributions by storing water in MWD’s Lake Mead DCP
Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) account and/or by CVWD reducing its call for the 35,000 AFY MWD
SWP Transfer (refer to description above). MWD will then reduce its USBR water order by an equivalent
amount in that year to cover CVWD’s contribution. The Lower Basin DCP is a short-term plan that will end
when the 2027 Interim Guidelines are implemented.
6.4.4 Use of Colorado River Water
This Alternative Plan Update considers the QSA ramp up to ensure that all available supply is used. This
requires balancing direct uses and replenishment deliveries against the available Colorado River supply
(less conveyance and regulatory water losses). This Alternative Plan Update considers two Colorado River
delivery scenarios:
1) Historical hydrology conditions – Full ramp up of the 2003 QSA entitlement, along with transfers
where there are agreements in place. These assumptions are used only in the baseline scenario
in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
2) Climate change conditions – Full ramp up of the 2003 QSA entitlement and transfers, minus
CVWD’s portion of California’s Lower Basin DCP contribution increasing from 14,500 AFY to 24,500
AFY. These assumptions are used in all future project scenarios in Chapter 7, Numerical Model
and Plan Scenarios.
To fully utilize the Colorado River water entitlement, the GSAs propose several source substitution
(replacing existing groundwater pumping with Canal water deliveries) and replenishment projects that
can be found in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions.
6.5 SWP Exchange Water
The SWP is managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and includes 705 miles of
aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Oroville in Northern California to Lake Perris in
Southern California. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.172 million AFY to the State Water Contractors.
The State Water Contractors consist of 29 public entities with long-term contracts with DWR for all, or a
portion of, their water supply needs. In 1962 and 1963, DWA and CVWD, respectively, entered contracts
with the State of California for a total of 61,200 AFY of SWP water.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-14 TODD/W&C
SWP water has been an important component of the region’s water supply mix since CVWD and DWA
began receiving and recharging SWP exchange water at the WWR-GRF. Starting in 1973, CVWD and DWA
began exchanging their SWP water with MWD for Colorado River water delivered via MWD’s Colorado
River Aqueduct. Because CVWD and DWA do not have a physical connection to SWP conveyance facilities,
MWD takes delivery of CVWD’s and DWA’s SWP water, and in exchange, delivers an equal amount of
Colorado River water to the Whitewater Service Connections (for recharge at WWR-GRF and MC-GRF).
The exchange agreement was most recently re-established in the 2019 Amended and Restated Agreement
for Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water (CVWD, 2019a).
6.5.1 SWP Table A Amounts
Each SWP contract contains a “Table A” exhibit
that defines the maximum annual amount of
water each contractor can receive excluding
certain interruptible deliveries. DWR uses Table A
amounts to allocate available SWP supplies and
some SWP project costs among the contractors.
Each year, DWR determines the amount of water
available for delivery to SWP contractors based
on hydrology, reservoir storage, the
requirements of water rights licenses and
permits, water quality, and environmental
requirements for protected species in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). The
available supply is then allocated according to
each SWP contractor’s Table A amount.
CVWD’s and DWA’s collective increments of Table A water are listed in Table 6-4. Original Table A SWP
water allocations for CVWD and DWA were 23,100 AFY and 38,100 AFY, respectively, for a combined
amount of 61,200 AFY. CVWD and DWA obtained a combined 100,000 AFY transfer from MWD under the
2003 Exchange Agreement. In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP Table A water from
the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District (Tulare Lake Basin) in Kings County (DWR, 2004). In 2007,
CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of Table A SWP water from Tulare Lake Basin totaling 7,000 AFY
(DWR, 2007a and 2007b). In 2007, CVWD and DWA also completed the transfer of 16,000 AFY of Table A
Amounts from the Berrenda Mesa Water District in Kern County (DWR, 2007c and 2007d). These latter
two transfers became effective in January 2010. With these additional transfers, the total SWP Table A
Amount for CVWD and DWA is 194,100 AFY.
Previously, the 100,000 AFY MWD Transfer obtained under the 2003 Exchange Agreement included a “Call
Back” component that allowed MWD to call-back the 100,000 AFY and assume the entire cost of delivery
if it needed the water. In 2019, the Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery
of Water (CVWD, 2019a) ended MWD’s right to call back that 100,000 AFY of Table A water.
SWP exchange water is recharged at the WWR-GRF.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-17 TODD/W&C
6.5.4 Supply Reliability
SWP supplies vary annually due to weather and runoff variations in Northern California and regulatory
limitations on exports from the Delta.
6.5.4.1 Delta Exports
The SWP’s and Central Valley Project’s (CVP; managed by USBR) exports from the Delta have decreased
since 2005 due to several key environmental decisions. While the SWP primarily serves the State’s
population and economic growth, the CVP serves the State’s agricultural industry. In 2005, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released a Biological Opinion that Delta export (combined SWP and CVP)
pumping operations would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Delta smelt, a small, endangered
fish endemic to the Delta. Environmental groups challenged the action and in May 2007, federal Judge
Oliver Wanger ruled that the Biological Opinion was faulty in its assumptions and needed to be performed
again. In 2008, the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a new Biological Opinion
that addressed Delta fisheries, restricting operations of the SWP and CVP diversion pumps. In 2009,
Wanger struck down the USBR acceptance of the new Biological Opinion, saying USBR failed to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related to cutbacks in water exports for Central Valley
farmers.
In 2009, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Delta Reform Act) established the Delta
Stewardship Council to create a comprehensive, long-term, legally enforceable plan to guide management
of the Delta’s water and environmental resources. The Delta Plan (Delta Stewardship Council, 2013)
includes policies and recommendations to achieve the “coequal goals,” which means the two goals of
providing more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta
ecosystem. In 2016, USBR and DWR developed the California WaterFix, a twin-tunnels alternative for
conveying flows across the natural channels of the Delta, focused on conveyance and ecosystem
improvements to significantly reduce reverse flows and fish species impacts associated with the existing
south Delta intakes. In 2019, USFWS and NMFS issued revised Biological Opinions (USFWS, 2019) to
address California WaterFix. Concurrently, USBR issued the 2018 Addendum (USBR, 2018) to the 1986
Coordinated Operations Agreement (USBR, 1986) with accompanying SWP and CVP operations changes
which reduced SWP exports and increased CVP exports, along with more conservative operation of Lake
Oroville. Most recently, in 2019, Governor Newsom directed state agencies to proceed with modernizing
Delta conveyance with a single tunnel project (see DCF description below).
6.5.4.2 SWP Reliability
State Water Contractors are required to submit annual delivery schedules to the DWR for a suite of
potential water allocations; for example, 15 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, and 100 percent
were provided for calendar year 2021. DWR makes an initial SWP Table A allocation for planning purposes,
typically in December, prior to the start of each calendar year. Throughout the year, as additional
information regarding water availability becomes available and DWR performs hydrologic analyses, the
SWP allocation and delivery estimates are updated. Typically, the final SWP allocation for the year is
derived by June, and although not typical, can still be updated into the Fall. Table 6-5 presents the
historical draft and final Table A allocations over the past 20 years (i.e., 2002 to 2021). Note that CVWD’s
and DWA’s contracted Table A amounts increased substantially in 2005 and again in 2010.
Final SWP allocations between 2002 and 2021 have ranged from a high of 100 percent in 2006 to a low of
five percent in 2014 and again in 2021. Figure 6-4 shows the variability of Table A allocations for the period
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-21 TODD/W&C
Figure 6-5. Delta Conveyance Facility – Proposed Corridor Options
Source: DCA Board of Directors Special Meeting, February 2021
Construction of the DCF will improve water supply reliability for State Water Contractors by addressing
in-Delta conveyance, with its myriad of constraints. Because the SWP currently relies on the Delta’s
natural channels to convey water, it is vulnerable to earthquakes, climate change, and pumping
restrictions established to protect in-stream species and habitats. Certain pumping restrictions in the
south Delta can prevent the SWP from reliably capturing water when it is available, especially in wet
weather. The DCF would add new diversions in the north Delta to promote a more resilient and flexible
SWP in the face of unstable future conditions. Combined with the current through-Delta method, the
addition of DCF is referred to as the “dual conveyance” system.
CVWD and DWA have approved a 2-year agreement to advance their share of funding for DCF planning
and design costs. The Agreement in Principle for the Delta Conveyance Facility was approved in November
2020, as outlined in Table 6-7 below. A very preliminary estimate of the DCF benefits is 500,000 AFY. DWA
and CVWD approved their participation levels of 1.52 percent and 3.78 percent, respectively. This restores
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-26 TODD/W&C
6.6.1 MSWD Regional WRF
MSWD has completed design of the Regional WRF to treat wastewater flows to secondary levels including
nitrification and denitrification. The Regional WRF will be located in the Garnet Hill Subarea and will divert
some wastewater flows from existing WWTPs located in the Mission Creek Subbasin that are at capacity.
The Regional WRF will have an initial capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) (1,680 AFY) with
construction beginning in 2021. The Regional WRF will start receiving flow in 2022 and is projected to
reach 1.5 mgd treatment capacity by approximately 2030. Wastewater flows will be from existing sewered
customers and from the septic to sewer conversions in the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin, Mission Creek
Subbasin, and Garnet Hill Subarea of the Indio Subbasin.
Treated wastewater will be discharged to evaporation/percolation ponds in the Garnet Hill Subarea.
Growth projected by 2045 is expected to provide wastewater flows to a buildout capacity of 3 mgd (3,360
AFY) available for recycling. However, future use of recycled water from the Regional WRF is expected to
occur in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
6.6.2 Palm Springs WWTP/DWA WRP
DWA WRP, located in the City of Palm Springs,
has a tertiary treatment capacity of 10 mgd
(11,200 AFY). DWA provides tertiary
treatment of secondary treated supply from
the City of Palm Springs’s WWTP for irrigation
of parks and greenscapes in the Palm Springs
area. The average annual wastewater flow
from 2018 to 2019 was approximately
6,613 AFY, while recycled water demand
totaled 4,599 AFY. With existing wastewater
flows and available tertiary treatment
capacity, this facility could produce
approximately 2,014 AFY of additional
recycled water supply. In 2020, two existing
18-hole golf courses converted from using
recycled water to groundwater, which reduced DWA’s recycled water demands to approximately
3,200 AFY and increased DWA’s availability of wastewater flows for recycling to 3,413 AFY. Growth
projected by 2045 is expected to provide an increase of 1,566 AFY of additional wastewater flow available
for recycling, based on projected indoor water use.
6.6.3 CVWD WRP-10
CVWD WRP-10 is located in the City of Palm Desert. The plant is a 18.0 mgd secondary treatment facility
with a current tertiary treatment capacity of 15 mgd (16,800 AFY). The plant consists of an activated
sludge treatment plant, a tertiary wastewater treatment plant, a lined holding basin, 6 storage basins and
21 infiltration basins. WRP-10 delivers recycled water for irrigation of golf courses and homeowner’s
associations (HOAs) landscaping. The average annual wastewater flow from 2018 to 2019 was
approximately 9,884 AFY, while recycled water demand averaged 7,783 AFY. With existing wastewater
flows and available tertiary treatment capacity, this facility could produce approximately 2,100 AFY of
additional recycled water supply. Growth projected by 2045 is expected to provide an increase of
DWA WRP has a tertiary treatment capacity of
10 mgd (11,200 AFY).
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-27 TODD/W&C
5,828 AFY of additional wastewater flow available for recycling, based on projected indoor water use, but
would require expansion of the non-potable water distribution system with new connections.
6.6.4 CVWD WRP-7
CVWD’s WRP-7 is located in north Indio. The plant is a 5.0 mgd secondary treatment facility with current
tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd (2,800 AFY). The tertiary treated wastewater is used for irrigation
of golf courses at Sun City in north Palm Desert and Shadow Hills in north Indio. The plant consists of
aeration basins, circular clarifiers, and polishing ponds. Recycled water not used for irrigation is percolated
at on-site and off-site percolation ponds. The average annual wastewater flow from 2018 to 2019 was
approximately 3,261 AFY, while recycled water demand averaged approximately 2,200 AFY. With existing
wastewater flows and available tertiary treatment capacity, this facility could produce approximately
600 AFY of additional recycled water supply (tertiary capacity is the limiting factor). Growth projected by
2045 is expected to provide an increase of 3,016 AFY of additional wastewater flow available for recycling,
based on projected indoor water use, but would require expansion of the tertiary capacity of the WRP-7
plant and expansion of the non-potable water distribution system with new connections.
CVWD is planning to expand its WRP-7 tertiary treatment capacity by 3 mgd (5.5 mgd or 6,150 AFY total)
with the addition of flocculation tanks, chemical feed, gravity multi-media filters, and associated pumps.
Design is underway for the WRP-7 expansion, with construction anticipated in 2025. The WRP-7 expansion
is described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions. However, given that new connections have
not yet been identified for this supply, delivery of the recycled water has not been assumed in this supply
forecast.
6.6.5 CVWD WRP-4
CVWD WRP-4 is a 9.9 mgd (11,090 AFY)
secondary treatment facility located in the
unincorporated community of Thermal. The
average annual wastewater flow from 2018
to 2019 was approximately 5,482 AFY. WRP-
4 provides secondary treatment consisting
of pre-aeration ponds, aeration lagoons,
polishing ponds, and disinfection. The
treated effluent is currently discharged to
the CVSC pursuant to a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. However, CVWD has submitted a
Change Petition (WW0093) and plans to
construct tertiary treatment and begin
delivery of recycled water. Growth
projected by 2045 is expected to provide a
total of 11,082 AFY of wastewater flow that could be tertiary treated and reused within the Planning Area,
but would require construction of both tertiary treatment and new non-potable system connections.
CVWD is planning to construct WRP-4 tertiary treatment capacity in phases starting at 2.5 mgd (2,800
AFY) in 2025, then increasing to 5.0 mgd (5,600 AFY) in 2028 and 10.0 mgd (11,200 AFY) by 2031. Design
is underway for the WRP-4 tertiary expansion, with construction anticipated in 2025. The WRP-4
CVWD’s WRP-4 has a secondary treatment capacity of
9.9 mgd (11,090 AFY) and has a planned tertiary
expansion.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-28 TODD/W&C
expansion is described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions. CVWD has filed a wastewater
change petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (WW0093) pursuant to Water Code section
1211. The petition seeks authorization to cease the discharge of treated wastewater from WRP-4 to the
CVSC. CVWD plans to initiate project-specific environmental review in 2022 to support this change
petition.
6.6.5.1 CVWD WRP-2
CVWD WRP-2 is a small treatment plant serving the nearby community of North Shore. WRP-2 has a
secondary treatment capacity of 0.18 MGD (202 AFY). Because this WRP serves an existing built-out
community, wastewater flows are expected to remain the same as the 2018 to 2019 average of 14 AFY
through 2045.
6.6.6 Valley Sanitary District WWTP
Valley Sanitary District (VSD) owns and operates an 11 mgd (12,320 AFY) capacity wastewater treatment
facility that serves most of the City of Indio. The average annual wastewater flow from 2018 to 2019 was
approximately 6,644 AFY. Secondary treatment is provided by three process trains – activated sludge,
oxidation ponds, and wetlands treatment. Effluent from the oxidation ponds and the wetlands is either
routed to pasture irrigation or blended with activated sludge effluent, disinfected, dechlorinated, and
discharged to the CVSC. Growth projected by 2045 is expected to provide a total of 8,052 AFY of
wastewater flow that could be tertiary treated and reused within the Planning Area but would require
construction of both tertiary treatment and new non-potable system connections.
VSD and IWA have established a joint powers authority, East Valley Reclamation Authority (EVRA), to
implement water reuse in the Indio area. EVRA is currently evaluating the feasibility of developing a
potable reuse project that would replenish the Indio Subbasin with 5,000 AFY of advance treated recycled
water beginning in 2030. The EVRA potable reuse project is described in Chapter 11, Projects and
Management Actions.
6.6.7 Coachella Sanitary District WWTP
The City of Coachella through its Coachella Sanitary District owns and operates a 4.5 mgd (5,040 AFY)
secondary treatment wastewater facility utilizing activated sludge and oxidation ditch processes. Treated
wastewater is discharged to the CVSC. The average annual wastewater flow from 2018 to 2019 was
approximately 3,007 AFY. Growth projected by 2045 is expected to provide a total of 9,667 AFY of
wastewater flow that could be tertiary treated and reused within the Planning Area but would require
construction of both tertiary treatment and new non-potable system connections. The City of Coachella
currently has no plans to pursue water recycling.
6.6.7.1 Kent SeaTech
Kent SeaTech is a fish farm with total design flow of 10.5 mgd. The current wastewater treatment system
consists of a channel stocked with tilapia to remove solids, and an earthen “constructed wetland” system
that provides further nitrification, denitrification, fine solids polishing, alkalinity restoration, and
temperature buffering. The wetland is bypassed from the treatment process during the colder winter
months to maintain system-wide warm temperatures for fish production. Water that is not recirculated,
reused, or land applied is discharged to the CVSC. The average annual wastewater flow discharged to CVSC
from 2018 to 2019 was approximately 6,639 AFY.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-30 TODD/W&C
6.7.1 Use of Recycled Water
The Alternative Plan Update recognizes the potential local water supply available in recycling wastewater.
By 2045, a total of 62,753 AFY of wastewater flow could be available for recycling if the GSAs and other
regional partners were to construct the necessary treatment and conveyance facilities. Full use of this
potential recycled water supply would require construction of plant expansions or upgrades, along with
distribution pipelines and facilities (see Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions). Recycled water is
considered a drought-proof supply that is not limited under climate change conditions. Recycled water
deliveries are assumed to be the same in historical hydrology conditions and climate change conditions.
Water reuse can develop a new source of
supply for non-potable irrigation demands
and when highly treated for groundwater
recharge, and offset pumping of
groundwater that is the source of municipal
supply. Where wastewater was disposed to
land and percolated to groundwater,
recycled water development offsets
groundwater pumping, but reduces net
return flows to the groundwater basin.
Besides water supply availability benefits,
reuse projects can also contribute to
improving water quality in receiving
groundwater and surface water bodies. For
example, application of recycled water for
agricultural and landscape irrigation can provide a source of nutrients that lessens the need to apply
synthetic fertilizers. CVWD continues to pursue the goal of fully reusing urban wastewater for non-potable
applications.
6.8 Other Supplies
CVWD and DWA, along with other local agencies, have investigated and will continue to pursue other
water transfer opportunities.
6.8.1 Rosedale-Rio Bravo
In 2008, CVWD entered into an agreement with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District (Rosedale Rio-
Bravo) for a one-time transfer of 10,000 AF of Glorious Lands Company (GLC) water intended for a
property development located in Riverside County within CVWD’s boundary. In 2012, CVWD entered into
an Assignment Agreement with GLC to take over GLC’s water rights for the term of the 2005 Water Supply
Agreement between GLC and Rosedale Rio-Bravo. The Assignment Agreement provides a total of
252,500 AF to CVWD from Rosedale Rio-Bravo through 2035. CVWD also entered into a letter agreement
with MWD in 2012 for the delivery and exchange of up to 16,500 AFY of non-Table A SWP water that
Rosedale Rio-Bravo provides to CVWD (CVWD, 2019a). The water from Rosedale Rio-Bravo is delivered to
CVWD as exchange water from MWD at the WWR-GRF. In 2020, CVWD finalized a supplemental letter
agreement with Rosedale Rio-Bravo and a Point of Delivery Agreement with DWR that increased the limit
on the amount Rosedale Rio-Bravo can deliver to CVWD in any one year (from 16,500 to 20,000 AFY) but
does not change the total volume delivered during the life of the agreement through 2035.
Recycled water (or blended non-potable water) is used
on parks and open space in the Plan Area.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-31 TODD/W&C
The balance of Rosedale Rio-Bravo water due to CVWD from 2020 to 2035 is 169,000 AFY or an annual
average of 10,563 AFY. This is greater than the 10-year average of Rosedale Rio-Bravo deliveries, which is
7,750 AFY based on the 2010 to 2019 period. Rosedale Rio-Bravo deliveries are assumed to be the same
in historical hydrology conditions and climate change conditions. No Rosedale Rio-Bravo supplies are
assumed after year 2035.
6.9 Supply Risks and Uncertainties
The existing water supplies used in the Planning Area face risks and uncertainties that could affect long-
term supply reliability. These risks and uncertainties include the extended drought in the southwestern
United States and legal/regulatory decisions affecting vital contracts and water deliveries. In addition,
climate change could impact both supplies and demands. Climate change is discussed in Chapter 8,
Regulatory and Policy Issues.
6.9.1 Colorado River
Although CVWD’s Colorado River supply has historically been fully reliable, the extended Colorado River
drought prompted the seven Colorado River Basin states and entitlement holders to develop Drought
Contingency Plans (DCPs) to reduce the risk of Colorado River reservoirs declining to critically low levels.
The period of 2000 – 2019 was the lowest 20-year period in the historical natural flow record, which dates
back to 1906 (USBR 2020a). As of 2019, the combined storage in key Colorado River Basin reservoirs, Lakes
Powell and Mead, were at their lowest levels (around 30th percentile) since Lake Powell initially began
filling in the 1960s. The Lower Basin DCP was designed to: a) require Arizona, California, and Nevada to
contribute additional water to Lake Mead storage at specified reservoir elevations, and b) incentivize
voluntary conservation of water to be stored in Lake Mead (USBR 2020a).
Implementation of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (Lower Basin DCP; USBR, 2019)
may affect Colorado River water supply through the year 2026. In addition to criteria set in the 2007
Interim Guidelines, the Lower Basin DCP establishes that certain Colorado River users in the Lower Basin,
including CVWD, make DCP contributions if specific triggers are met between 2020 and 2026. CVWD
agrees to contribute between 14,000 AF and 24,500 AF if the elevation of Lake Mead drops to between
1,045 feet and 1,030 feet before 2026. Negotiations of the 2027 Interim Guidelines that will revisit and
may extend these voluntary contributions began in 2021.
CVWD contributes approximately 60 percent of the overall Indio Subbasin water supply from the Colorado
River. In the 5-year period from 2015-2019, Colorado River deliveries averaged 343,200 AFY, while water
demands totaled 574,500 AFY. Participation in the Lower Basin DCP could reduce the amount of water
available for groundwater recharge in the Plan Area. During the term of the Lower Basin DCP, if CVWD is
asked to cutback, the cutback will be satisfied by reducing deliveries to the TEL-GRF.
CVWD will continue to monitor the supply conditions on the Colorado River, make appropriate
adjustments to its operations, and actively participate in efforts to augment the water supplies of
Colorado River.
6.9.2 SWP Exchange
DWR estimates the long-term average reliability of the SWP to be 58 percent declining to 52 percent by
2040 (DWR, 2020a). This decline will likely continue in the absence of programs to balance Delta
environmental concerns and water supply needs. A majority of California’s water originates in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains as snowpack, eventually flowing through the Delta, where it is delivered to municipal
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-32 TODD/W&C
and agricultural users. At the same time, the hundreds of miles of river channels that crisscross the Delta’s
farmed islands provide a migratory pathway for Chinook salmon and other native fish species. The Delta
Plan (Delta Stewardship Council, 2013) has the “coequal goals” of providing more reliable water supply
for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The shift by the State of
California from the twin-tunnels project (California WaterFix) to the single tunnel alternative (DCF) in early
2020 marks a compromise between environmental and water supply interests.
Implementation of the DCF is likely to increase SWP supply reliability by addressing climate resiliency,
environmental and habitat protection, and seismic risk. The GSAs receive nearly 20 percent of overall
Indio Subbasin water supply from the SWP. In the 5-year period from 2015-2019, SWP deliveries (minus
Advance Deliveries) averaged 109,400 AFY while water demands totaled 574,500 AFY. DWR filed a Notice
to Proceed for the DCF project in January 2020, is currently in the environmental review process, and
expects a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in 2023. CVWD and DWA approved advancing their
share of funding for the planning phase (2021 to 2024) of the project.
At this time, CVWD and DWA will continue participating in the DCF through the Agreement in Principle for
the Delta Conveyance Facility, approved in November 2020, which will be used to create a Delta
Conveyance Contract Amendment. The dual conveyance approach to SWP delivery supports the goals of
Delta health and water supply reliability.
6.9.3 Surface Water
Surface water, including natural infiltration of watershed runoff, represents about 7 percent of the Indio
Subbasin water supply. Although CVWD and DWA retain water rights to most of this surface water, there
is uncertainty about potential changes in precipitation in the Whitewater River watershed due to climate
change. DWR’s modeled climate scenarios have indicated that the Whitewater River watershed will
receive less watershed runoff under climate change conditions, reducing total runoff from 99 percent in
2030 to 92 percent in 2070. In this Alternative Plan Update’s climate change scenarios (see Chapter 7,
Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios), additional reductions to surface water availability were based on
recent local hydrologic conditions to assess impacts of climate change.
6.9.4 Recycled Water
Recycled wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and urban landscaping in the
Indio Subbasin. The existing WRPs that have tertiary wastewater treatment for recycled water supply
currently deliver approximately two percent of the Subbasin’s water supply (13,260 AFY of recycled water
delivered over 2015-2019 period). The amount of wastewater available for reuse in the future primarily
depends on growth in the Valley, along with the agencies’ plans for construction of tertiary treatment and
conveyance. However, the level of water conservation implemented in the future – particularly under the
long-term conservation regulations anticipated from Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman) and Senate Bill 606
(Hertzberg) – could reduce the amount of wastewater generated and available for reuse. Future waste
discharge requirements will also dictate the level of treatment, and potentially volume of ongoing
discharge, that would be required at the treatment plants. Thus, future growth, conservation, and water
quality regulations will all dictate the amount of recycled water supply produced in the Indio Subbasin.
This Alternative Plan Update also acknowledges the financial challenges associated with expansion of the
non-potable water treatment and distribution systems. Expansion of the recycled water systems
throughout the Indio Subbasin is primarily dependent on availability of grant and loan funding for capital
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-33 TODD/W&C
improvements. Despite this challenge, the GSAs will continue to pursue water reuse projects that reduce
groundwater pumping and maximize use of local water.
6.10 Summary
The Indio Subbasin has both imported water and local water sources in its current water supply portfolio.
This available water supply portfolio will be used to meet growing demands – municipal, agriculture, golf,
and other demands as described in Chapter 5, Demand Projections – and to achieve groundwater
sustainability. The water budgets described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, provide a
deeper understanding of some of the demand and supply uncertainties and associated management
actions that will help to meet growing demand and achieve groundwater sustainability. Chapter 11,
Projects and Management Actions, summarizes the management actions and capital projects that may
need to be implemented to achieve basin sustainability and meet future demands. After Plan adoption,
the GSAs will prepare Annual Reports to evaluate their demands, supplies, and groundwater conditions
to understand when those projects must be implemented.
A summary of the projected currently available and future water supplies is presented in Table 6-16. The
Indio GSAs are committed to achieving sustainability under changing climate conditions and is planning
for supply limitations anticipated for both local and imported supplies. Figure 6-6 shows the supply
projection with available supplies under climate change conditions. Figure 6-7 shows the supply projection
with potential future supplies under climate change conditions. This summary documents available
imported and local surface water supplies and does not include the groundwater supply; the available
groundwater supply will vary under different management conditions and is quantified in Chapter 7,
Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios. The uncertainties surrounding both imported and local water
supplies make it important that this Alternative Plan Update continue to implement a management
strategy that sustainably manages the groundwater basin through new supplies and source substitution.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-35 TODD/W&C
e SWP exchange water includes Yuba Accord and excludes transfers to the MC-GRF. SWP values are average annual deliveries based on 45 percent reliability assumption.
f Recycled water includes existing annual average deliveries as of 2020 (13,398 AFY).
g Natural infiltration of watershed runoff is based on 25-year (1995 to 2019) historical average run backward-forward and excludes anticipated future diversions and outflow to
Salton Sea. See Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, for detail on groundwater inflows and outflows.
h Surface water diversions in year 2020 are projected; actual 2020 diversions totaled 1,960 AFY.
i Colorado River water excludes 5 percent conveyance losses and Lower Basin DCP contributions (-14,500 AFY 2020-2026 and -24,500 AFY 2027-2045).
j SWP exchange water includes Yuba Accord and excludes transfers to the MC-GRF. SWP values are average annual deliveries based on 45 percent reliability assumption, with -
1.5 percent reduced deliveries by 2045 due to climate change.
k Recycled water includes existing annual average deliveries as of 2020 (13,398 AFY).
l DCF values are average annual deliveries based on reliability assumptions and excludes transfers to the MC-GRF. DCF is anticipated to begin operation in 2042.
m Lake Perris supplies exclude transfers to the MC-GRF. Values are declining because Mission Creek Subbasin Management Area assessable production and associated diversions
to MC-GRF are forecast to increase over time.
n Sites Reservoir excludes 30 percent conveyance losses and transfers to the MC-GRF. Values are declining because Mission Creek Subbasin Management Area assessable
production and associated diversions to MC-GRF are forecast to increase over time.
o Projected future recycled water includes planned non-potable connections at WRP-7 and WRP-10 up to current tertiary capacities. Additional future non-potable expansions at
WRP-7, WRP-10, and WRP-4, and East Valley Reclamation Authority’s potable reuse project at VSD WRP, are described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, but
are still in planning phases and not included in the supply projection at this time. Total additional wastewater flow potentially available for water reuse by 2045 equals 42,540
AFY, as shown in Table 6-14.
Chapter 6: Water Supply FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 6-38 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 7: NUMERICAL MODEL AND PLAN SCENARIOS
This chapter describes the MODFLOW groundwater flow model, the Indio Subbasin water budget, and the
Plan Scenarios developed to assess future groundwater conditions and sustainability under different
planning assumptions. The Indio Subbasin water budget (or balance) and groundwater flow model are
closely linked in that some Indio Subbasin inflows and outflows (including various sources of recharge and
well pumping) have been developed using measurements and estimates and then used as input to the
groundwater flow model. Other water budget components (including amounts of evapotranspiration,
drain flow, Salton Sea inflow and outflow, and changes in groundwater storage) are outputs of the
groundwater model and are used as a part of the Indio Subbasin water budget. Water budgets are
provided for each of the Plan scenarios, as described in Section 7.5. Model characteristics are summarized
including model area and boundaries, layers, aquifer properties, sources and amounts of basin recharge
and discharge, and methodologies to develop the inflow and outflow amounts used as model inputs.
Previous and updated model performance results are presented, along with Subbasin water budgets for
the period 1997 to 2019. The model is well calibrated and capable of accurately simulating groundwater
conditions throughout the Subbasin and over the simulation period.
7.1 MODFLOW Model Description
The numerical groundwater flow model was constructed using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
MODFLOW code. It simulates transient three-dimensional groundwater flow within and between the
shallow and deep aquifer zones, includes various sources of subbasin recharge, discharge to production
wells, evapotranspiration, flow to drains, and flow to and from the Salton Sea.
7.1.1 Previous Versions of the Indio Subbasin MODFLOW Model
Several versions of the Indio Subbasin model were developed prior to this version for the Alternative Plan
Update:
1. The original MODFLOW model was developed by Graham Fogg (Fogg) in the mid-1990s and
calibrated for a 61-year historical period from 1936 to 1996.
2. The original model was subsequently extended by Fogg as a part of the 2002 Coachella Valley
Final Water Management Plan (2002 CVWMP) for the Indio Subbasin (Coachella Valley Water
District [CVWD], 2002) and the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (2010
CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012) and used to simulate future Subbasin management scenarios
beginning in 1997 through a future planning period. The 2010 CVWMP Update version of the
model used the best available estimates of groundwater inflows and outflows through 2008;
inflow amounts for 2009 and future years were synthesized using assumed future water supply
and demand projections.
Other intermediate versions of the model were developed by CVWD for specific purposes, but the 2010
CVWMP Update version was used as the basis for the Alternative Plan Update.
Historical calibration quality of the original 1936 to 1996 model and 2010 CVWMP Update version
(through 2008) was good, as documented in a Fogg (2000) Technical Memorandum and in Technical
Memorandum No. 2 prepared for the Indio Subbasin GSAs in 2020 (see Appendix 1-A). The original and
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-2 TODD/W&C
2010 CVWMP Update models accurately simulated regional and local groundwater flow conditions and
changes over time (as indicated by low observed-versus-simulated head error residuals).
For this Alternative Plan Update, the 2010 CVWMP Update model input data were updated through 2019
using available data. After updating the model recharge and discharge inputs, a calibration check was
performed for the period 1997 to 2019.
For future management alternative scenarios evaluation, new estimates of future recharge, pumping, and
other boundary conditions are synthesized for predictive simulations of future conditions, as described in
Section 7.5.
7.1.2 Changes Made to Model for Alternative Plan Update
Using newly available data, the 2010 CVWMP Update model was updated and revised for the Alternative
Plan Update. The major changes were updates to recharge and discharge boundary conditions for the
simulation period of 2009 to 2019. Other model input parameters also modified include:
• Replaced top of Model Layer 1 elevation surface with updated digital elevation model (DEM)
• Added bathymetry of Salton Sea to top of Model Layer 1 elevation surface
• Corrected 1997 initial conditions in the Garnet Hill Subarea
• Adjusted Hydraulic Flow Barrier conductance values along the southern portion of the Garnet Hill
Fault
• Updated 1997 to 2019 subsurface flux boundary inflow rates from Mission Creek Subbasin
• Adjusted 1997 to 2019 pumping in the Garnet Hill Subarea
• Updated Salton Sea general head boundary elevations for 2009 to 2019
• Updated streamflow and mountain front recharge rates for 2009 to 2019
• Updated municipal golf and agriculture irrigation return and septic rates for 2009 to 2019
• Updated wastewater percolation rates for 2009 to 2019
• Updated groundwater replenishment rates for 2009 to 2019
• Updated Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF) and Thomas E. Levy
GRF (TEL-GRF) recharge basin areas
• Added Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF)
• Updated production well pumping data sets for 2009 to 2019
• Adjusted model timesteps from 10 to 12 per annual stress period
• Created new shallow and deep aquifer observation well groups for calibration assessment
In general, the original model grid, layering, horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, and aquifer
storage parameters were unchanged from the 2010 CVWMP Update model version. The MODFLOW
computer program uses subroutines called packages that read specific individual input data files for site
features such as wells or drains, depending on the types being simulated. The same MODFLOW Packages
were used in the historical and updated model versions.
For the 1997 to 2019 update, most of the inflow and outflow input data used in the 2010 CVWMP Update
version for the period 1997 to 2008 were retained, but actual measurements and better estimates of
recharge and discharge were used for the simulation period of 2009 to 2019. Exceptions to this included
the annual subsurface boundary inflow rates from the Mission Creek Subbasin, where the entire 1997 to
2019 simulation period was updated using inflow rates simulated by the Mission Creek MODFLOW model,
which overlaps the Indio Subbasin model (Wood, 2021). Adjustments were also made to the 1997 model
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-3 TODD/W&C
initial conditions and 1997 to 2008 production well pumping in the Garnet Hill Subarea to improve model
calibration.
Changes were also made to how the model input data are pre- and post-processed, and how the model
is managed and run. The original and 2010 CVWMP Update versions of the model used a series of
spreadsheets and FORTRAN programs to format the input data into standard MODFLOW package input
files and to post-process the results. Model input was generated as MODFLOW Package ASCII files that
were read by an executable table version of the MODFLOW FORTRAN program.
For the Alternative Plan Update, the 2010 CVWMP Update MODFLOW input files were imported to the
Aquaveo Groundwater Modeling System (GMS), a MODFLOW pre- and post-processing computer
program that was used to update, run and post-process the model. Some inflow and outflow model input
data were pre-processed using the project GIS database and spreadsheets, and the input data were
imported and stored within GMS, allowing for efficient processing of model runs. Updated model input
files are organized in a GMS data management system that includes GIS layers, ‘map-based’ inputs
including points, arcs, and polygons of input data, and model grid-based datasets. Model output including
simulated water level maps, hydrographs, and water budget output are also stored and post-processed
using the GMS software.
7.2 Model Input and Construction
The groundwater model area is shown on Figure 7-1. The upstream and downstream ends of the model
are near the San Gorgonio Pass area in the northwest and the northern portion of the Salton Sea in the
southeast, respectively. The southwest edge of the model represents the interface between the
unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers of the Indio Subbasin and the consolidated to semi-consolidated
rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The northeast flank of the model represents the
interface between the unconsolidated aquifers of the Subbasin and consolidated to semi-consolidated
rocks of the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Indio Hills, and Mecca Hills, and the Mission Creek and
Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The adjacent San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs
Subbasins are not included in the active model area, but subsurface outflow from these Subbasins into
the Indio Subbasin is included in the boundary conditions.
7.2.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages
The original Indio Subbasin model was constructed using the USGS ‘MODFLOW 88’ code. For the 2010
CVWMP Update and Alternative Plan Update versions of the model, the code was updated to ‘MODFLOW
2005’.
The model utilizes the following standard MODFLOW Packages:
• BASIC (BAS)
• BLOCK CENTERED FLOW (BCF)
• HORIZONTAL FLOW BARRIER (HFB)
• WELL (WEL)
• RECHARGE (RCH)
• DRAIN (DRN)
• EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (EVT)
• GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY (GHB)
• PRECONDITIONED CONJUGATE-GRADIENT (PCG) Solver
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-5 TODD/W&C
7.2.2 Model Grid and Layers
The model consists of a three-dimensional, finite-difference grid of blocks called cells, the locations of
which are described in terms of the 270 rows, 86 columns, and 4 layers. At the center of each cell there is
a point called a node at which groundwater elevation (head) is calculated. Inflows and outflows through
each model cell, through Subareas, and within the entire model grid are also calculated. The Indio
Subbasin model has a node spacing of 1,000 ft in the x-y plane, and variable vertical node spacing
representing variable thicknesses of the corresponding aquifer or aquitard intervals. The grid is oriented
from northwest to southeast along the length of the valley, coinciding with the principal direction of
regional groundwater flow (Figure 7-1).
The MODFLOW model comprises four layers, representing the following hydrostratigraphic units:
• Layer 1 – semi-perched aquifer in East Valley and upper shallow aquifer in West Valley
• Layer 2 – shallow aquifer zone
• Layer 3 – regional aquitard in East Valley and shallow-deep transition zone in West Valley
• Layer 4 – deep aquifer
The elevation of the tops and bottoms of the model layers are referenced to land surface elevations and
reflect aquifer and hydrostratigraphic unit thickness as inferred from borehole data across the basin.
Figure 7-2 shows the elevations of the base of each of the four model layers. The model layer elevations
in the Alternative Plan Update model are unchanged from the original and 2010 CVWMP Update versions
of the model. The top of Layer 1 is represented by the ground surface elevation and elevation of the
bottom of the Salton Sea. The bottoms of each layer generally dip to the southeast, subparallel to the
ground surface. In the East Valley, model layer thickness follows geologic characterizations by the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1979) that were corroborated by analysis of subsurface
data. For example, Model Layer 1 approximately corresponds with the semi-perched zone (100 ft thick),
Layer 2 with the upper aquifer unit (80 to more than 260 ft thick), Layer 3 with the regional aquitard (80
to more than 270 ft thick), and Layer 4 with a lower aquifer unit (1,000 ft thick). In the West Valley, aquifer
thickness estimated by USGS (Reichard and Meadows, 1992) was initially used and later revised during
model calibration.
7.2.3 Aquifer Properties and Horizontal Flow Barrier
Distributions of aquifer hydraulic properties including aquifer transmissivity, horizontal and vertical
hydraulic conductivity, and unconfined and confined storage coefficients were developed as a part of the
original 1936 to 1996 model to simulate the aquifer and aquitard units in the shallow and deep aquifer
zones. The aquifer hydraulic properties in the Alternative Plan Update model are unchanged from the
original Layer 2 of the 2010 CVWMP Update versions of the model.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-7 TODD/W&C
Aquifer hydraulic properties control the rates of groundwater flow, amounts of water in storage, and
aquifer responses to recharge and pumping. Initial estimates of transmissivity (T) were obtained in part
from previously calibrated values used in an early groundwater model constructed by Reichard and
Meadows (1992) for the West Valley, some pumping test results for the East Valley, and abundant specific
capacity data for the entire valley. Hydraulic conductivity (K) of the confining bed was estimated based
on the sediment texture and heterogeneity and was treated as a calibration parameter.
Heterogeneity was treated as a calibration parameter in the original 1936 to 1996 model. Similarly,
vertical K (Kv) of the aquifer zones was based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric
and drillers logs. This parameter was also adjusted in the original model calibration.
7.2.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity and Storage Coefficients
Figure 7-3 shows the distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in each model layer. Most model
cells were assigned moderate to high hydraulic conductivities, based on the pumping test and specific
capacity data, and reflect the properties of the coarse sand and gravel deposits that predominate in the
subsurface. Hydraulic conductivities are higher on the southwest margins of the West Valley grading to
lower values in the East Valley. Permeabilities also generally decrease southeastward toward the Salton
Sea. Southeast of the City of Indio, tight silts and clays up to 100 feet thick are present in the upper aquifer
and create a semi-perched zone. Lower permeabilities were assigned to these model cells within Model
Layer 3.
The specified ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity varies between 10 and 100 throughout
the model, based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric and drillers logs.
Figure 7-4 shows the distribution of aquifer storage coefficients in each model layer (specific yield for
Model Layer 1 and specific storage for Layers 2-4). Distribution of specific yield (Sy) from Reichard and
Meadows (1992) was initially used in the upper valley for Model Layer 1; these values were subsequently
modified slightly during the original model calibration. Similar specific yield values were initially estimated
for the unconfined areas and semi-perched zone in the lower valley; these values were later adjusted
during calibration. Layers 2, 3, and 4 are convertible (unconfined/confined), and use two storage
coefficients: specific yield for unconfined conditions when the simulated water level drops below the top
of the layer, and specific storage when the layer is confined. The specific yield values for Layers 2-4 are
the same as those used for Layer 1. Specific storage (Ss) values were estimated for each of the Model
Layers 2, 3 and 4, and were multiplied by layer thickness to obtain storage coefficient (S) for each model
layer. Ss varied in confined versus unconfined areas. Storage coefficients of the aquifer system are much
greater in the upper unconfined alluvium than in the deeper confined units.
7.2.3.2 Horizontal Flow Barrier
The Garnet Hill Fault forms a partial barrier to flow between the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs Subareas.
The MODFLOW Horizontal Flow Barrier (HFB) Package was used to simulate the barrier effects of this
fault. The fault is simulated as an HFB in each of Model Layers 1-4. Different conductance values were
assigned along different segments of the HFB and adjusted during 1936-1996 original model calibration.
For the Alternative Plan Update model and 1997-2019 calibration update, additional adjustments were
made to the southern portion of the Garnet Hill Fault HFB to improve calibration in the Garnet Hill
Subarea. Several model calibration runs were made using different distributions of conductance along the
HFB segments until simulated 1997 to 2019 water levels in both the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs Subareas
were calibrated.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-10 TODD/W&C
7.2.4 Initial Conditions
Initial head conditions in the 2010 CVWMP Update model are based on the final computed heads for each
cell at the end of the 1936 to 1996 calibration simulation, corresponding to the beginning of calendar year
1997. This approach maintains consistency between the model-computed heads and flows from the
original calibrated model, as well as continuity between the calibration and predictive models.
Figure 7-5 shows the 1997 initial conditions used in Model Layers 2 and 4, representing the shallow and
deep aquifers, respectively. For the 1997 to 2019 model update, the initial conditions used for most of
the model area are the same as in the 2010 CVWMP Update model. However, local adjustments were
made to the initial conditions in the Garnet Hill Subarea, to correct observed-simulated head offsets at
the beginning of the 1997 to 2019 simulation. These adjustments, along with changes in HFB conductance
and inflow rates from the Mission Creek Subbasin, improved calibration quality in the Garnet Hill Subarea
for the updated 1997 to 2019 simulation.
7.2.5 Inflows
The Indio Subbasin is recharged through a combination of natural inflows of surface water and
groundwater, recharge of imported water, wastewater percolation, and irrigation return flows. Sources
of recharge to the Subbasin include:
• Subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins
• Mountain front and stream channel recharge
• Artificial recharge of imported water
• Wastewater percolation
• Return flows from irrigation (municipal/domestic, agricultural, and golf course) and septic
systems
Inflows from the Salton Sea have also been assessed in order to provide a comprehensive accounting of
the water budget. As discussed in Section 7.4, inflows from the Salton Sea have been small and
groundwater outflows to the Salton Sea also occur. Net groundwater flow has been toward the Salton Sea
since 2015.
Figure 7-6 shows the locations of the point sources of recharge including subsurface inflow, mountain
front, stream channel, groundwater replenishment, and wastewater percolation. Additional recharge of
irrigation return flows is distributed across large areas of the model. For the 1997 to 2019 update, most
of the recharge amounts simulated in the 2010 CVWMP Update for the period 1997 to 2008 were
unchanged, but new recharge rates for the period 2009 to 2019 were calculated and used as model
recharge input.
Subsurface inflow from the Mission Creek Subbasin was updated for the entire 1997 to 2019 period, based
on values recently generated from the Mission Creek Subbasin MODFLOW model (Wood, 2021).
Subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin was not changed from the 2010 CVWMP Update
model, as updated values were not available from the San Gorgonio model for this Alternative Plan
Update. Subsurface inflows from the Mission Creek and San Gorgonio Subbasins used in the 1997 to 2019
model update are shown on Figure 7-7. Subsurface inflows are simulated using the MODFLOW WEL
Package.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-14 TODD/W&C
Each of the other sources of recharge was estimated individually, then accumulated into a combined
MODFLOW RCH Package. Recharge rates over time were accumulated on a model grid cell basis,
accounting for cell areas to preserve total recharge amounts, and applied as recharge to the uppermost
active model layer (primarily Model Layer 1, except where this layer is dry). The MODFLOW RCH Package
also was used to simulate mountain front and stream channel recharge rather than one of the MODFLOW
Streamflow Routing Packages, which are sometimes used to simulate groundwater-stream interactions.
Figure 7-8 shows the annual contribution of each source of recharge from 1997 to 2019. For the period
1997 to 2008, the total recharge is the same as was used in the 2010 CVWMP Update model. For this
period, the model inputs are only available as mountain front and stream channel recharge, artificial
recharge, and total recharge rates. Mountain front and stream channel recharge are combined on Figure
7-8 as natural infiltration, and artificial recharge is shown as managed aquifer recharge (MAR). While the
data for various recharge sources are available, the 2010 CVWMP Update model input for 1997 to 2008 is
not separated by recharge source. Because the model area does not cover the entire Indio Subbasin area,
the allocation by source to the total model recharge input (as shown on the figure) was estimated. The
allocation of other recharge inputs in the model (including return flows specified on the graph) was
estimated based on water balance information from Indio Subbasin annual reports (see Todd
Groundwater and Woodard & Curran, 2021).
The following sections describe each of the sources of recharge to the Subbasin.
7.2.5.1 Subsurface Inflows
Figure 7-6 shows the locations of subsurface inflows specified in the northwestern and eastern boundaries
of the model. These boundaries simulate inflow from San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) and Mission Creek (MC)
Groundwater Subbasins. Flux estimates for each boundary were applied to Model Layers 1 through 4.
In the original historical model, the amounts of flow from the SGP Subbasin were computed by the model
with a time-dependent specified head boundary using the MODFLOW CHD Package. In the 2010 CVWMP
Update model, the boundary condition was changed from a CHD boundary to a specified flux boundary,
which is used to represent the long-term average inflow for each cell. The amount of inflow was based
on a running average of the historical fluxes estimated using the CHD boundary and was set to a value of
approximately 8,200 AFY in the 2010 CVWMP Update model, decreasing slightly between 1997 and 2019
(Figure 7-7).
Uncertainty exists in the actual amounts of inflow from the SGP Subbasin. A Groundwater Sustainability
Plan and calibrated MODFLOW model are currently in preparation for the SGP Subbasin (that Plan also
will be submitted to DWR in January 2022). The SGP GSAs also acknowledge that the quantity of
subsurface outflow at the SGP Subbasin eastern boundary with the Indio Subbasin represents one of the
largest unknowns in the SGP water budget and groundwater modeling. Based on the preliminary SGP
model, historical subsurface outflow from the SGP Subbasin ranged from approximately 18,000 to 29,000
AFY between 1997 and 2019, with an average outflow of around 25,000 AFY. These values are higher
than the amounts used as boundary inflow in the historical Indio model.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-16 TODD/W&C
The Indio and SGP Subbasin GSAs have discussed this discrepancy, and plan to reconcile the differences
as a part of the next 5-Year Plan update. The outflow/inflow amounts will be refined based on the
following planned tasks:
• Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis using the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin MODFLOW model
• Review of upcoming data from three nested monitoring well clusters installed in 2019 by the USGS
near the Subbasin boundary, followed by evaluation and model calibration to recent (and future)
water level trends
• Sensitivity simulations for the Indio Subbasin model using a range of subsurface inflows.
The SGP Subbasin GSAs also are reportedly considering a potential groundwater tracer study near the
boundary between the SGP and Indio Subbasins to further estimate the flow amounts.
It is anticipated that these refined evaluations and continued collaboration will allow reconciliation of
historical and predicted future subsurface out/inflows between the Subbasins. Subsurface inflow also
occurs from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins into the Indio Subbasin, across the
Banning and San Andreas faults.1 These faults consist of several parallel faults and form the northeasterly
boundary of the Indio Subbasin. Groundwater level differences across the Banning Fault in this area were
historically on the order of 200-250 feet. The estimated flow across the Banning Fault into the Garnet Hill
Subarea and Indio Subbasin in the 2010 CVWMP Update model was set to a constant value of
approximately 2,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). For the 1997 to 2019 update, these flows were defined
through a collaborative effort between Mission Creek and Indio Subbasin modelers. The rates of inflow to
Indio Subbasin over time were updated using annual values obtained from the Mission Creek Subbasin
model (Wood, 2021). The inflow rates vary slightly over time (Figure 7-7), and were allocated by Mission
Creek modelers over four boundary segments: from Mission Creek Subbasin to Garnet Hill Subarea across
the Banning Fault, from Mission Creek Subbasin to Indio Hills West (the portion of Indio Hills within Indio
Subbasin), from Indio Hills East (the portion of Indio Hills outside Indio Subbasin) to Indio Hills West, and
from Indio Hills East to the Indio Subbasin across the Banning Fault. Total inflow from the Mission Creek
and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins into the Garnet Hill Subarea and Indio Subbasin is relatively constant at
approximately 4,000 AFY.
The Garnet Hill Fault also forms a partial barrier to flow and demarcates the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs
Subareas internal to the model. This barrier was simulated using the MODFLOW HFB Package as previously
described and allows variable flow between the Subareas.
7.2.5.2 Surface Water Inflows
Recharge from mountain front inflow and from percolation of stream flows into the Indio Subbasin was
estimated for 24 watersheds and stream channels along the southwest edge of the model, along the
interface between the Indio Subbasin and the consolidated rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains. Many of these watersheds are gaged; gage locations are shown on Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2,
Plan Area.
Figure 7-6 shows the locations of the model cells used to represent mountain front and stream channel
recharge. No explicit mountain front and stream channel recharge is assumed along the eastern boundary
1 Refer to Figures 3-1 and 3-2 in Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, for Subbasins and Subareas. The
Indio Hills West area is within the Indio Subbasin and Indio Hills East is in the Mission Creek Subbasin.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-17 TODD/W&C
of the model. However, subsurface inflow in this area from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs
Subbasins is accounted for as described in the previous section.
The same methodologies used in the original and 2010 CVWMP Update models (Fogg, 2000) were applied
to estimate annual mountain front and stream channel recharge for the 1997 to 2019 model update.
Previously estimated values for 1997 to 2008 used in the 2010 CVWMP Update model were retained, and
new estimates of mountain front and stream channel recharge were developed for 2009 to 2019. Total
available water from each neighboring watershed was calculated based on annual precipitation, and
gaged streamflow (where available). If streamflow was not gaged at a watershed, a rating factor was
developed to compare the gaged precipitation and watershed area of a nearby watershed with gaged
data. Total watershed runoff was calculated for each watershed on an annual basis. Surface water
diversions from the Snow, Falls, Whitewater, and Chino watersheds were accounted before available
streamflow was routed through the Subbasin. Figure 7-8 shows the annual amounts of mountain front
and stream channel recharge between 1997 and 2019 (labeled as natural infiltration).
Stream Flow
For stream percolation, it is assumed that 95 percent of the total watershed runoff is available for stream
percolation with a portion of that available stream percolation leaving the basin in wet years through
surface water flow to the Salton Sea. Watershed runoff is estimated using all available precipitation and
stream gauge measurements from the tributary watersheds located along the western edge of the model.
The expected runoff and routing, as well as the recharge locations, use the same methodology as the
original and 2010 CVWMP Update models.
The model cells receiving streamflow percolation are shown in blue on Figure 7-6. The resulting available
stream flow (95 percent of total watershed runoff) less diversions and subsurface flow for the upper valley
(Snow, Falls, and Whitewater streams) is expected to completely percolate to the basin. In a change from
the original model, water is routed down the upper portion of the Whitewater River in all years.
Previously, all available stream recharge in dry years was assumed to recharge the model at the edge of
the basin, causing increased simulated water levels over observed water levels in some years.
Further down the valley, only selected watersheds are assumed to recharge the basin in wet years along
streams tributary to the Whitewater River (Andreas, Chino, Dead, Deep, Murray, Palm, Tahquitz, and
Unnamed Watershed #2). In wet years, the available streamflow is routed through stream cells such that
the resulting simulated flow at the Whitewater River gauge at Indio matches the observed volume. This
means that in extremely wet years, up to 12,800 acre-feet (AF) flows from the lower valley watersheds
through the Whitewater River into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and enters the Salton Sea.
The flow of each surface waterway was distributed over the model cells using a stream channel routing
factor, one for the upper valley streams and one for streams further down the valley. The respective
routing factors were calculated for each wet year, such that flow recharges the model over the course of
the surface waterway in the upper valley. The stream routing results in a calculation of the volume of
water that percolates and the volume that remains as surface water for each cell of the surface waterway.
The remaining surface water flow at the location of the USGS Indio gage is equal to the monitored flow at
that gage. In short, the available streamflow less flow out of the basin percolates along the surface
waterways.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-18 TODD/W&C
Mountain Front Recharge
In addition to the streamflow percolation, the available watershed runoff also recharges the Indio
Subbasin as subsurface inflow via fractured bedrock along the perimeter of the alluvial aquifer. The
locations in the model for such mountain front recharge is shown as the green model cells on Figure 7-6.
Mountain front recharge has been estimated using total watershed runoff and assuming that an additional
10 percent of the 4-year moving average of total watershed runoff is available for subsurface flow. This is
an estimate based on the expected runoff and relative difference of hydraulic properties between the
facture bedrock and permeable basin (Fogg, 2000). The longer timeframe acknowledges that subsurface
flow is slower than surface water flow and affected by hydrologic conditions of previous years. The annual
volume of recharge from stream flow and mountain front recharge is shown on Figure 7-8 as natural
infiltration.
7.2.5.3 Artificial Recharge
The annual volumes of artificial recharge were compiled and applied to the locations of the GRFs shown
on Figure 7-6. These include the WWR-GRF, TEL-GRF (formerly called Dike 4), the Martinez Canyon Pilot
Project location, and the recently-completed Palm Desert GRF (PD-GRF). While Mission Creek GRF is also
used for artificial recharge, it is not in the model domain. Evaporative losses were assumed to be four
percent of recharged volume for the WWR-GRF and two percent for all other locations, reflecting the
larger surface area and windier conditions at the WWR-GRF. These estimates are consistent with
evaporative losses estimated in previous planning reports. Total annual recharge volumes at the
replenishment facilities are shown on Figure 7-8, indicated as MAR.
7.2.5.4 Wastewater Discharges
There are eight wastewater treatment plants/water reclamation plants (WWTPs and WRPs) currently
operating in the Indio Subbasin, with another under construction (see Figure 2-5 for locations). Eight of
these are within the active area of the model. Four of these (WRP-2, WRP-4, WRP-7, and WRP-10) are
operated by CVWD, and a fifth, WRP-9, was decommissioned in 2015. WWTPs also are operated by City
of Palm Springs (Palm Springs WWTP/Desert Water Agency [DWA] WRP), Valley Sanitation District (VSD),
and Coachella Sanitation District (CSD). A new Regional WRF is currently under construction by Mission
Springs Water District (MSWD) in the Garnet Hill Subarea. Four wastewater plants currently discharge to
disposal ponds (Palm Springs WWTP and CVWD WRP-2, WRP-7, and WRP-10), and the MSWD Regional
WRF plans to do so at start-up in 2022. The ponds have evaporative losses, calculated by the area of ponds
and expected annual evaporation. The remaining volume percolates into the Subbasin, as shown on Figure
7-8. It should be noted that, as percolated wastewater is recycled for use, groundwater pumping
deceases, but net return flows to groundwater are reduced.
The other wastewater plants (CVWD WRP-4, VSD, and CSD) discharge to the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel (CVSC), and no percolation to the Subbasin is assumed from the stormwater channel.
7.2.5.5 Applied Water Return Flows
In areas with irrigated crops, golf courses, and municipal landscaping, irrigation is assumed to be applied
when soil moisture falls below a certain threshold. When soil moisture exceeds the root zone storage
capacity, the excess irrigation becomes deep percolation to the aquifer. Rainfall and irrigation water
comingle in the root zone and in deep percolation. For the purposes of displaying an itemized water
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-19 TODD/W&C
balance, the amount of deep percolation derived from each type of irrigation is estimated as a percentage
of the simulated irrigation quantity.
Agricultural Return Flow
This inflow component accounts for the portion of irrigation water that is applied in excess of the
evapotranspiration (ET) of the crop, as well as excess precipitation that either percolates directly or runs
off and percolates in nearby areas (defined herein as irrigation return flows). For agricultural areas,
individual crops are associated with different amounts of irrigation and therefore different return flows
based on crop ET and irrigation efficiencies.
Because irrigation is not 100 percent efficient, water is applied in excess of the ET demand. Irrigation
efficiency, the percentage of applied water needed beyond the ET demand of the crop, can vary
significantly depending on factors including geographic setting, irrigation method, and crop types.
Agricultural deliveries of imported water and groundwater pumping are accounted for and compared with
the total crop consumptive use on an annual basis to estimate the irrigation return flows.
The basic methodology used to develop agricultural demand was to calculate crop consumptive use and
compare that with total agricultural water use. Land use maps from DWR, annual conservation reports,
as well as the trimester CVWD Crop Censuses and interviews with larger growers in the area were used to
develop monthly crop acreages. Crop consumptive use was calculated from the ET needs of the specific
crops, accounting for irrigation efficiency and effective precipitation in order to estimate applied water
per acre. The ET needs of a crop can be estimated as ETc = Kc * ETo, where ETc is the ET demand of the
crop, Kc is the crop coefficient, and ETo is the reference ET of the geographic area. The daily reference ET
and precipitation were downloaded from the California Irrigation Management Information System
(CIMIS) for the local Thermal Springs station.
Monthly crop coefficients (Kc) and growing season information for over 63 crops have been derived from
the DWR irrigation estimation tool CPU M+ version 6.9 (DWR 2021). The ET needs of bare soil are
accounted in the DWR crop coefficient estimate; if the ET demands of bare soil are higher than those for
the crop during a growing season, then the applied water would need to meet the bare soil demand.
According to interviews with local growers, the growing season for each crop type was applied to the CPU
crop coefficients (DWR, 2021). In addition, many growers apply irrigation for certain crops in non-growing
seasons for climate modification (e.g., frost protection) and/or leaching. The crop coefficient was used to
account for some ET, but the remainder is assumed in the surplus of supply to crop demand, thus
increasing the return flow volumes. The ETc values were similar to previous values used in CVWD planning
(Stantec, 2019), but the DWR method allows for more flexibility in the specific growing seasons and
irrigation practices of the Subbasin.
The monthly ET needs of a crop can be satisfied by either applied irrigation or through natural
precipitation. Total irrigation was estimated to be the ET demand of the crop less precipitation. Although
the amounts in the Indio Subbasin are small, precipitation that exceeds the daily ET demand of a crop is
assumed to percolate and is also included in the agricultural return flow estimate.
The comparison of crop consumptive use and delivered agricultural supply was used to calculate an annual
return flow percentage. Agricultural supply totals are available for groundwater and surface water
deliveries and aggregated on a Township Range Section basis to compare with crop consumptive use.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-20 TODD/W&C
The Conservation Reports estimated an irrigation efficiency of 72 percent each year (Stantec, 2019), while
the annual supply and demand analysis indicates that annual irrigation efficiency varies from 67 to 74
percent, with an average irrigation efficiency of 71 percent of water supply for the period 2009-2019. The
remaining agricultural irrigation use (29 percent) becomes return flow. The return flows were distributed
throughout the model area based on the crop demand and applied by Township Range. Total annual
return flows for agricultural irrigation are shown on Figure 7-8.
Golf Course Return Flow
Like agricultural return flows, irrigation water applied in excess of golf course water demand will result in
return flow. Golf courses in the Indio Subbasin are supplied through a variety of sources including
imported water, recycled water, potable water from water systems, and onsite groundwater wells.
Irrigation demand for a golf course is dependent on the number of holes, the type and area of turf, and
other landscaping. CVWD estimates irrigated area for some golf courses in their service area (for example,
in reports on non-potable water). The approximate irrigated area for each golf course was digitized from
aerial photos and compared to CVWD estimates (if available) to help calculate the estimated irrigation
demand.
The irrigation supply for each golf course was totaled on an annual basis and compared to annual demand.
The results were averaged by municipal area by year, yielding an average golf course return flow range of
21 to 44 percent. The percentage of golf course demand that results in return flow varies over the basin.
The volume of return flow for golf was totaled for each planning Subarea (Subareas are defined in the
Water Demand section) and then applied to the digitized irrigated areas of golf within that Subarea.
Previous planning documents have estimated golf course irrigation efficiency, assuming a constant 38
percent average over Irrigation District 1 (Stantec, 2019). The supply and demand methodology varies by
time and Subarea, but the basin wide average amounted to 34 percent from 2009 to 2019, similar to
previous estimates. Figure 7-8 shows the estimated annual golf course return flow over the model period.
Municipal and Domestic Return Flow
Municipal and domestic return flows to the groundwater basin can result from indoor use (septic tank
effluent), outdoor use (landscaping irrigation returns in excess of evapotranspiration), and system losses
(pipe leaks). Accordingly, a key indicator for return flows is the relative amount of water used indoors
versus outdoors. This varies geographically. For example, landscape irrigation is a significant water use in
the West Valley and less so in the East Valley. In addition, the extent of sewer systems and conversely,
reliance on septic systems are variable across the Subbasin. For these reasons, this analysis included
assessment for each planning Subarea of 1) the percent of outdoor demand that is expected to result in
irrigation return flow and 2) the volume that is expected to flow to the septic system. Annual outdoor
demand estimates by Subarea were developed as documented in Chapter 5, Demand Projections. The
volume of septic system flow was assessed in Chapter 6, Water Supply, for future use based on the
sewersheds. Available information on estimated septic return flow was available for 2020 and was
projected for 2025 to 2045. Expansion of sewered areas over the past ten years and estimated projection
over the next ten years were assumed to be similar.
Municipal return flows were averaged over the entire Subarea. However, no municipal return flow was
applied to areas of the basin with little to no development. Municipal return flow averaged 27 percent of
total demand basin-wide but ranged on geographic areas from 15 to 40 percent. Figure 7-8 shows the
estimated municipal and domestic return flow.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-21 TODD/W&C
7.2.6 Outflows
Outflows include groundwater production from agricultural, municipal, golf course, and other pumping
wells, drain flows, ET, and groundwater outflows to the Salton Sea.
7.2.6.1 Groundwater Production
For the original and 2010 CVWMP Update models, annual estimates were made of agricultural, municipal,
golf course, and other pumping for each Township Range section using the consumptive use method.
Pumping for municipal and domestic use was compiled from available State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), USGS, CVWD, and DWA records and estimated for areas with insufficient records. For the
updated model, CVWD and DWA metered pumping for municipal and domestic use, and all available
metered municipal, agricultural, golf course, and fish farm pumping, were included for years 2009 to 2019.
For the model update, pumping estimates for 1997 to 2009 were not changed except for pumping in the
Garnet Hill Subarea, where pumping records from DWA indicated that the 2010 CVWMP Update model
overestimated historical pumping.
For homesteads/small water systems in the East Valley that pump less than 25 acre-feet per year and are
exempt from well metering required for replenishment assessments, an additional 1,000 AFY was
distributed to hypothetical Layer 2 wells at each water system and estimated location of private wells.
Wells were added to Layer 2 to reflect the relatively shallow depths of domestic wells. For West Valley
unincorporated areas, an additional 500 AFY of pumping was distributed to hypothetical wells across the
area.
Figure 7-9 shows the location of all
simulated pumping wells. Wells were
simulated using the standard MODFLOW
WEL Package and assigned a code for row,
column, and layer in the model. Pumping
wells are simulated as being located at the
respective center of each model cell. For
the 1997 to 2008 period, the same model
cells used in the 2010 CVWMP Update
model WEL Package were retained. For
2009 to 2019, new annual well datasets
were developed using available records of
metered pumping for known municipal,
agricultural, golf, and other known
production wells in the Subbasin. If more
than one production well is located within the same model cell, the annual pumping rates are
accumulated. Wells are assigned to model layers based on known or inferred depths. For wells completed
(screened) in multiple model layers, total annual pumping from each layer was allocated based on layer
transmissivity-based weighting. Most pumping occurs from the deep aquifer (Model Layer 4).
Total annual pumping amounts simulated between 1997 and 2019 are shown on Figure 7-10. As shown,
groundwater production has decreased significantly since the mid-2000s, reflecting reduced demands
from water conservation and source substitution including increased direct delivery of Colorado River
water and recycled water for irrigation uses.
Groundwater production is the largest outflow from the
Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-24 TODD/W&C
7.2.6.2 Drain Flows
Shallow groundwater drainage systems have been installed over a large portion of the East Valley (see
Figure 2-5 for locations) where they serve to maintain the water table below crop rooting depths. The
model simulates drains in Layer 1 using the MODFLOW EVT Package, with drain locations and elevations
based on their construction records. On-farm drains are constructed at approximately 6-foot depths and
are connected to CVWD drains that are typically installed at depths of 8 to 10 feet. The model calculates
the amounts of drain flow based on the drain elevations, adjacent groundwater elevations, and
aquifer/drain conductance (a permeability parameter). Flow from the drains goes either into the CVSC or
into a network of open drains that flow directly into the Salton Sea. The drain boundary conditions in the
model are maintained at the 1997 configuration.
7.2.6.3 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater is simulated in the eastern portion of the model using the
MODFLOW EVT Package. Note that the package only estimates ET losses from shallow groundwater levels;
other ET and surface water evaporation losses are calculated separately as part the methodology for other
components, including applied water return flows, groundwater replenishment, wastewater percolation,
and watershed runoff. An ET boundary condition was initially assigned to all cells within the semi-perched
zone (see Figure 3-5) in the original historical simulation. As land within the semi-perched zone was
developed for agriculture, in locations where drains were installed, the ET boundary was replaced with a
drain boundary. Because no additional drain systems were installed after 1997, the ET boundaries were
maintained at their 1997 conditions in the model. Inclusion of such ET in the model ensures a complete
water budget and acknowledges the hydrologic possibility of phreatophyte ET, including potential GDEs
but also non-GDE vegetation around agricultural fields and along drainage channels. ET amounts are
calculated based on specified plant rooting depths, reference ET values, and simulated shallow
groundwater elevations.
7.2.6.4 Salton Sea
The Salton Sea is simulated as a general head boundary (GHB) with time-varying elevations. For the
historical and 2010 CVWMP Update models, actual Salton Sea elevations were used for the periods 1936
to 1999, then held constant at 1999 levels. For the updated 1997-2019 model, actual Salton Sea elevations
were simulated through 2019, with sea elevations dropping around 10 feet over the period (Figure 7-11).
Both groundwater outflow to the Sea and inflow from the Sea are simulated, depending on location, time
period, and hydraulic gradients between the shallow aquifer and the Sea. Simulated net flow between the
Sea and groundwater system is relatively small and inflow from the Sea has been decreasing, as discussed
in Section 7.4.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-26 TODD/W&C
7.3 Model Update Process and Results
This section documents the model calibration results of the original and 2010 CVWMP Update models,
and the performance of the updated 2022 Alternative Plan Update model, along with the updated model
water budget. The original and updated models were calibrated to historical groundwater elevation
trends in shallow and deep wells. Estimated drain flow rates were also evaluated as a calibration target.
The primary objective of the calibration update was accurate replication of the dynamic water level
conditions in shallow and deep wells across the Indio Subbasin, including recent trends since 2009. For
the 1997 to 2019 update, only minor “recalibration” via adjustment of input parameters was performed.
Rather, the original 1936 to 1996 and 2010 CVWMP Update models were extended using measurements
and better estimates of inflows and outflows primarily for the period after 2008. Minor recalibration was
performed in the Garnet Hill Subarea, where selected input parameters were adjusted. These included
initial conditions, boundary conditions, historical pumping, and HFB conductance.
The simulated groundwater flow and water budget conditions for the Alternative Plan Update model were
compared with measurements and evaluated. This included preparation of maps of simulated shallow
and deep aquifer groundwater elevations over time and hydrographs of observed and simulated changes
in water levels in the shallow and deep aquifer across the Subbasin. Water budget conditions were also
evaluated to assess groundwater inflow and outflow and storage changes.
In general, the Alternative Plan Update model of the Indio Subbasin is well calibrated with observed
groundwater elevation and drain flow trends for both the historical and updated periods. In some areas,
calibration is better for the recent 2009 to 2019 period than in earlier periods, confirming that the updated
input data and water budget are accurate representations of the Indio Subbasin.
7.3.1 Historical Model Calibration Results
The original 1936 to 1996 and 2010 CVWMP Update models were well calibrated to measured
groundwater elevation and water budget trends across the basin. Errors between observed and simulated
groundwater elevations were generally low, and simulated drain flow amounts over time corresponded
to measured and estimated drain flows after the drains were installed.
Figure 7-12 shows 1936 to 2008 model calibration hydrographs for five wells representative of
groundwater level conditions across the Subbasin, which have also been monitored for many years. Note
the original 1936 to 1996 simulated levels are shown with the black lines on the hydrograph, while the
1997 to 2008 simulated levels from the 2010 CVWMP Update model are shown with orange lines.
The hydrographs shown on Figure 7-12 indicate good overall calibration across the Indio Subbasin. Model-
computed drain flows were also compared with measured agricultural drain flows. The very good
agreement from the 1950s through the early 2000s showed that the model can simulate real trends in
both water levels and flow rates. Moreover, the high calibration quality justifies the use of 1997 simulated
groundwater elevations from the historical model as initial conditions for the 1997 to 2019 model update.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-28 TODD/W&C
7.3.2 1997-2019 Model Update Process
The 2010 CVWMP Update dataset was developed during 2008 to 2010 and included measured pumping
and recharge data that were readily available at that time, generally through 2008. However, for the
simulation period from 2009 to 2019, for which data were not yet available, various modeling assumptions
(pertaining to natural and artificial recharge, municipal, resort and irrigation pumping demands, as well
as included CVWMP projects) were used to estimate future pumping and recharge amounts and their
distributions in the model. Accordingly, for this Alternative Plan Update, model inflows and outflows for
the period 2009 to 2019 were updated and the model re-run to confirm calibration quality for this period.
The initial model update runs indicated that the model continues to exhibit good calibration quality for
most of the Subbasin. However, simulated water levels in the updated Garnet Hill Subarea were not well
calibrated with observed levels in some wells. This appeared to be due to a combination of factors,
including offsets in simulated initial conditions (as compared with observed levels in 1997), inaccuracies
in the simulated amounts of pumping in the Garnet Hill Subarea, uncertainty in inflow rates from the
Mission Creek Subbasin, and characterization of the HFB representing the Garnet Hill Fault. Adjustments
of each of these parameters were made to the Alternative Plan Update model to improve calibration in
this Subarea. Calibration quality in the Garnet Hill Subarea was improved significantly after these
adjustments.
After the initial model update runs, minor adjustments in urban irrigation return flow recharge
distributions were also made in the Palm Springs and Indio geographic areas used in the demand forecast.
The total estimated urban return flow volumes developed in Chapter 6, Water Supply, were maintained,
but the spatial distributions were adjusted to better align with undeveloped and urban areas. These
adjustments also improved local calibration quality.
7.3.3 Water Level Calibration Results
The updated Indio Subbasin model meets both qualitative and quantitative calibration goals. The
simulated shallow aquifer (Model Layer 1 and 2) and deep aquifer (Model Layer 4) water level trends
throughout the Subbasin are consistent with observed groundwater flow directions and hydraulic
gradients characterized in the Subbasin conceptual model and groundwater conditions. An aquitard
(Model Layer 3) is locally present between the shallow and deep aquifers. The model reacts well to the
large fluxes of recharge and, particularly the dynamic and very large water level mounding response to
WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF artificial recharge operations. Long-term trends in shallow and deep aquifer
water levels and vertical hydraulic gradients are accurately simulated, as further described below.
Model calibration is also demonstrated by quantitative calibration statistics, which are summarized in
Table 7-1. For the quantitative assessment, water level data from 30 shallow and deep monitoring and
production wells were used to calculate water level residuals (differences between observed and
simulated levels). These wells were selected to be representative of the Subbasin. The summary statistics
below are for all model layer water level measurements between 1997 and 2019.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-32 TODD/W&C
As shown on Figure 7-13, groundwater flow directions in 2010 in the shallow and deep aquifers are
northwest-to-southeast across the Subbasin. The hydraulic gradients in both zones are non-uniform with
higher gradients in the upper West Valley than in the East Valley. A recharge mound is apparent in the
shallow aquifer in the area of TEL-GRF, in response to initiation of recharge in 2009. Comparison of the
simulated 2010 levels with the 1997 initial conditions reveals that water levels in both aquifer zones
dropped during this period. This decline occurred in several areas of the Indio Subbasin and is also
apparent in the observed and simulated hydrographs and water budget change in storage, described
below.
Simulated shallow and deep groundwater levels in January 2020 show the same general flow directions
and hydraulic gradients as 2010, but local increases in groundwater levels are simulated over this 10-year
period. The largest increases are simulated in the upper West Valley and the East Valley, with more stable
levels simulated in the mid-valley between 2010 and 2020. The groundwater elevation patterns in the
East Valley change dramatically following 10 years of TEL-GRF operation. Groundwater mounding is
simulated beneath and downgradient of the TEL-GRF as evidenced by concentric contours.
7.3.3.2 Observed vs. Simulated Hydrographs
Water level data from the 30 monitoring and production wells used for model calibration assessment
were plotted on hydrographs and compared with simulated levels. Figure 7-15 shows the locations and
aquifer designations of the calibration target wells, and full-size hydrographs are in Appendix 7-A. Water
level measurements between 1997 and 2019 are available for the majority of the wells, although a few
monitoring wells were not installed until the 2000s and only have water level data after their installation
dates.
Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-17 show the observed and simulated groundwater elevation hydrographs in the
West Valley and East Valley, respectively. Observed levels are shown as black points on the graphs, while
simulated levels are shown as the orange lines. All hydrographs use a 200-foot elevation range, except
two wells near the WWR-GRF that use a 400-foot range on the hydrographs. The simulated water levels
are generally very well matched with the observed groundwater trends for all shallow and deep wells
across the Indio Subbasin, as described below.
West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea
The five calibration wells in the upper West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea (hydrographs along left side of
Figure 7-16) show dynamic fluctuations associated with recharge events at the WWR-GRF, with water
level mounding and recovery cycles decreasing in magnitude down the valley. The northwesternmost
wells nearest the WWR-GRF exhibit fluctuations of over 300 feet in response to very large recharge years.
Model-simulated levels in these wells are very closely matched with observed levels, both with respect to
peak and valley magnitudes and timing. The mounding and recovery responses are progressively muted
further down valley, but observed and simulated levels remain well-calibrated.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-36 TODD/W&C
West Valley/Garnet Hill Subarea
Three calibration wells are in the Garnet Hill Subarea (hydrographs along the upper side of Figure 7-16).
The northernmost of these wells is near the WWR-GRF and shows mounding and recovery in response to
WWR-GRF recharge, even though it is on the eastern side of the Garnet Hill fault and HFB. The model
reproduces the rising and declining water levels observed in this well between 1997 and 2019. The two
other calibration wells in Garnet Hill show more stable levels, and the model is well matched with these
trends.
Mid-Valley/Thousand Palms to Indian Wells Area
Six calibration wells are in the Thousand Palms to Indian Wells area (hydrographs along the right and
bottom sides of Figure 7-16). Observed levels in these wells exhibited declines from 1997 through around
2010, then were characterized by relatively stabilized levels through 2019. The model simulates these
trends generally well, although simulated levels are lower than observed in two of the wells near the City
of Indio at the end of the simulation. This could be due to the previously mentioned sources of error in
the numerical simulation, underestimation of return flow recharge in local areas, or inaccuracies in other
model parameters. However, the model generally captures the measured levels in this area showing
declines through 2010 followed by stable trends.
East Valley/La Quinta, Coachella, and Thermal Areas
Four calibration wells are around the La Quinta, Coachella, and Thermal areas (hydrographs along the top
of Figure 7-17). Observed levels in these wells exhibited declines from 1997 through around 2010, then
stabilized or increased through 2019. The model simulates these trends well, although simulated levels in
one well near Coachella are lower than observed near the end of the simulation, similar to the previously
mentioned simulation trend in the two wells near the City of Indio.
East Valley/TEL-GRF Area
Four calibration wells are in the East Valley near the TEL-GRF (hydrographs along the left side of Figure
7-17). Observed levels in these wells exhibited declines from 1997 through around 2009, then rapidly
increased through 2019 in response to initiation of TEL-GRF operations. The model simulates these trends
well, with simulated levels in the three wells nearest the GRF rising rapidly and exhibiting the same curve
shapes as observed levels. Two of the wells have slightly higher simulated levels than observed while one
has slightly lower simulated levels than observed. The model responds to the TEL-GRF recharge operations
and simulated levels are well-matched with observed. This is notable because the original Indio Subbasin
model was developed prior to TEL-GRF operations and was not calibrated to the strong recharge source,
yet still simulates the addition of this source accurately.
East Valley/Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Areas
Six calibration wells are in the East Valley in the Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea areas (hydrographs along
the bottom and right sides of Figure 7-17). Observed levels in these wells were relatively stable between
1997 through around 2010, then increased through 2019, likely in response to source substitution and in
response to initiation of TEL-GRF operations. The model simulates these trends well, with simulated levels
in all six wells increasing after 2010 and exhibiting the same trend as observed levels.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-37 TODD/W&C
7.3.4 Drain Flow Calibration Results
As an independent calibration target, estimated agricultural drain flow rates were compared with model-
simulated drain flows, as shown on Figure 7-18. Model-computed drain flow provides a calibration check
for the model, because CVWD has measured flows in the agricultural drains for many years. The measured
versus simulated drain flows show good agreement between 1997 and 2002, then diverge slightly
between 2003 and 2011, with lower model-predicted drain flows than measured. The differences then
decrease between 2012 and 2019, with almost identical estimated and predicted amounts in 2018. Both
the estimated and simulated drain flow trends are consistent with observed water level trends, with
declining East Valley water levels and drain flows in the 1990s and 2000s, followed by stabilized or slightly
increasing levels and drain flows in the 2010s. The generally well-matched drain flows show that the
model is capable of simulating real trends in both water levels and flow rates.
7.4 Water Budget
7.4.1 1997-2019 Water Budget
Figure 7-19 shows the transient simulated water budget for all components in the model from 1997 to
2019. Similar results were provided for the historical model period from 1936 to 1996 in documentation
provided by Graham Fogg and Associates (Fogg, 2000).
The water budget components include specified recharge, pumping, and subsurface inflows from the San
Gorgonio Pass and the Mission Creek Subbasins, along with model-computed flows to ET, drains, and
subsurface flow to and from the Salton Sea. The water budget reveals that discharges exceeded recharges
for most years between 1997 and 2009, after which time total inflows exceeded outflows for most years
between 2010 and 2019. These trends decreased, then increased groundwater storage in the Indio
Subbasin, and as previously described, corresponding decreases and increases in water levels were
simulated with the model.
7.4.1.1 Evapotranspiration
Transient ET is simulated in the model from 1997 to 2019. The ET rates are relatively uniform over this
period, ranging from 4,100 to 5,300 AFY. As discussed in Section 7.2.6.3, this only includes ET losses from
shallow groundwater and other ET losses are calculated separately. ET loss from shallow groundwater is
mainly in the perched aquifer area in the East Valley.
7.4.1.2 Salton Sea
Figure 7-20 shows the transient simulated flow between the shallow aquifer and Salton Sea from 1997 to
2019. Both groundwater outflow to the Sea and inflow from the Sea are simulated, depending on location,
time period, and hydraulic gradients between the shallow aquifer and sea, as illustrated on Figure 720.
Note the simulated flows are for the northern portion of the Sea included in the model domain, and do
not include any inflows or outflows in the southern portion of the Sea beyond the Indio Subbasin.
Simulated net flow between the Sea and groundwater system is relatively small, always remaining below
3,000 AFY.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-41 TODD/W&C
During 1997 to 2014, the model had simulated net inflow from the Sea to the Indio Subbasin, but in 2015
and in subsequent years groundwater outflow to the Sea exceeded inflow from the Sea. This is due to the
combination of declining sea levels and increasing shallow groundwater levels over time, resulting in
reversals of the hydraulic gradients between the water bodies. As shown on Figure 7-17, the very good
calibration of wells 08S08E24A01S, 08S08E03L01S, 07S09E30R02S, 07S09E18H01S, and 07S08E29P01S
near the Salton Sea indicates the model is an accurate tool to estimate inflow and outflow rates and
directions between the sea and groundwater. Net outflow of groundwater to the Salton Sea is desirable
in that it minimizes the potential for saline water intrusion into the aquifer.
7.4.1.3 Change in Groundwater Storage
Accumulation of the inflows and outflows
results in changes in groundwater storage.
Figure 7-21 shows the annual model-
predicted changes in storage between 1997
and 2019. The model-predicted changes in
storage can be compared with the empirical
water budget described in Chapter 4,
Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions, and shown on Figure 4-9. Note
that the numerical model results are for
calendar years, whereas the empirical
method values are for water years. In
addition, slightly different methods are
used between the two methods to develop
the change in storage values. The model uses changes in simulated heads between years at each of the
model cells, multiplied by a specific yield value, while the empirical method uses a water balance approach
accounting for all inflows and outflows. Regardless, both methods to estimate annual changes in storage
yield similar results, and in particular show the losses in storage experienced during the 2000s followed
by the gains in storage during the 2010s.
As documented in Section 7.3, Model Update Process and Results, the model accurately simulates
groundwater conditions throughout the Subbasin and simulation period.
Production wells are located throughout the Subbasin.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-43 TODD/W&C
7.5 Plan Scenarios
Scenarios for the Alternative Plan Update were developed, including baseline scenarios and future
scenarios addressing potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation
of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Except for
the Baseline scenario, climate change conditions were assumed for all Plan scenarios, described in Section
7.5.1 below, reflecting that the Indio GSAs are committed to achieving sustainability under changing
climate conditions. Additional discussion of climate change is presented in Section 8.5 and scenarios
without climate change are described in Appendix 7-B.
Each scenario was simulated over a 50-year period consistent with SGMA requirements. However, the
planning assumptions were only projected for the first 25 years to the 2045 planning horizon. Thereafter,
growth and supply assumptions were assumed to continue at the same rate for the second 25 years of
the simulation. While extending beyond foreseeable land use and water resource planning projections,
the second 25-year projections allow long-term evaluation of water supply and demand conditions,
effectively testing Indio Subbasin sustainability under long-term hydrologic variability over 50 years.
The following scenarios are described in this chapter:
1. Baseline (No New Projects): No new supply or management projects or changes to historical
hydrology. This scenario is described for comparison purposes only and will never happen,
because new projects are in the process of being implemented. However, a baseline is useful to
assess the other scenarios.
2. Baseline with Climate Change: Baseline conditions, along with assumptions of the impact of
climate change on local hydrology and imported water supplies (climate change hydrology). As
with the Baseline, this scenario is described for comparison purposes only and will never happen
but is useful to assess the other scenarios.
3. 5-Year Plan with Climate Change: Baseline conditions plus supply and management projects
included in the GSA agencies’ 5-year capital improvement plans (CIPs), along with potential
climate change hydrology.
4. Future Projects with Climate Change: 5-Year Plan conditions plus implementation of additional
supply and management projects that are projected to be completed in the 25-year planning
horizon, along with potential climate change hydrology.
5. Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change: Future Projects conditions plus expansion of
agriculture resulting in increased water demands, along with potential climate change hydrology.
Additional scenarios developed through the Alternative Plan Update process (including 5-Year Plan,
Future Projects, and Expanded Agriculture scenarios under historical hydrology) are described in Appendix
7-B.
7.5.1 Climate Change
To simulate the range of possible future conditions, two different hydrological cycles were used and
applied to the Plan scenarios. For the Baseline scenario, the observed hydrology for the Whitewater River
watershed from 1970 to 2019 was repeated. In other words, the next 50 years are simulated exactly like
the past 50 years. To simulate climate change conditions, a different cycle was selected: the last 25 years
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-44 TODD/W&C
was repeated twice – first in reverse and then forward. The result of the climate change cycle is that the
most recent observed drought (2013 to 2017) is included twice early in the simulation. In addition, the
long-term average is significantly different for the last 50 years (43,319 AFY) compared with the last 25
years (29,204 AFY). Future climate change is simulated similar to the observed conditions over the last 25
years, a period marked with reoccurring drought and below average rainfall.
The availability of imported water is also expected to be impacted by climate change. As discussed in
Chapter 6, Water Supply, SWP reliability is assumed to be 45 percent annually, which is 13 percent lower
than DWR's 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report estimate of 58 percent, but which captures the more
recent drier hydrology and Delta export limitations within the SWP system. Under climate change, SWP
deliveries are further reduced by an additional 1.5 percent as compared to Baseline conditions by 2045.
For CVWD’s Colorado River entitlement, the climate change scenarios assume the CVWD will contribute
from 14,500 to 24,500 AFY of California’s contribution under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan.
Both are conservative assumptions and result in reduced imported water delivered to the Subbasin. In
some scenarios with climate change, the decreased volume of imported water results in decreased
groundwater replenishment.
This representation of climate change simulates drier future conditions than the climate change
recommendations from DWR. Changes to Indio Subbasin streamflow were calculated using change factors
for 2030 and 2070 provided by DWR for unimpaired flow within the Salton Sea watershed (HUC
18100200). Change factors are values multiplied by historical monthly or annual streamflow values to
calculate probable discharge rates and variability under climate change. In brief, climate change impacts
were assessed using DWR data and methodologies and were found to be small, within 10 percent of the
1995 historical value (DWR 2018). Over the 1970 to 2019 hydrological cycle, observed watershed runoff
was estimated to be 52,506 AFY, under the DWR recommended climate change projection would be
50,540 AFY, whereas repeating the 1995 to 2019 cycle (our climate change projection) results in the total
watershed runoff of 38,196 AFY.
Planning for climate change is important to maintain groundwater sustainability. Future scenarios with
projects are presented here with the climate change hydrology to ensure the GSAs can manage the
groundwater under changing future conditions. While the Baseline scenario without climate change is
discussed in Section 7.6 to illustrate the effects of climate change, all other future scenarios without
climate change are presented in Appendices 7-B and 7-C.
7.5.2 Baseline (No New Projects)
The Baseline scenario includes only those supplies and facilities currently in place to support Indio
Subbasin management and assumes that no new projects or water supplies will be implemented. The
Baseline propagates current conditions into the future to use as a basis for comparing ‘with and without’
future project conditions. Figure 7-22 provides a flow chart that shows the water balance (inflows and
outflows) of the Subbasin under Baseline in year 2045, as well as the supplies used to meet demands. The
demand forecast for the Plan Area totals 644,610 AFY in year 2045 (see Chapter 5, Demand Projections).
Table 7-2 provides a summary of Baseline supplies used to directly meet demand and Table 7-3 provides
a summary of supplies used for replenishment. Other model inflows and outflows (septic system flows,
return flows, subsurface inflow and outflow, drain flows, evapotranspiration, and watershed runoff)
including groundwater pumping are discussed in Section 7.6. A summary of the assumptions for each
supply source is provided below.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-46 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-22. Baseline (No New Projects) Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals. Colorado River volumes do not sum to total due to underrun under Baseline scenario
with no new projects assumption.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-47 TODD/W&C
Outflows from the Indio Subbasin include drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow.
Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are derived from the
MODFLOW model as described in Section 7.2.5.1 above.
As shown in Table 7-3, local supplies used for replenishment include surface water diversions. Under
Baseline, local surface water diversions increase from 2,630 AFY in 2020 to 6,000 AFY by 2023, all of which
is diverted to WWR-GRF subsurface storage and then recovered for delivery.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Baseline include CVWD’s base entitlement
under the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (see Chapter 6, Water Supply), along with transfers
where there are agreements in place. Baseline assumes that diversions under the QSA ramp up from
394,000 AFY in 2020 to 424,000 AFY between 2027 and 2045 in 5,000 AFY increments. This ramp-up will
allow the CVWD to fully utilize available Colorado River water at its maximum entitlement. The Colorado
River supplies used in Baseline include a 15,000 AFY transfer from Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) delivered to WWR-GRF (MWD retains the remaining 5,000 AFY) and 35,000 AFY of SWP
transfer with MWD per the 2003 QSA (described in Chapter 6, Water Supply). Baseline also assumes
annual Canal conveyance losses of 5 percent. Under the Baseline scenario, a portion of available Colorado
River supply is not able to be beneficially used without the construction of new projects.
Colorado River supplies are assumed to be used for replenishment and direct use, as follows:
• Colorado River Water replenishment:
o TEL-GRF: Recharge limited to current recharge of 37,000 AFY
o PD-GRF: Recharge limited to Phase I capacity of 10,000 AFY
o WWR-GRF: Recharge of 15,000 AFY of MWD transfer from 2020 to 2026 (totaling 105,000 AF)
and recharge of 35,000 AFY of QSA MWD transfer through the planning horizon.
• Colorado River Water direct deliveries: Delivery to current agricultural, East Valley golf courses,
other recreation, WRP-7, WRP-10, and MVP direct users at current levels equaling 278,000 AFY,
less reduced agricultural demands due to urban conversion.
SWP Exchange: Average annual SWP Exchange supplies under Baseline are based on the reliability of SWP
deliveries received by CVWD and DWA since 2007 when Federal Judge Wanger overturned the Biological
Opinion authored by USFWS and USBR concerning Delta export pumping operations. As described in
Chapter 6, Water Supply, this decision significantly impacted DWR’s ability to convey SWP supplies across
the Delta for export. Baseline applies an average 45 percent reliability to SWP deliveries.
Additionally, MWD’s Advance Delivery account had 353,946 AF in storage as of January 2020. Baseline
assumes that MWD will credit SWP deliveries against the Advance Delivery account at 22,122 AF annually
from 2020-2035 so as not to double count these deliveries. Additional SWP Exchange water is available
through Yuba Accord deliveries (see Chapter 6, Water Supply) and is assumed to have a 10-year average
of 651 AFY.
SWP Exchange supplies modeled under Baseline are varied annually based on the historical variability of
SWP Table A deliveries received by the CVWD and DWA, as described in Chapter 6, Water Supply. Final
SWP allocations between 2007 and 2021 have ranged from a high of 85 percent in 2017 to a low of 5
percent in 2014 and again in 2021. Baseline applies an annual variability factor that mimics the variability
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-48 TODD/W&C
of deliveries associated with different climate years. The variability factors were developed based on the
same water years (1970 to 2019) as local hydrology.
SWP Exchange water is assumed to be used for replenishment at WWR-GRF and MC-GRF, and the split of
water between these replenishment facilities is to be consistent with the 2004 Settlement Agreement
between DWA, CVWD, and MSWD.
Other Supplies: One additional supply is included under Baseline: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries of 10,563
AFY from 2020 to 2035.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies are currently produced at three locations: Palm Springs
WWTP/DWA WRP, CVWD WRP-7, and CVWD WRP-10. Recycled water supply availability is expected to
increase due to development driving an increase in indoor water use and associated wastewater flows
within the Plan Area. Total recycled water use is expected to remain at 13,397 AFY as no new projects or
non-potable connections are assumed to be implemented under Baseline.
7.5.3 Baseline with Climate Change
The Baseline with Climate Change scenario includes only those supplies and facilities currently in place to
support Subbasin management and assumes that no new projects or water supplies will be implemented.
Baseline with Climate Change propagates current management practices into the future under
assumptions of future climate conditions and associated supply impacts. Table 7-4 provides a summary
of Baseline with Climate Change supplies used to directly meet demand and Table 7-5 provides a summary
of supplies used for replenishment. Other model inflows and outflows (septic systems, return flows,
subsurface inflow and outflow, drain flows, evapotranspiration, and watershed runoff) including
groundwater pumping are discussed in Section 7.6. Figure 7-23 provides a flow chart that shows the water
balance of the Subbasin under Baseline with Climate Change for year 2045, as well as the supplies used
to meet demands. The demand forecast for the Plan Area totals 644,610 AFY in year 2045 (see Chapter 5,
Demand Projections). A summary of the assumptions applied to each supply source is provided below.
The Baseline with Climate Change scenario assumes that passive conservation savings, surface water
diversions, and GRF operations will continue to be implemented, along with potable water and sewer
consolidations.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-50 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-23. Baseline (No New Projects) with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals. Colorado River volumes do not sum to total due to underrun under Baseline with
Climate Change scenario with no new projects assumption.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-51 TODD/W&C
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: As illustrated in Figure 7-23, inflows to groundwater include
subsurface inflow, surface water runoff (diverted for replenishment or percolating along local channels
minus losses to the Salton Sea), wastewater percolation, and return flows from use (which include septic
system percolation). However, total watershed runoff is estimated based on the drier 25-year hydrologic
period from 1995 to 2019. As shown in Figure 7-23, estimated average natural infiltration of watershed
runoff (minus diversions and outflows to the Salton Sea) amounts to 29,204 AFY, approximately 14,000
AFY less than in the Baseline scenario due to the drier climate change assumptions.
In the Baseline with Climate Change scenario, return flows, wastewater percolation, and septic system
inflow are the same as in Baseline because the demands, which contribute to these flows, are assumed
to remain unchanged. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are
derived from the MODFLOW model described in Section 7.2.5 above. As with Baseline, available local
water inflows also include surface water diverted for replenishment. As with Baseline, local surface water
diversions increase from 2,630 AFY in 2020 to 6,000 AFY by 2023, all of which is diverted to WWR-GRF
subsurface storage and then recovered for delivery.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Baseline with Climate Change use the same
planning assumptions as Baseline, except with an assumed reduction in Canal deliveries based on the
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (Lower Basin DCP). According to the Lower Basin DCP, CVWD is
responsible for a portion of California’s contribution to demand reduction on the Colorado River (see
Chapter 6, Water Supply). Under Baseline with Climate Change, Canal deliveries are assumed to be
reduced by 14,500 AFY from 2020 to 2026, and by 24,500 AFY after 2026. Colorado River water demand
for direct deliveries and recharge capacities are expected to remain the same as in Baseline. Under the
Baseline with Climate Change scenario, a portion of available Colorado River supply is not able to be
beneficially used.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies available under Baseline with Climate Change are the same as
under Baseline in terms of 45 percent average annual reliability, variability factors applied based on water
years, and Advance Delivery credits applied for 2020 to 2035. Under anticipated climate conditions,
reliability is assumed to be reduced by an additional -1.5 percent as compared to Baseline by 2045, as
modeled by DWR in its 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report (DWR, 2020).
SWP Exchange water is assumed to be used for replenishment at the WWR-GRF and MC-GRF, and the
allocation of water between these replenishment facilities is consistent with the 2004 Settlement
Agreement.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies under the Baseline with Climate Change are identical to the
Baseline planning assumptions, remaining at 13,397 AFY.
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries of 10,583 AFY from 2020 to 2035 assume no loss due to
climate change.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-53 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-24. 5-Year Plan with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals. Colorado River volumes do not sum to total due to underrun under Baseline with
Climate Change scenario with no new projects assumption.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-54 TODD/W&C
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: Surface water hydrology under 5-Year Plan with Climate Change is
the same as Baseline with Climate Change, as are return flows and septic system inflows. Wastewater
percolation is expected to be reduced due to an increase in recycled water use (described below). In this
scenario, wastewater from the MSWD Regional WRF is transferred north for use in the Mission Creek
Subbasin starting in 2027. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are
derived from the MODFLOW model described in Section 7.2.5.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change are
assumed to remain the same as under Baseline with Climate Change (assuming reductions due to Lower
Basin DCP); however, available supply use increases due to planned expansions to replenishment facilities
and direct deliveries. Under 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, the PD-GRF is planned to expand to allow
for recharge to increase from 10,000 AFY in 2020 to 25,000 AFY in 2023. By expanding recharge at the PD-
GRF and reducing the supply available under climate change conditions, the Colorado River supplies used
for recharge at the WWR-GRF are reduced from 2023 to 2045 as the supply is utilized for recharge at PD-
GRF, additional non-potable connections in the East Valley and mid-Valley, and by the Oasis In-lieu Project.
Increases in Colorado River direct deliveries begin in 2022 at 1,122 AFY and total 36,729 AFY by 2025. As
available Colorado River supply is fully utilized in the Mid- and East Valley areas, CVWD will reduce
replenishment at the GRFs. The increase in direct deliveries results in a reduction in replenishment of
CVWD’s 2003 QSA entitlement at WWR-GRF to 22,645 AFY beginning in 2027.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies available under 5-Year Plan with Climate Change are the same as
under Baseline with Climate Change, with 45 percent reliability varied annually and -1.5 percent reduction
due to climate change. SWP Exchange water is assumed to be used for replenishment at the WWR-GRF
and MC-GRF, consistent with the 2004 Settlement Agreement. New supplies (2,500 AFY) from the Lake
Perris Seepage Recovery project come online in 2023.
Recycled Water: Recycled water availability is expected to increase due to increased recycled water
production and deliveries to new non-potable connections. WRP-7 deliveries increase from 2,201 AFY in
2020 to 2,800 AFY in 2025. WRP-10 deliveries increase from 7,783 AFY in 2020 to 14,000 AFY in 2045. Any
recycling of wastewater from WRP-10 and WRP-7 disposed to percolation ponds would offset
groundwater pumping, but reduce net return flows to groundwater.
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries remain the same as in Baseline.
7.5.5 Future Projects with Climate Change
The Future Projects with Climate Change Scenario (Future Projects with Climate Change) includes supplies
and facilities currently in place to support Subbasin management, along with projects for new supplies
and facilities that are planned by the GSA agencies within the 25-year planning horizon. Supply constraints
associated with climate changes are assumed for local and imported supplies. Table 7-8 provides a
summary of Future Projects with Climate Change supplies used to directly meet demand and Table 7-9
provides supplies used for replenishment. Other inflows and outflows to the model (septic systems, return
flows, subsurface inflow and outflow, drain flows, evapotranspiration, and watershed runoff) including
groundwater pumping are discussed in Section 7.6. Figure 7-25 provides a flow chart that shows the water
balance of the Subbasin under Future Projects with Climate Change in year 2045, as well as the supplies
used to meet demands. The demand forecast for the Plan Area totals 644,610 AFY in year 2045 (see
Chapter 5, Demand Projections). A summary of the assumptions applied to each supply source is provided
below.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-56 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-25. Future Projects with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-57 TODD/W&C
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: Surface water hydrology under Future Projects with Climate
Change is the same as Baseline with Climate Change, as are return flows and septic system inflows.
Wastewater percolation is expected to be reduced due to an increase in recycled water use (described
below), along with the transfer of MSWD Regional WRF flows to the Mission Creek Subbasin starting in
2027. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are derived from the
MODFLOW model described in Section 7.2.5.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Future Projects with Climate Change are
assumed to remain the same as under the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, but with additional direct
deliveries. Under Future Projects with Climate Change, in addition to the replenishment facility expansions
discussed under the 5-Year Plan, the TEL-GRF will expand from a capacity of 37,000 AFY in 2020 to 40,000
AFY in 2025. Increases in Colorado River direct deliveries begin in 2022 at 1,122 AFY and amount to 76,839
AFY by 2045. As available Colorado River supply is fully utilized in the Mid- and East Valley, CVWD will
reduce replenishment at WWR-GRF and PD-GRF. The increase in direct deliveries results in a reduction in
replenishment of CVWD’s 2003 QSA entitlement at PD-GRF beginning in 2031 to a low of 4,535 AFY in
2045. Under this scenario, QSA water is not available for recharge at WWR-GRF starting in 2031.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies available under Future Projects with Climate Change include the
Table A deliveries (45 percent reliability varied annually based on water year and -1.5 percent reduction
due to climate change) assumed under Baseline with Climate Change, with the addition of the following
projects:
• Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF) to increase the reliability of SWP deliveries by 26,500 AFY (to 59%
of Table A) in 2040 due to improvements in Delta conveyance, reduced by the volume diverted to
MC-GRF under the 2014 Mission Creek Water Management Agreement (see Chapter 6, Water
Supply).
• Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project to provide 2,754 AFY, reduced by the volume diverted
to MC-GRF. Lake Perris Seepage will come online in 2023 and continue through the
planning/modeling horizon.
• Sites Reservoir Project to provide 11,550 AFY, reduced by the volume diverted to MC-GRF. Sites
Reservoir will come online in 2035 and continue through the planning/modeling horizon. 30
percent conveyance loss is applied to this supply.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies under Future Projects with Climate Change are further
expanded from those shown under the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, including an increase in recycled
water deliveries by 6,815 AFY in 2045 and with 5,000 AFY of potable reuse from Valley Sanitary District’s
WRP (referred to as the EVRA Potable Reuse Project).
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries remain the same as in Baseline.
7.5.6 Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change
The Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change Scenario (Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change)
includes increased agricultural demands, along with the same suite of planned future projects described
under the Future Projects with Climate Change Scenario. This scenario assumes 8,000 acres of additional
farmland (inclusive of 1,500 AFY in baseline demand forecast). This scenario assumes that new
agricultural growth occurs due in part to expanded availability of Canal water to currently idle lands. The
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-59 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-26. Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 7-60 TODD/W&C
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: Surface water hydrology under Expanded Agriculture with Future
Projects and Climate Change is the same as Baseline with Climate Change, as are return flows and septic
system inflows. Wastewater percolation is expected to be reduced due to an increase in recycled water
use (described below), along with the transfer of MSWD Regional WRF flows to the Mission Creek
Subbasin starting in 2027. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are
derived from the MODFLOW model described in Section 7.2.5.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Expanded Agriculture with Future Projects
and Climate Change are assumed to remain the same as under the Future Projects with Climate Change,
but with additional expansions of direct deliveries. Increases in Colorado River direct deliveries begin in
2022 at 1,122 AFY and amount to 106,663 AFY by 2045. As available Colorado River supply is fully utilized
in the Mid- and East Valley, CVWD will reduce replenishment at the GRFs. This results in a reduction in
replenishment of CVWD’s 2003 QSA entitlement at TEL-GRF beginning in 2031 to a low of 14,712 AFY in
2045, along with ending QSA deliveries at WWR-GRF in 2028 and PD-GRF in 2031.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies are the same as under Future Projects with Climate Change and
include Table A deliveries (45 percent reliability varied annually based on water year and -1.5 percent
reduction due to climate change) along with DCF, Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project, and Sites
Reservoir Project.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies are the same as under Future Projects with Climate Change.
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries remain the same as in Baseline.
7.6 Scenario Implementation
The calibrated Indio Subbasin MODFLOW model was used to simulate water budgets and groundwater
level changes over a future 50-year period, from January 2020 to December 2069. The same model area,
boundaries, layering, aquifer characteristics, drains, and evapotranspiration areas used in the historical
model were maintained in the future predictive model. Only model inflow and outflow amounts, and
selected model boundary conditions, were changed for the scenario simulations. Model inflow and
outflow sources and rates were estimated for five scenarios, as described in Section 7.5. Annual model
stress periods and 12 timesteps per stress period were used, as with the updated historical model.
Predicted groundwater level changes over time (along with future changes in Subbasin storage, drain
flows, and flows to the Salton Sea) were evaluated to assess overall groundwater Subbasin response, local
changes, and effectiveness of the potential management actions for each modeled scenario. The methods
used to extend the estimates of each element of the water budget and model input are described in detail
below.
7.6.1 Inflows
The Indio Subbasin is recharged through a combination of natural inflows of surface water and
groundwater, replenishment of imported water, wastewater percolation, and irrigation return flows. Each
of these sources was updated to reflect the specific future conditions in each scenario, as described in
Section 7.5 above.
Figure 7-27 shows the average water balance by element for each scenario. Figure 7-27 and Table 7-12
shows the average water balance by element for each scenario. The bar chart summarizes each scenario
by the average annual contribution by water balance element over the future planning period (2020 to
2045). The following sections describe each of the sources of inflow to the Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-63 TODD/W&C
7.6.1.1 Subsurface Inflows
Subsurface inflow from the Mission Creek Subbasin was updated for the entire future period, based on
values recently generated from the Mission Creek Subbasin MODFLOW model (Wood, 2021). Predicted
subsurface outflows from the Mission Creek Subbasin for future scenarios (corresponding to the Indio
Subbasin scenarios) were used as subsurface inflow to the Indio Subbasin. For the Expanded Agriculture
with Climate Change scenarios, the Future Projects with Climate Change inflows were used. Flows were
allocated to five model boundary segments along the Banning/San Andreas Fault at the eastern edges of
the Garnet Hill, Indio Hills, and Thousand Palms Subareas (Figure 7-6). Average annual inflows for the
future scenarios range from approximately 2,000 AFY for the Baseline with Climate Change scenario to
2,300 AFY for the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario. Subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio
Pass Subbasin was not changed from the 2010 CVWMP Update model and was kept at the long-term
average of approximately 9,000 AFY used in the calibrated historical model, shown on Figure 7-27. As
described in Section 7.2.5, uncertainty exists in the historical and potential future amounts of inflow from
the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin. The Indio and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin GSAs have discussed the
discrepancy in simulated amounts of subsurface flow between the Subbasins, and plan to reconcile the
differences as a part of the next 5-Year Plan update.
7.6.1.2 Surface Water Inflows
As discussed in Section 7.1, recharge from mountain front inflow and from percolation of stream flows
into the Indio Subbasin was estimated for 24 watersheds and stream channels along the southwest edge
of the model. Streamflow percolation and mountain front recharge are inflows to the model and vary
widely from wet to dry years. As discussed in Section 7.5.1, two hydrological cycles were used for future
scenarios, one with Climate Change and one without. Climate change would result in decreased rainfall
and therefore decreased mountain front recharge and percolation of stream flows. The long-term average
for surface water inflow ranges from 43,319 AFY without climate change and 29,204 AFY with climate
change over the entire 50-year simulation. Natural infiltration is shown as dark grey on Figure 7-27.
7.6.1.3 Replenishment
The annual volumes of replenishment were compiled and applied to the locations of the GRFs based on
the suite of projects included in each scenario as described in Section 7.5. These include the WWR-GRF,
TEL-GRF, and the recently completed PD-GRF. The total volume at each location is a result of the available
imported water for replenishment and the capacity of the facility. The available imported water in turn is
controlled by the contracts, projects, agreements, and hydrological conditions. The assumptions used to
develop the future replenishment amounts were described in Section 7.5. Evaporative losses were
assumed to be four percent of recharged volume for the WWR-GRF and two percent for all other locations,
reflecting the larger surface area and windier conditions at the WWR-GRF. Total annual recharge volumes
at the replenishment facilities are shown as yellow, light orange, and dark orange on Figure 7-27.
7.6.1.4 Wastewater Discharges
Four wastewater plants discharge to disposal ponds (Palm Springs WWTP and CVWD WRP-2, WRP-7, and
WRP-10). In addition, a new MSWD Regional WRF will soon be completed in Garnet Hill. Under the
Baseline conditions, wastewater will be percolated at this location, but under 5-Year Plan and Future
scenarios, wastewater percolation does not continue past 2025 and recycled water from the plant is
delivered to Mission Creek Subbasin. The future percolation volumes for all plants were calculated based
on expected inflow and recycled water deliveries. For future conditions, evaporative losses were assumed
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-64 TODD/W&C
at two percent of the recharged volume. The ponds have evaporative losses, calculated by the area of
ponds and expected annual evaporation. The remaining volumes percolated into the Subbasin are shown
as cobalt blue on Figure 7-27.
7.6.1.5 Applied Water Return Flows
Irrigation needs are expected to follow the increases (or decreases) in demands for each of the major
categories – agricultural, golf, and municipal. The demands are documented in Chapter 5, Demand
Projections, and expected return flows are calculated with the same methodology as the historical model.
Agricultural change, both the conversion of agricultural parcels to urban in some areas and the increase
in acreage in others, is detailed in Chapter 5, Demand Projections. Expected return flows were increased
or decreased based on the percentage of expected change in agricultural acreage (either conversion to
municipal uses or conversion from idle land to active agriculture) by geographic area. Future agricultural
demand projections are the same in all scenarios, with the exception of the expanded agricultural
scenario. The areal distribution was the same as the historical model which used the CVWD crop censuses
to identify specific crop areas, only the volumes adjusted based on land use changes.
Municipal return flow is estimated using the percent of outdoor irrigation expected to result in return
flow and the volume of septic system return flow by geographic area. The expected future outdoor
municipal demand and septic system flow is documented in Chapter 5, Demand Projections, and the
percent resulting in return flow is the same by geographic area as used in the historical model calculations,
which relied on the most recent crop census, Section 7.2.5.5.
Return flow from golf courses was based on the calculated return flow in the historical model using the
demand and supply at the locations of the existing courses (Section 7.2.5.5). Additional return flow (34
percent of expected demand of each golf course) was added for the three expected new golf courses
based on the timing and location of those projects (refer to Chapter 5, Demand Projections).
Municipal return flows also include expected septic system return flow. For all but the Expanded
Agriculture with Climate Change scenario, return flows remain the same for each scenario. Agricultural,
golf, and municipal return flows are shown green, magenta, and light grey, respectively on Figure 7-27.
As described in Section 7.5 above, the Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenario includes an
additional 8,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land in the East Valley. Additional agricultural demand was
estimated by applying the average applied water rate in the East Valley (5.4 AFY/acre). The irrigation
source was assumed to be 15 percent additional groundwater pumping and 85 percent new direct delivery
connections. Return flows associated with the additional agricultural were increased relative to the
expected demand increase and applied over areas with existing agriculture in the East Valley.
7.6.2 Outflows
For each scenario, the only prescribed outflow was groundwater pumping. The remaining outflows (drain
flows, ET, and groundwater outflows to the Salton Sea) are dependent on the simulated water levels of
the model.
7.6.2.1 Groundwater Production
For the future scenarios, pumping was assumed to continue from the same distribution of wells in the
Subbasin as the historical model. Increased water demands were identified on a geographic area and the
volume of pumping for that area was increased to meet the total expected volume (current plus increased
demand). The increase in demand is detailed in Chapter 5, Demand Projections. For all but the Expanded
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-65 TODD/W&C
Agriculture with Climate Change scenario, forecasted water demands remain the same, but depending on
what projects are implemented, the source of supply differs by individual scenario (e.g., groundwater
pumping may shift to Canal direct deliveries). The Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenario
includes an increase in agricultural water demand, 15 percent of which is assumed to be met by
groundwater pumping.
The Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios reflect the current level of pumping, plus the
expected change in demand from municipal, golf, and agricultural uses (it was assumed the increase in
demands for the “Other” category is satisfied by other water sources). For the scenarios with planned
source substitution projects, pumping volumes are reduced by the expected direct delivery volumes. Most
notably, the planned Oasis project will supply up to 32,000 AFY of imported water to growers in the East
Unincorporated area, about 25,000 to 27,000 AFY which previously relied on groundwater and therefore
pumping in the area is reduced by an equal amount. Groundwater pumping amounts are shown dark
blue on Figure 7-27.
7.6.3 Other Predictive Model Inputs
In addition to the inflow and outflow model input datasets, several other model input parameters and
future boundary conditions were defined for the future scenario simulations.
• The model grid initial groundwater elevation conditions for all predictive scenarios, beginning on
January 1, 2020, were set to the values from the final historical simulation ending December 31,
2019.
• The Salton Sea, simulated as a MODFLOW General Head Boundary, was assigned future sea
elevations for 2020 to 2069, based on the modified Salton Sea Accounting Model (Tetra Tech and
Salton Sea Authority, 2016). Sea level elevations are predicted to decline from -238 ft msl in 2020
to -250 ft msl in 2069, and this decline was applied to the GHB representing the Sea.
• Drains and evapotranspiration zones were unchanged relative to the historical model for all
scenarios simulated.
In addition, a subset of 12 monitoring wells (see Chapter 10, Monitoring Program) were used as future
observation wells for the predictive model simulations. The wells are distributed in the West Valley, Mid
Valley, and East Valley areas, and future simulated water levels for each scenario are plotted in a series of
hydrographs for each well) (see Section 7.7.1.2).
7.7 Results
Modeling results are presented first in Section 7.7.1 for the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change
scenarios, allowing direct evaluation of the effect of simulated climate change on groundwater levels and
storage. Results are shown in terms of the respective water balances, cumulative change in storage,
selected hydrographs, and groundwater level change maps.
Section 7.7.2 presents modeling results for all four scenarios with climate change: Baseline with Climate
Change, 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, Future Projects with Climate Change, and Extended Agriculture
with Climate Change. Results of these scenarios are shown together to allow comparison in terms of
model inflows, simulated pumping, simulated drain flow, simulated net outflow to Salton Sea,
hydrographs, and maps showing change in groundwater levels.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-66 TODD/W&C
7.7.1 Baseline Scenarios - Impact of Climate Change
As discussed in 7.5.1, two separate future hydrological periods were developed so that the GSAs could
assess the impacts of climate change. The Baseline scenario was run assuming no change in hydrologic
conditions (repeated local hydrology of 1970 to 2019). A second simulation was run for Baseline with
Climate Change (repeated local hydrology 1995 to 2019 two times - first backward and then forward). The
availability of imported water is also impacted by expected climate change. As discussed in Section 7.5.2
and 7.6.1, SWP reliability is assumed to be reduced by an additional -1.5 percent and Colorado River water
deliveries are assumed to be reduced by 24,500 AFY under the climate change scenario as compared to
Baseline by 2045.
7.7.1.1 Water Budget – Baseline Scenarios
Figure 7-28 shows the water balances for the scenarios of Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change for
the 50-year period 2020 to 2069.
The Baseline scenario (upper Figure 7-28) reflects the expected inflows from natural infiltration and
imported water based on the repeated hydrologic conditions of the past 50 years. Mountain front and
stream recharge observed over the past 50 years was repeated as model input, and imported water was
reduced by an additional -1.5 percent to account for decreased availability of SWP supplies, and Colorado
River supplies were reduced by -24,500 AFY, as discussed in Section 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. The chart shows the
simulated total annual inflows and outflows between 2020 and 2069 by source, along with simulated
annual (black line on the chart) and cumulative (orange line on chart) change in storage. A key difference
between the Baseline scenario and Baseline Scenario with Climate Change is the hydrological variability.
The Baseline scenario is characterized by a high average inflow due in part to several wet years that
occurred in the 50-year period. These wet years, which occur early in the simulation, provide an increase
in storage that serves as a buffer for the end of the model simulation when drought conditions reduce
change in storage. Over the planning period, the model simulation shows a 486,000 AF increase in storage
by the end of 2045.
In contrast, Baseline with Climate Change (lower Figure 7-28) simulates a drier period of record, with the
last 25 years repeated twice and with reductions in imported water (Section 7.5.2). The climate change
scenario begins the simulation with drier conditions and does not include the very wet years previously
observed in the basin. Without the wet years, the annual change in storage remains close to zero and
inflows and outflows generally balance, but cumulative storage does not increase in the early years as in
the Baseline. In fact, by the end of the 25-year planning period after drought conditions are repeated, the
model shows a cumulative decline in storage amounting to 96,000 AF. Climate change is also assumed to
impact imported water availability. While all scenarios assume 45 percent reliability of SWP supplies, the
climate change scenarios assume an additional reduction in reliability of -1.5 percent by year 2045.
Further, given the tendency to recurring drought in climate change conditions, those scenarios assume
CVWD will contribute to California’s Lower Basin DCP allotment for Colorado River water.
Figure 7-29 shows the cumulative change in groundwater storage for Baseline and for Baseline with
Climate Change. The impact of additional inflow in the early part of the simulation in the baseline scenario
is evident. By 2033, the Baseline scenario has an additional 553,000 AFY more groundwater in storage
over Baseline with Climate Change and by 2044, the Baseline scenario has a cumulative change in storage
of 631,000 AFY more than the Baseline with Climate Change. For the rest of the model simulation, 2045
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-67 TODD/W&C
to 2069 when hydrology is the same for both scenarios, this difference in cumulative storage is maintained
because both simulations use the observed data from most recent 25 years for this period.
Figure 7-28. Annual Model Water Budget for Baseline with Climate Change
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-68 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-29. Cumulative Change in Storage for Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-69 TODD/W&C
These scenarios reflect the same management actions and existing projects. The only difference is the
projected hydrology with and without climate change, which is beyond the control of the GSAs. Because
the actual future hydrology is unknown and will likely be affected by climate change, it is critical that GSAs
assess their existing and planned projects assuming constraints to local and imported surface water
supplies. Simulating the management actions and projects under a range of hydrologic conditions helps
to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.
7.7.1.2 Simulated Hydrographs – Baseline Scenarios
Simulated water levels from the 12 model observation wells were used to illustrate the predicted
groundwater level changes for Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change. Simulated 1997 to 2019 water
levels for the wells are included to provide context for the future scenarios.
Figure 7-30 and Figure 7-31 show the simulated groundwater elevation hydrographs for Baseline and
Baseline with Climate Change scenarios in the West Valley and East Valley, respectively. Historical
groundwater levels are shown in black. Baseline conditions are shown with solid blue lines on the graphs,
while Baseline with Climate Change levels are shown as the dashed lines. All hydrographs use a 300-foot
elevation range on the hydrographs.
West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea
The three observation wells in the Upper West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea (hydrographs along the left
side of Figure 7-30) show dynamic fluctuations associated with recharge events at the WWR-GRF, with
water level mounding and recovery cycles muted in wells located down the valley. For both scenarios,
the larger fluctuations are observed in Well 03S04E20F01S near the WW-GRF, as was observed in
historical level trends. Predicted fluctuations in well 03S04E34R01S in Palm Springs are lower but still
reflect water level fluctuations associated with the wet/dry replenishment cycles at the WW-GRF and
show a net rise of around 50 feet by 2045, followed by a decrease from 2045 to 2070. Well 04S05E17Q02S
farther southeast shows increases of around 40 feet by 2045 with minor dampened fluctuations possibly
associated with the WWR-GRF, but also potentially influenced by simulated replenishment at PD-GRF to
the south. Predicted groundwater elevations for Baseline for well 03S04E34R01S in Palm Springs are
around 60 feet higher than for Baseline with Climate Change at 2045, while predicted levels in Well
04S05E17Q02S are around 30 feet higher in 2045. Levels in both wells show a slight increasing trend
between 2020 and 2045, then a stable or slight declining trend for 2045-2070, reflecting the later lower
inflow amounts. Overall groundwater levels in this Subarea are proportional to the groundwater recharge.
Future conditions mirror future recharge– in wet years water levels rise and in dry years water levels
decline.
West Valley/Garnet Hill Subarea
The two observation wells in the Garnet Hill Subarea (hydrographs along the top of Figure 7-30) show
increasing water level trends for both scenarios. Water levels in Well 03S04E17K01S in the northern
portion of Garnet Hill and Well 03S05E30G01S in the southern portion of Garnet Hill are predicted to rise
60 to 80 feet by 2045. Part of the water level rise is due to the MSWD Regional WRF that is expected to
percolate treated water in the Baseline scenario.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-72 TODD/W&C
West-Valley/Cathedral City to Indio Area
Predicted water levels in the three observation wells in the mid- and lower-West Valley/ Cathedral City to
Indio area (hydrographs along the bottom of Figure 7-30) show slightly increasing to stable trends for the
Baseline scenario. Water levels in Wells 04S05E35G03S and 05S06E16A02S in the Rancho Mirage and
Palm Desert areas show increasing levels of around 40 feet, in part due to replenishment at WWR-GRF
and PD-GRF. Baseline levels in Indio Well 05S075E08Q01S are predicted to be relatively stable from 2020
to 2070. For Baseline with Climate Change, predicted levels in all four wells are around 20 feet lower than
for Baseline, the result being only modest increases in levels in the Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert wells,
and slightly declining levels in Indio between 2045 and 2070.
East Valley/La Quinta, Thermal, Mecca, and Oasis Areas
Predicted water levels in the four observation wells in the East Valley areas (Figure 7-31) show stable to
slightly decreasing trends for the Baseline scenario. Only minor differences are observed in the
simulations for the Baseline with Climate Change scenario.
7.7.1.3 Simulated Change in Water Level Maps – Baseline Scenarios
Simulated changes in water levels for the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios between
2009 and 2045 are shown (Figure 7-32 and Figure 7-33). 2009 was selected as the period for comparison
because it generally reflects historically low groundwater elevations in most of the Subbasin, and these
values are used as sustainability criteria for groundwater levels. As detailed in Section 7.5, the Baseline
scenarios reflect no new additional projects and the two model simulations simulate different future
hydrologic conditions to assess the range of possible outcomes of this no project scenario.
These color-fill contour maps illustrate predicted spatial trends in water level declines or increases across
the Subbasin for the scenarios. Simulated changes in water levels are shown for Model Layer 4,
representing the deep aquifer. Figure 7-32 shows the predicted change in groundwater levels between
the recent historical low, 2009, and the end of the planning period, 2045, for the Baseline scenario and
reveals that minor declines (less than 25 feet) would occur in a small area north of the Mid-Valley around
Indio. Groundwater level increases would occur in the uppermost West Valley, Garnet Hill, and most of
the lower East-Valley areas.
Figure 7-33 shows the predicted changes in levels for Baseline with Climate Change and shows that larger
declines (up to 50 feet) would occur under this scenario in the Mid-Valley area north of Palm Springs.
Smaller groundwater level increases are predicted in the uppermost West Valley, Garnet Hill, and most of
the lower East-Valley areas, as compared with the Baseline scenario.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-75 TODD/W&C
7.7.1.4 Baseline Scenarios Summary
Collectively, the simulated hydrographs and changes in water levels maps for the Baseline and Baseline
with Climate Change scenarios indicate that both local increases in future groundwater levels and
decreases in levels are predicted. The local differences may be due in part to assumptions regarding the
future distributions of replenishment at the GRFs, return flows, and pumping. Regardless, a net increase
in Subbasin-wide storage is predicted for the Baseline scenario, while a decrease in total Subbasin storage
is predicted for Baseline with Climate Change. In the climate change scenario, simulated groundwater
levels are up to 25 feet lower in portions of the Mid-Valley with smaller increases in levels in the West and
East Valley than in the baseline scenario without climate change.
The baseline scenarios with and without climate change simulate the same management scenarios under
different future hydrology. The differences in water levels and the water budget scenarios highlight the
potential range of response under different hydrology, a variable that is not controlled by the GSAs. The
baseline scenario with climate change indicates a negative change in storage and does not meet the
sustainability goals defined by the GSA. To prepare for an uncertain future, the GSAs are planning for
impacts from climate change by assessing future management scenarios under the climate change
hydrology and also through adaptive management that will assess the changing groundwater basin.
7.7.2 Climate Change Scenarios – Baseline and with Projects
In addition to the Baseline with Climate Change scenario, three other scenarios were simulated to assess
planned projects and supply conditions in the near-term (5 years) and planning horizon (25 years) on the
Subbasin. These four scenarios were simulated with both the 50-year hydrology and the climate change
hydrology. Only the climate change versions of those scenarios are presented here, as the Indio GSAs are
committed to achieving sustainability under changing climate conditions.
7.7.2.1 Water Budget – Scenarios with Climate Change
As described in Section 7.5, additional future scenarios were developed to simulate projects included in
the GSAs’ 5-year capital improvement plans, future projects, and potential expanded agricultural areas.
Natural inflow, municipal return flows, and golf return flow amounts remain the same for each scenario.
As shown on Figure 7-27, average inflow for groundwater replenishment and wastewater percolation
differs between scenarios, reflecting the addition of projects that utilize imported and recycled water for
direct use rather than indirect use through replenishment and percolation. Of the scenarios simulated
with climate change, the Baseline with Climate Change scenario simulated the greatest average annual
inflow to the Subbasin (more than 408,000 AFY) because of increased direct use under other scenarios,
while Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change simulates the least inflow (367,000 AFY). However, the
difference between these scenarios for the planning period (2020 to 2045) is only ten percent of the total
inflow.
Figure 7-34 shows total inflow for all scenarios with climate change assumptions. Note the peaks and
valleys are a product of simulating annual variability for wet and dry years. Hydrology plays a critical role
for basin inflows because natural infiltration varies based on year type and the volume of available SWP
exchange water also varies greatly based on year type. As shown on Figure 7-27, the Future Projects with
Climate Change scenario has less average inflow in the first 25 years than Baseline, Baseline with Climate
Change, and 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenarios; this reflects the assumed new source substitution
projects coming online to deliver Canal water directly to users. The Expanded Agriculture shows the least
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-76 TODD/W&C
total inflow because additional imported water is delivered to users to meet the increased demand, rather
than recharged at GRFs.
Figure 7-35 shows the differences in pumping between the scenarios. As described above, planned source
substitution projects will increase the volume of direct deliveries of imported and recycled water and
offset a comparable volume of pumping. As described in Section 7.5, these volumes differ among
scenarios based on simulated projects. The Baseline scenario assumes expected increases in demand will
be satisfied by increased pumping. For the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change and Future Projects with
Climate Change scenarios, the new direct delivery connections decrease pumping. The Expanded
Agriculture with Climate Change scenario shows a slight increase in pumping over the Future Projects with
Climate Change scenario, reflecting an expected increase in agricultural pumping due to the increase in
demand. Fifteen percent of the new irrigated agricultural area is assumed to be served by groundwater,
with the rest served through direct delivery of Canal water.
Figure 7-36 shows the cumulative change in groundwater storage for the four climate change scenarios.
In the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario, decreased pumping and similar levels of inflow to
the other climate change scenarios result in an increase in groundwater storage of 1,394,000 AF at the
end of the 50-year simulation. The Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenario shows less
cumulative storage change due to increased agriculture pumping and reduced groundwater
replenishment as increased demands are met by direct delivery of Canal water. The change in storage for
Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change is 588,000 AF at the end of the 50-year simulation, while the
cumulative storage change for the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario is 691,000 AF. Baseline with
Climate Change is the only scenario that results in a negative cumulative change in storage after the 50-
year simulation, approximately 542,000 AF is expected to be removed from storage. All scenarios show a
net increase in storage at the end of the 25-year planning horizon, followed by declining storage through
2069 for Baseline with Climate Change only, net stable storage for 5-Year Plan with Climate Change
projects, and increasing storage for Future Projects with Climate Change and Expanded Agriculture with
Climate Change.
Simulated drain flow for the four climate change scenarios is shown Figure 7-37, along with the historical
simulated and observed volumes for comparison context. The volume of drain flows is calculated by the
model based on defined drain locations, depths, and hydraulic conductance parameter, and predicted
groundwater levels at the drains. When groundwater is simulated as rising to or above the drain elevation,
groundwater is removed via the drains, with larger amounts of drain flow predicted for higher
groundwater elevations. For the Baseline with Climate Change scenario, drain flows are predicted to
decline from around 45,000 to 30,000 AFY. The Future Projects with Climate Change scenario involve a
decrease in pumping in the East Valley that results in an increase in drain flow, up to 70,000 AFY. For the
Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenario, groundwater replenishment is reduced in the
scenario at Whitewater and Palm Desert GRF facilities in the East Valley to meet the increased direct
delivery demands. This reduction of replenishment, especially at TEL-GRF, results in a decrease of drain
flows after 2040 relative to the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario. This can be seen on Figure
7-37 when the volume percolated at TEL-GRF is first reduced, and hydrographs of wells near TEL-GRF (e.g.,
Well 07S07E02G02S) and drain flows both exhibit declines.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-79 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-36. Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-81 TODD/W&C
Figure 7-38 shows the net groundwater discharge to the Salton Sea for the four climate change scenarios.
Predicted groundwater discharge amounts increase between 2020 and 2045, then stabilize or slightly
decline. Discharge at 2045 ranges from approximately 4,800 AFY for Baseline with Climate Change to
5,500 AFY for Future Projects with Climate Change and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change. The
amounts do not vary much between the scenarios, because flow is limited by the relatively low
conductance value assigned to the Sea boundary condition and because groundwater levels in the area
north of the Sea are partially controlled by the drain system.
7.7.2.2 Simulated Hydrographs – Future Scenarios with Climate Change
Figure 7-39 and Figure 7-40 show the simulated groundwater elevation hydrographs for the four climate
change scenarios in the West Valley and East Valley, respectively. Baseline with Climate Change conditions
are shown with blue lines on the graphs, 5-Year Plan with Climate Change as the magenta lines, Future
Projects with Climate Change as orange lines, and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change as the green
lines.
West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea
The three observation wells in the Upper West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea (hydrographs along the left
side of Figure 7-39) show dynamic fluctuations associated with recharge events at the WWR-GRF for all
scenarios, with water level mounding and recovery cycles decreasing in magnitude down the valley. The
highest groundwater levels in Well 03S04E20F01S near the WW-GRF and in Well 03S04E34R01S in Palm
Springs are predicted for the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario, with the lowest levels
simulated for the Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenario. By the end of the future simulation,
Well 04S05E17Q02S farther southeast shows the lowest levels for the Expanded Agriculture with Climate
Change scenario.
West Valley/Garnet Hill Subarea
The two observation wells in the Garnet Hill Subarea (hydrographs along the top of Figure 7-39) show
increasing water level trends for all scenarios. Water levels in Well 03S04E17K01S in the northern portion
of Garnet Hill and Well 03S05E30G01S in the southern portion of Garnet Hill are predicted to rise 30 to 60
feet by 2070, with the largest rises simulated for the Five-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario.
Mid-Valley/Cathedral City to Indio Area
Predicted water levels in the three observation wells in the Mid-Valley/ Cathedral City to Indio area
(hydrographs along the bottom of Figure 7-39) show slightly to moderately increasing to stable trends for
all scenarios, except the Baseline with Climate Change scenario. Groundwater levels in Well
04S05E35G03S near Rancho Mirage increase 80 feet for the Future Projects Scenario, with Wells
05S06E16A02S in Palm Desert and Well 05S075E08Q01S in Indio also showing the greatest increases for
Future Projects with Climate Change. Simulated levels for the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change and
Extended Agriculture with Climate Change scenarios also rise in all wells, while levels decline slightly in all
wells for the Baseline with Climate Change scenario.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-85 TODD/W&C
East Valley/La Quinta, Thermal, Mecca, and Oasis Areas
Predicted water levels in the four observation wells in the East Valley areas (Figure 7-40) show slightly
decreasing trends for the Baseline with Climate Change and Extended Agriculture with Climate Change
scenarios, while levels rise in all wells for Future Projects with Climate Change and 5-Year Plan with
Climate Change scenarios.
7.7.2.3 Simulated Change in Water Level Maps – Future Scenarios
Simulated changes in water levels for the Future Projects with Climate Change, 5-Year Plan with Climate
Change, and Extended Agriculture with Climate Change scenarios between 2009 and 2045 are shown on
Figure 7-41 through Figure 7-43. Figure 7-41 shows the predicted change in groundwater levels between
2009 and 2045 for the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario and reveals that minor declines (less than
25 feet) are occur in this scenario in a small area near the City of Coachella in the East Valley area. Level
increases are predicted in the uppermost West Valley, the southern portion of Garnet Hill, and most of
the Mid-Valley and East Valley areas. Level rises in the Mid-Valley may be associated with simulated
operation of the PD-GRF.
Figure 7-42 shows the predicted changes in levels for the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario
and similar changes occur for this scenario in the West- and Mid-Valley areas. No declines are predicted
except in a very small area where the Whitewater River enters the subbasin.
Figure 7-43 shows the predicted change in groundwater levels between 2020 and 2045 for the Expanded
Agriculture with Climate Change scenario. Minor declines (less than 25 feet) occur in this scenario in small
areas near the Cities of Indio and Coachella. This decline is likely due to the reduction in groundwater
replenishment as expanded agriculture increases the direct delivery of imported water. Level increases
are predicted in the Upper West Valley and southern portion of the East Valley. These increases in the
Upper West Valley are similar to the groundwater elevation rises observed in all scenarios, a result of
continued groundwater replenishment at WWR-GRF.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-89 TODD/W&C
7.8 Conclusions
Simulation of the Baseline (No New Projects) and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios allows direct
evaluation of the effect of simulated climate change on groundwater conditions. As indicated in this
chapter, a net increase in Subbasin-wide storage is predicted for the Baseline scenario, but a net decrease
in Subbasin storage is predicted for Baseline with Climate Change. With climate change, not implementing
new projects is not sustainable.
The major conclusion from simulation of the other three Plan scenarios—5-Year Plan with Climate Change,
Future Projects with Climate Change, and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change—is that the Indio
GSAs can maintain a sustainable Subbasin water balance with planned projects for the near-term and
future. The three Plan scenarios involve varying project implementation and/or agricultural demands. For
all three of these scenarios, simulation results show a net increase in storage at the end of the 25-year
planning horizon and continuing stability through the end of the modeling timeframe. The three scenarios
show storage increases in the Mid-Valley and most of the East Valley and varying levels of water level
declines in the West Valley, which are an artifact of wet and dry year cycles and the subsequent rapid
response of groundwater levels near WWR-GRF. These results demonstrate the importance to the Indio
Subbasin balance of a portfolio of projects and management actions that allow adjustments through time
and across the Subbasin.
Simulation of the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario shows that already-planned projects and
management actions can maintain the water balance, even with climate change, while the Future Projects
with Climate Change scenario demonstrates that future projects can address uncertainty in water supply,
water demand, and other circumstances and maintain the Subbasin water balance.
While the GSAs have a suite of potential projects that can maintain the Indio Subbasin water balance,
adaptive management will be critical when planning for future conditions to ensure the most effective
projects are implemented in areas where additional resources are needed.
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7-90 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 8: REGULATORY AND POLICY ISSUES
This chapter describes regulatory and policy issues that could affect implementation of this 2022 Indio
Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update). While these issues may represent challenges,
the intent of this chapter is to define the issue, identify potential solutions, and consider opportunities.
The 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (Coachella Valley
Water District [CVWD], 2012) identified emerging issues and these are updated below; some are updated
briefly only in this chapter, and some are discussed in detail in other chapters of this Alternative Plan
Update.
This Alternative Plan Update has included recognition of additional issues including:
• Availability of suitable water supply for small community water systems, some of which may lack
access to safe and adequate water supplies (see Section 8.4)
• Potential occurrence and adverse effects on water supply of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAs), a group of man-made chemicals that are persistent in the environment and in the human
body, where they can lead to adverse human health effects (see Section 8.2.7)
8.1 Water Quality Policies and Planning
The 2010 CVWMP Update described emerging issues regarding the Colorado River Basin Plan, anti-
degradation policy, recycled water policy, Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), salinity
management, brine management, and agricultural discharge requirements. While no longer emerging
issues, the policies and regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are the subject of continuing review and update by state agencies,
and accordingly, warrant regular review by the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs).
8.1.1 Basin Plan
California’s 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act established the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to
preserve and enhance all beneficial uses of the state's water. The RWQCBs develop basin plans that
identify beneficial uses for groundwater and surface water within their hydrologic units, establish water
quality objectives (WQOs) to protect beneficial uses, and define implementation programs to achieve
WQOs. The Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Colorado River RWQCB 1993; 2006; as
amended) was first prepared and adopted by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB in 1993 and with
subsequent amendments. Prepared in accordance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the
Federal Clean Water Act, and other state and federal rules and regulations, the Basin Plan provides
guidelines for optimizing use of state waters within the region by preserving and protecting water quality.
The 2010 CVWMP Update reviewed the Basin Plan adopted in 2006 (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2006).
This review addressed updates on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for surface water bodies, and high priority issues identified as part of the
2007 Triennial Review. These issues mostly were surface water related, including for example, surface
water bacteriological objectives, stormwater channel flow, and agricultural wastewater. The current
303(d) list, TMDLs, and selected topics of the most recent Triennial Review are summarized in this section.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-4 TODD/W&C
8.1.1.2 Triennial Review
The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to conduct public review of water quality standards at least
once every three years. Accordingly, the RWQCB conducts a public review process and updates the Basin
Plan at least once every 3 years – a process known as “triennial review.” The triennial review may result
in amendments to the Basin Plan over the course of the 3-year review cycle.
The most recent Triennial Review for the Colorado River Basin Region was conducted in 2020 (RWQCB,
2020b). Recent triennial reviews are presented on the RWQCB website 1 including the Staff Report and
Appendices B and C that list and rank proposed projects (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020). During this
Triennial Review, 29 projects have been listed and ranked. Three projects (as numbered by RWQCB) with
particular bearing on local water management are summarized below.
Project 9 – OWTS Prohibitions in Areas Where OWTS Pose a Threat to Water Quality
This project was included in the 2017 Triennial Review as Item 1, "Evaluate Potential Sources of Nitrates
in Prioritized Basins." RWQCB staff has been collecting data and information to identify areas where
nitrate pollution from Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS), also referred to as septic systems,
may be posing a threat to groundwater quality. In areas where the density of existing OWTS may be
contributing to nitrate and other pollution, and the OWTS density cannot be mitigated by existing
regulations, staff plans to propose a prohibition of discharge from OWTS. This project is slated for
completion in 2025. This RWQCB project represents a potential means of limiting nitrate loading to areas
in the Indio Subbasin with relatively dense OWTS. These areas also may include Small Water Systems that
are affected by high nitrate concentrations in groundwater (see Section 8.4).
Project 10 – Salton Sea Beneficial Use Review
The Coachella Valley is part of the Salton Sea watershed. As described in the RWQCB Staff Report
Appendix B, the Salton Sea is an endorheic (terminal) lake without an outlet, which means that certain
pollutants have been concentrating in it since its formation in 1905. Such pollutants include salinity and
one of its components, chloride, which are both 303(d) listed impairments to the Salton Sea's Warm
Freshwater Habitat (WARM) beneficial use. The Salton Sea is not freshwater and because of its endorheic
nature may never meet the current water quality objectives for these pollutants associated with the
WARM beneficial use. Under this amendment, staff will determine whether WARM is attainable for these
pollutants and establish whether the Salton Sea should be considered a saltwater body for the purposes
of applicable water quality objectives. Other pollutants and/or beneficial uses may be included as data
are gathered and analyzed. Based on the results of this analysis, changes to the Salton Sea's beneficial
uses may be proposed. This project is scheduled for completion between December 2024-May 2025.
Project 12 – Groundwater Numeric Water Quality Objectives in Indio Subbasin
This project was included in the 2017 Triennial Review as Item 2, "Establish Water Quality Objectives for
Ground Water Throughout the Coachella Valley." RWQCB staff is developing site-specific numeric water
quality objectives for total dissolved Solids (TDS) and other constituents in the Indio Subbasin. To help
establish appropriate water quality objectives, in 2021 RWQCB initiated a 3-year contract with United
States Geological Survey (USGS) to determine existing water quality. Establishment of numeric water
1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-5 TODD/W&C
quality objectives by RWQCB for TDS and other constituents could have a significant impact on definition
of minimum thresholds for the constituents in the Indio Subbasin.
8.1.2 Antidegradation Policy
The Antidegradation Policy (SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16) is a state water policy that requires regulation
of discharges to waters of the state to achieve the “highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit
to the people of the State.” Incorporated into all Basin Plans, the policy applies to high quality waters
(surface water as well as groundwater) and requires that the high quality be maintained unless the State
finds that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not
unreasonably affect beneficial uses, and will not result in water quality lower than applicable standards.
The Antidegradation Policy also requires the waste discharge requirements for any proposed discharge to
covered waters include the best practicable treatment or control (BPTC) of the discharge to assure that
no condition of pollution or nuisance will occur, and that the highest water quality will be maintained
consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State.
In November 2012, the California Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in the case “Asociacion
de Gente Unida Por El Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board” (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 1255 that interpreted the Antidegradation Policy. The Court held that the Antidegradation
Policy applies whenever there is “an existing high quality water” and “an activity which produces or may
produce waste …that will discharge into such high quality water.” The Court of Appeal determined that a
high quality water exists where the baseline water quality (defined to be the best water quality that has
existed since 1968) is better than the WQO. If the baseline water quality is equal to or is not meeting the
objectives, the water is not “high quality” and all discharges must be managed to meet the current
objectives. In that case, the Antidegradation Policy is not triggered. However, if the baseline water quality
is better than the WQOs, the baseline water quality must be maintained unless the maximum benefit to
the people of the State and related findings required by the Antidegradation Policy are made to permit
the discharge.
As described in Section 8.1.4, a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) meeting the requirements of
the Recycled Water Policy is required for certain designated basins in California. SNMPs must include an
antidegradation analysis demonstrating that the existing projects, reasonably foreseeable future projects,
and other sources of loading to the basin included within the plan will, cumulatively, satisfy the
requirements of the Antidegradation Policy. In 2015, a Coachella Valley SNMP was prepared and
submitted to the Regional Board. The Regional Board provided comments and recommendations on the
2015 SNMP, and as of 2020 a group of local stakeholders are developing a new SNMP, which will include
a full antidegradation analysis consistent with the Antidegradation Policy.
8.1.3 Recycled Water Policy
In the Plan Area, recycled water is a significant and reliable local resource used to help offset groundwater
pumping. Recycled water has been used for golf course irrigation in portions of the Plan Area since the
late 1960s. CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA) currently deliver recycled water from three water
reclamation plants (WRPs) for municipal and golf course irrigation use in the East and West Valley.
The SWRCB, recognizing the importance of recycled water as a water supply, administers the Recycled
Water Policy (adopted in 2009) to encourage the increased use of recycled water and to support water
supply diversity and sustainability. The Recycled Water Policy defines the roles of the SWRCB, RWQCBs,
and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) among other agencies. DWR responsibilities
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-6 TODD/W&C
relevant to Indio Subbasin management include reviewing urban water management plans, cooperating
with SWRCB to track recycled water use, implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), and cooperating with SWRCB to allocate and distribute bond funding.
By way of update, on December 11, 2018, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to the Recycled Water
Policy that includes the following goals (SWRCB, 2018) and supports water recycling in the Plan Area:
• Increase the use of recycled water State-wide from 714,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2015 to
1.5 million AFY by 2020 and to 2.5 million AFY by 2030.
• Reuse all-dry weather direct discharges of treated wastewater to enclosed bays, estuaries and
coastal lagoons, and ocean waters that can be viably put to a beneficial use.
• Maximize the use of recycled water in areas with groundwater overdraft, to the extent that
downstream water rights, instream flow requirements, and public trust resources are protected.
Annual reporting is required so that SWRCB can evaluate progress toward these goals and revise them as
needed. Specific requirements address monthly volumes of influent and wastewater production,
specifying level of treatment. Discharge data must specify where the discharge occurs, for example to
surface waters (specifying volume required to maintain minimum instream flow), natural systems
(wetlands, wildlife habitats, and duck clubs), injection wells and land disposal (e.g., evaporation or
percolation ponds). Water reuse must be reported in terms of monthly volume with annual reporting of
the distribution to beneficial uses including the following categories: agricultural irrigation, landscape
irrigation, golf course irrigation, commercial applications, industrial applications, geothermal energy
production, and other non-potable uses (e.g., dust control, flushing sewers, fire protection). Such
reporting also must address direct and indirect potable uses such as groundwater recharge, seawater
intrusion barriers, reservoir water augmentation, raw water augmentation, and other potable uses.
8.1.4 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
While encouraging the use of recycled water, the Recycled Water Policy states that salts and nutrients
from all sources must be managed on a basin-wide or watershed-wide basis to attain water quality
objectives and protect beneficial uses. This is typically through development of a SNMP. As described in
this section, the CV-SNMP currently is being planned by local agencies in collaboration with the Colorado
River RWQCB.
The original 2009 Recycled Water Policy required development of a SNMP by 2014 for each groundwater
basin or subbasin in California (later clarified as applicable to priority basins for the GAMA Priority Basin
Project). The 2018 Recycled Water Policy amendment includes a requirement that each RWQCB evaluate
each basin or subbasin in its region before April 8, 2021. The RWQCB is required to identify basins where
salts and/or nutrients are a threat to water quality and therefore need salt and nutrient management
planning to achieve water quality objectives in the long term. These RWQCB evaluations are to be updated
every 5 years.
The amended Recycled Water Policy continues to encourage collaborative development of a SNMP among
SNMP groups, regional boards, the agricultural community, IRWM groups, water and wastewater
agencies, stakeholders, and now, GSAs. It notes that some GSPs may sufficiently address salt and nutrient
management to be a functionally equivalent SNMP. The current policy presents the required components
of a SNMP, including a monitoring network and plan, water recycling use goals and objectives, salt and
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-7 TODD/W&C
nutrient source identification, implementation measures, and an antidegradation analysis to ensure
adherence to the Antidegradation Policy.
Recycled water is used in the Plan Area for non-potable applications including municipal and golf course
irrigation. The Recycled Water Policy specifies the levels of treatment for such use of recycled water, while
a subsequent general order (SWRCB Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW) provides for permitting, administration,
monitoring and reporting. In the Plan Area, three WRPs produce tertiary-treated recycled water
consistent with State policy.
The Recycled Water Policy also regulates indirect potable reuse (IPR) for groundwater recharge, which is
not currently practiced in the Indio Subbasin. IPR for groundwater recharge involves planned use of
recycled water for replenishment of a groundwater basin that is a source of water supply for a public
water system; the groundwater basin provides public health benefits, for example through dilution and
travel time. As described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, Indio Water Authority (IWA)
is a partner in East Valley Reclamation Authority (EVRA) and is currently evaluating the feasibility of an
IPR project to recharge up to 5,000 AFY of recycled water into the Indio Subbasin. While IPR is not currently
practiced in Indio Subbasin, it has been used for more than 40 years in other California basins as a reliable,
high quality, locally controlled supply and may represent a future option. Accordingly, it is warranted for
the GSAs to stay informed of regulatory requirements (including constituents of emerging concern [CECs])
and the experience of other recycling projects.
In 2015, CVWD, DWA, and IWA created an SNMP for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CVWD, et
al., 2015). Subsequently, the 2015 SNMP was evaluated by the Colorado River RWQCB. The RWQCB
provided comments and recommendations on the 2015 SNMP’s compliance with the updated Recycled
Water Policy (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020). In response, the CV-SNMP was restarted in 2020 by an
expanded SNMP agency group that includes all major water and wastewater agencies in Coachella Valley.
These include CVWD, CWA and Coachella Sanitary District, DWA, IWA, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water
Company, Valley Sanitary District, Mission Springs Water District, and City of Palm Springs, collectively the
SNMP Agencies. As of 2021, SNMP Agencies have submitted a Development Workplan that describes a
detailed scope of work for updating the CV-SNMP, including a new groundwater monitoring program to
support implementation of the SNMP. The Groundwater Monitoring Workplan was approved by the
RWQCB in February 2021. The SNMP Agencies have begun implementing the Groundwater Monitoring
Workplan and will report data and program implementation progress for the first year by April 1, 2022.
For the Indio Subbasin, a key issue is the importation of salts with Colorado River water. Importation of
Colorado River water for agricultural irrigation (substituting for groundwater pumping) and for
groundwater replenishment has been fundamental to reversing chronic groundwater level declines,
depletion of storage, subsidence, and seawater intrusion (see Chapter 9, Sustainable Management
Criteria). However, Colorado River water has higher average TDS concentrations that must be considered
and appropriately managed. As summarized in Section 8.1.5, the 2002 CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update
have identified and assessed various alternatives for managing salinity. Chapter 9, Sustainable
Management, addresses salinity in terms of sustainable management and the role of the CV-SNMP,
coordinated with this Alternative Plan Update, in analyzing the salt balance, identifying implementation
measures to manage salt loading, and developing an implementation plan to address salinity as well as
nutrients.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-8 TODD/W&C
8.1.5 Salinity Management
Identified in the 2002 CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update as an important issue, salinity management
remains a key issue with ramifications for recharge, water recycling, brine management, and agricultural
drainage.
8.1.5.1 Impacts of Colorado River Water Recharge
State Water Project (SWP) Exchange supply is provided through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which
delivers water from Lake Havasu (Parker Dam) for recharge at the Whitewater River Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF). Colorado River supply also is provided through the Coachella Canal,
a branch of the All-American Canal that brings Colorado River water from Imperial Dam. Water imported
via the Coachella Canal is used at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF) and
Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF) groundwater replenishment facilities. TDS
concentrations generally are lower for CRA supply (averaging about 590 milligrams per liter (mg/L) from
2010 through 2019), while Coachella Canal supply has averaged about 730 mg/L over the same period. At
this time, TDS levels in Colorado River water are meeting or exceeding applicable water quality
objectives.
As noted in the 2010 CVWMP Update,
Colorado River water used for direct
delivery and recharge in the Indio Subbasin
generally has higher TDS concentrations
that must be considered and appropriately
managed. Use of Colorado River water
involves salt loading to the Indio Subbasin
and local increases in TDS concentrations
(see Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions). CVWD and DWA
have investigated alternatives including
direct importation and recharge of lower
TDS SWP water at the WWR-GRF and MC-
GRF. However, direct importation would
require extensive pipeline construction for
conveyance from western Riverside County and would involve technical and environmental constraints,
significant costs, and limited benefits. Another alternative summarized in the 2010 CVWMP Update
involved pre-treatment of Colorado River supplies using reverse osmosis. While a proven technology,
drawbacks include permitting, environmental issues, and technical and financial feasibility in light of
available power and intermittent deliveries of Colorado River water.
Salinity management includes an ongoing, watershed management approach through the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program (Program). This is a cooperative watershed effort among several federal
agencies and seven states to meet national, international, and state water quality objectives. Federal,
state, and local agencies and private organizations participate to implement on-the-ground activities. To
guide activities and track performance, the Program has established numeric criteria for salinity, adopted
by the seven Basin states and approved by USEPA. These criteria are illustrated by the horizontal lines on
Figure 8-1, which is reproduced from the 2020 Review of Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado
Coachella Canal supplies agriculture irrigation demands
in the East Valley.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-10 TODD/W&C
8.1.5.2 Brine Discharge/ Management
The 2010 CVWMP Update identified brine discharge as a major issue that would be associated with
desalination of Colorado River water for municipal or agricultural uses, or replenishment. Desalination of
significant flows would result in production of large volumes of brine that would need to be disposed in a
cost-effective manner and in compliance with Basin Plan requirements. In discussing Salton Sea
restoration, the 2010 CVWMP Update acknowledged that diversion and desalination of drain flows also
would reduce inflow to the Salton Sea, with potential environmental impacts. CVWD subsequently piloted
desalination of shallow groundwater and not drain flows.
Desalination and brine discharge were also addressed in the 2012 Final Subsequent Program EIR (Final
SPEIR) for the 2010 CVWMP Update, which provided comparison of SWP importation and desalination
options. The Final SPEIR noted that permitting of discharge of brine to the Salton Sea via wetlands was
uncertain. It also generally considered desalination of recharge water as financially infeasible. Similarly,
the 2018 IRWM Plan addressed considerations including high costs for handling and disposing brine, large
land areas for evaporation ponds, and regulatory issues associated with brine disposal.
As summarized in existing documents, various alternatives have been explored for desalination. These
alternatives involve different sources of water for desalination (e.g., CRA, Coachella Canal, drain flows),
volumes of supply, methods of storage and conveyance, options for water treatment, and alternatives for
brine management and discharge. Continuing issues exist regarding technical feasibility of complex
projects, financial feasibility, permitting, and potential environmental impacts. Referring to Section
8.1.1.2, Triennial Review, RWQCB projects could result in water quality objectives that could disallow
brine discharge to the Salton Sea. Planning for Salton Sea restoration is ongoing (see Section 8.3), with
likely ramifications for brine discharge.
8.1.6 Agricultural Drainage Discharge Regulations
Water discharges from agricultural operations include irrigation runoff, flows from tile drains, and storm
water runoff. These discharges can affect water quality by transporting pollutants (for example,
pesticides, nutrients, salts, pathogens, and heavy metals) from cultivated fields into surface waters. The
quality of receiving surface water bodies and groundwater can be impaired. Groundwater quality is
monitored for numerous constituents (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions) and
is addressed as an element of sustainable management (see Chapter 9, Sustainable Management).
To control the effects of discharges from irrigated agricultural lands, the SWRCB’s 2004 Nonpoint Source
Implementation and Enforcement Policy (NPS Policy) requires all RWQCBs to regulate agricultural
discharges by issuing waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or conditional waivers of WDRs (Orders) to
growers. These Orders require water quality monitoring of receiving waters and corrective actions when
impairments are found. The Conditional Waiver of WDRs for agricultural discharges in the Coachella Valley
was adopted in 2014 (RWQCB, 2014).
Agricultural dischargers include entities who operate and maintain agricultural drains (e.g., CVWD) and
property owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers who discharge water, have potential to
discharge water, propose to discharge water, or could directly or indirectly affect water quality. The
Conditional Waiver does not provide coverage for discharges from crops for personal use, golf courses,
polo fields, discharges originating on tribal/reservation lands, or parcels less than five acres.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-11 TODD/W&C
To comply, the NPS Policy provides for agricultural
dischargers to act individually or collectively in coalition
groups. The Coachella Valley Irrigated Lands Coalition
(CVILC) was established in 2013 by CVWD and local
growers/operators to help irrigated agriculture meet the
requirements of the Colorado River Basin RWQCB’s
Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) in the Coachella
Valley. The CVILC is a membership-based coalition that
implements programs to help farmers and ranchers
reduce their impacts. Programs include best management
practices (BMPs), outreach and education (e.g.,
workshops, information fliers in CVWD billings), and
monitoring of water quality as required by the RWQCB.
To comply with the terms of the 2014 Conditional Waiver
and ensure attainment of water quality objectives, the
CVILC developed a Compliance Program in which
members complete an individual Water Quality
Management Plan (Farm Plan) and Drain Water Quality
Management Plan (Drain Plan) and implement
management practices, among other activities. The CVILC
also developed a Monitoring and Reporting Program and
a Quality Assurance Project Plan. On November 12, 2020, the Colorado River Basin RWQCB adopted Order
R7-2020-0026, which supersedes the 2014 Conditional Waiver. The 2020 Order (RWQCB, 2020a) includes
new provisions for the Farm Plan, Drinking Water Supply Well Monitoring, and Education Outreach
requirements, among others.
8.2 Groundwater Quality
The 2010 CVWMP Update identified issues including salinity, arsenic, perchlorate, hexavalent
chromium(chromium-6), uranium, and nitrate, which also are discussed in Chapter 4, Current and
Historical Groundwater Conditions. Carcinogens and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) were also
identified as issues in the 2010 CVWMP Update. However, these include a wide variety of chemicals and
in many cases, water quality standards have not been established by federal or state regulatory agencies.
Specific issues can be tracked by the GSAs as they emerge.
The GSAs continue to track evolving regulations of emerging contaminants; updates on regulations are
provided below for salinity, arsenic, perchlorate, (chromium-6), uranium, and nitrate. For each, the
current drinking water standard or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is stated. PFAS are a new emerging
issue which is also described below.
8.2.1 Salinity
Salinity is typically expressed in terms of TDS. There is no primary, health-based MCL for TDS; secondary
water quality standards are based on consumer acceptance of taste and odor. As indicated in the 2015
SNMP, the California Code of Regulations Title 22 states that there is no fixed consumer acceptance level
established for TDS, but there are three Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Level Ranges. Concentrations
lower than the Recommended contaminant level (500 mg/L) are desirable for a higher degree of
CVWD samples the drain flows to the
Salton Sea.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-12 TODD/W&C
consumer acceptance; constituent concentrations ranging to the Upper contaminant level (1,000 mg/L)
are acceptable if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable waters; and constituent
concentrations ranging to the Short-Term contaminant level (1,500 mg/L) are acceptable only for existing
community water systems on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or
development of acceptable new water sources.
The sources and factors affecting the occurrence of salinity are documented in Chapter 4, Current and
Historical Groundwater Conditions. Salinity management, the SNMP, and related issues are described in
Section 8.1.
8.2.2 Arsenic
Arsenic was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue. As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP
Update, the primary MCL for arsenic before 2001 was 50 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was
required to publish a revised standard for arsenic by January 2001. USEPA published a final MCL for arsenic
of 10 μg/L in 2001, which became enforceable in 2006. California adopted the federal MCL effective
November 28, 2008.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, arsenic occurs naturally in
groundwater and most of the Indio Subbasin is characterized by arsenic concentrations below the MCL.
However, arsenic is commonly found in groundwater in the southern Subbasin at levels higher than
current state and federal drinking water standards. As reported in the 2010 CVWMP Update, Riverside
County environmental health officials identified private wells at 19 small community water systems with
high levels of arsenic. In response, treatment filters had been installed at about half the systems. All four
GSAs provide drinking water supplies that meet all state and federal health standards as documented in
their annual water quality consumer confidence reports (available on their respective websites).
CVWD currently operates three water quality treatment facilities in the East Valley to remove naturally
occurring arsenic from drinking water before it is delivered to customers. In addition, CVWD is addressing
safe drinking water needs through the DAC Infrastructure Task Force. CVWD, in collaboration with the
Task Force, completed the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project (ECVWSP), which identified and
mapped small, private water systems; developed a prioritization process that considered criteria such as
proximity to existing pipelines, cost, number of people affected and water quality; and conducted
preliminary engineering for the top two highest ranked projects. CVWD also has responded to short-term
water quality needs. For example, in 2019, CVWD collaborated with Riverside County to provide
temporary supplemental water as a safe drinking water supply for Oasis Mobile Home Park in Torres
Martinez tribal/reservation lands, which had been found to be out of compliance a few months earlier.
CVWD and the Task Force are seeking grant funds to permanently connect the water system to CVWD
(CVWD, May 29, 2020). Lastly, CVWD has responded by providing private well owners with a free water
quality test for arsenic and with access to information on point-of-use treatment systems.
8.2.3 Perchlorate
Perchlorate was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue because of historical
detections in Colorado River supply that originated from two manufacturing facilities and have since been
cleaned up to below detection limits (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions).
Perchlorate is hazardous to human health, difficult to remove from water, and resistant to degradation in
groundwater. The MCL has been set at 6 μg/L by the State of California, and all four GSAs provide drinking
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-13 TODD/W&C
water supplies that meet or exceed the state and federal standards. In 2015, the State’s Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published an updated public health goal (PHG) of 1
part per billion (ppb; equivalent to μg/L) for perchlorate in drinking water (OEHHA, 2015). A public health
goal is not an enforceable regulatory standard; however, it is intended to provide scientific guidance to
the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) in reviewing the existing state drinking water standard. State
law requires that each regulatory drinking water standard must be set as close to the corresponding PHG
as is economically and technologically feasible. Accordingly, the SWRCB will use the PHG to inform its
review of the current enforceable regulatory standard for the chemical. In addition, SWRCB has
recommended revision of the detection limit for purposes of reporting (DLR) for perchlorate (SWRCB,
October 2020). Even though perchlorate detections in Subbasin groundwater are less than 2 mg/L and
highly localized (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions), the GSAs continue to
monitor perchlorate and to track the review of the perchlorate PHG.
8.2.4 Chromium-6
Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue.
Chromium occurs as trivalent chromium and as chromium-6; while trivalent chromium is non-toxic,
chromium-6 has been linked to health effects. Chromium-6 has a complex regulatory history. In 2011, the
OEHHA published a PHG of 0.02 ppb (or μg/L) for chromium-6 in drinking water. Subsequently in 2014,
the State adopted the country’s first chromium-6 drinking water standard or MCL. That MCL of 10 ppb
was then rescinded in 2017 due to a ruling that the state “had failed to consider the economic feasibility
of complying with the MCL.” Chromium-6 levels are controlled in California drinking water by existing
regulations that include an MCL of 50 ppb for total chromium, which is twice as stringent as the national
MCL for total chromium of 100 ppb established by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
However, the PHG has not been changed and the SWRCB is working on establishing a new chromium-6
MCL for drinking water. This process could take several years.
Anticipating a potential MCL revision that could affect their groundwater supply, CWA and IWA sponsored
a joint study that identified a recommended treatment technology (City of Coachella, 2016). IWA installed
chromium-6 removal systems at three wells. CVWD also investigated methods of treating chromium-6 to
meet potentially stringent drinking water standards and conducted a successful pilot project to treat
water. In addition, local GSAs are tracking and engaging in the regulatory public process. CVWD has
provided input to SWRCB, for example, during the SWRCB workshop on the chromium-6 MCL Estimate of
Costs (CVWD, 2020).
8.2.5 Uranium
Uranium has a MCL of 20 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), or about 30 μg/L. It was identified in the 2010 CVWMP
Update as an emerging issue, reflecting insufficient information at the time regarding potential sources
to the Indio Subbasin. However, data now available indicate local geologic sources including bedrock
formations to the west and east of the northern Subbasin (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions). DWA has identified high concentrations of uranium as a potential constraint on
groundwater supply (DWA, 2016). DWA has sustained the good quality of its delivered water by
intermittently ceasing the operation of wells affected by high uranium concentrations. The GSAs monitor
for uranium in both groundwater and Colorado River sources used for recharge; all four GSAs provide
drinking water supplies that meet the state and federal standards.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-14 TODD/W&C
8.2.6 Nitrate
Nitrate has a MCL of 45 mg/L, measured as nitrate. This is equivalent to 10 mg/L measured as nitrogen. It
was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update as a nitrogen compound that is both a nutrient for plants and
a human health issue. The sources and occurrence of nitrate are documented in Chapter 4, Current and
Historical Groundwater Conditions, while nitrate occurrences in small water systems are summarized in
Section 8.4, Small Water Systems, along with CVWD’s ECVWSP, which addresses the issue. Drinking water
supplied by the GSAs meets drinking water standards, as documented in their annual water quality
consumer confidence reports (available on their respective websites). As a nutrient, nitrate will be
addressed in the SNMP update now underway (see Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues).
8.2.7 PFAS
Emerging contaminants are chemicals that have not been previously monitored or detected but pose a
risk to human health (USEPA 2019). PFAS are a group of emerging contaminants that may pose a danger
to reproductive, developmental, immunological, and renal health in humans. Perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are the two most common forms of PFAS. Currently, California
has a drinking water response level of 10 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS, based on a
running four-quarter average. The EPA Lifetime Health Advisory recommendation is that combined PFOS
and PFOA should not be greater than 70 ppt. PFAS have been used in products including firefighting foams,
nonstick cookware, and stain- and water-repellent fabrics for many decades. PFAS contamination of
groundwater often occurs near firefighting training facilities, wastewater discharge facilities, or landfills.
The SWRCB has undertaken PFAS monitoring throughout the state, measuring PFAS concentrations in
groundwater and identifying point sources of PFAS contamination (SWRCB, 2020). An order by the SWRCB
in April 2019 required all water systems near landfills or airports to monitor and report PFAS
concentrations for four consecutive quarters. In the Indio Subbasin, selected wells are monitored
quarterly for PFAS, including wells near Palm Springs and Cathedral City, and west of Desert Shores. One
monitoring well at a landfill site in Cathedral City measured 14 ppt PFOA, but a nearby monitoring well
did not detect any PFOA (GAMA GeoTracker). No other concentrations have exceeded the California
Response Levels or EPA Lifetime Health Advisory.
Due to the emerging nature of PFAS, federal and state guidelines are subject to change. The US EPA may
set PFAS standards for drinking water and wastewater discharge. As additional data about the health
effects of PFAS become available, the SWRCB DDW may establish notification levels for additional PFAS
chemicals. Water systems in Indio Subbasin will continue to comply with monitoring and reporting
requirements.
8.3 Salton Sea Restoration
The Salton Sea, a saline lake at the eastern end of Coachella Valley, is located along the Pacific Flyway
migratory bird route and serves as important habitat for over 400 bird species including endangered and
threatened species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020). Once known for its sport fishery and recreational
uses, the Salton Sea has shrunk in size and deteriorated in water quality, leading to loss of the fishery and
in recent years, mass die-offs of birds and fish, raising concerns about these beneficial uses.
The primary source of inflow for the Salton Sea is agricultural drainage from the Imperial and Coachella
valleys plus inflow from the New River, Alamo River, and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. The Salton
Sea does not have a natural outlet, so evaporation is the sole outflow, and any influent salts are
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-15 TODD/W&C
concentrated. Moreover, the sea has reduced in volume, leading to more concentration. Consequently,
salinity levels have increased over the past several decades. Salinity levels reported in 2020 were greater
than 69,000 mg/L, two times greater than the salinity of ocean water (California Natural Resources
Agency, 2020). High concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds in the Salton Sea can also
lead to eutrophication. With its current trajectory, the Salton Sea could become hypersaline with
elimination of fish that serve as an important food source for migratory birds (Salton Sea Authority, 2016).
Decreased inflows over the past several decades have caused the Salton Sea’s surface elevation and area
to decline, which has exposed more of the playa lakebed. The increasingly exposed playa generates dust
that degrades air quality.
Indio Subbasin groundwater is connected to the Salton Sea, with potential for groundwater outflow to
the sea and seawater inflow from the sea. The latter represents seawater intrusion, a significant source
of potential groundwater quality degradation. The occurrence of outflows/inflows depends on respective
groundwater and Salton Sea elevations, which can change through time and vary with location. Salton Sea
levels and quality are tracked by USGS, while local groundwater levels and salinity also are monitored
regularly (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions). The potential for seawater
intrusion into Subbasin aquifers has diminished as Subbasin groundwater levels have increased and as the
Salton Sea levels have declined and the sea has retreated. As discussed in Chapter 7, Numerical Model
and Plan Scenarios, on simulated Salton Sea flows, numerical modeling indicates that groundwater
outflow to the sea has exceeded inflow from the sea since 2015. Seawater intrusion is also discussed in
Chapter 9, Sustainable Management, in terms of sustainable management as part of this Alternative Plan
Update.
Due to its ecological importance and changing condition, legislation has been passed on the State and
Federal level to support Salton Sea restoration and in-depth studies have been conducted about the Sea.
A recent State initiative is the Salton Sea Task Force, created in 2015, which directs state agencies to create
a management plan for ecological restoration (California Natural Resources Agency, 2020). In 2016, a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
California Natural Resources Agency to affirm that the State will take the lead role in Salton Sea
management and facilitate coordination for the Salton Sea Management Plan (SSMP). The State’s SSMP
team (including the California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and DWR)
developed a 10-Year Plan identifying a sequence of dust control and fish and wildlife habitat projects
around the Salton Sea.
The Salton Sea Authority (founded in 1993 as a Joint Powers Authority) has been working with the State
of California to oversee ecological restoration. CVWD is a stakeholder, along with Riverside and Imperial
counties, IID, and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. In 2016, the Authority released a Funding and
Financial Feasibility Action Plan which sets the foundation for the SSMP. This plan included evaluation of
previously proposed restoration alternatives for the Sea, water import alternatives, and alternatives that
account for water supply limitations (including the Perimeter Lake concept of establishing a lake around
a saline central lake within the current Salton Sea footprint). A North Lake Demonstration Project,
involving a 160-acre lake near the community of North Shore, was initiated with DWR grant funding in
April 2021 with construction to start in 2022.
As of spring 2021, the SSMP has released an updated draft 10-Year Plan, initiated environmental planning
for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and launched long-term planning with public
engagement and an independent review of options for long-term restoration, including water
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-16 TODD/W&C
importation. This long-range plan will also include a Watershed Management Plan component. A
watershed management plan will have ramifications for Indio Subbasin water management, including
plans for increased water recycling, desalination, and water conservation that could decrease flows into
the Salton Sea from drains or the groundwater basin.
8.4 Small Water Systems
On February 16, 2016, the SWRCB recognized the human right to water as a core value under Resolution
No. 2016-0010, stating that “every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible
water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” Small water systems (SWSs),
often serving disadvantaged communities (DACs), may face challenges in providing safe, accessible, and
affordable water because they may not have adequate resources to support maintenance, operation, and
treatment costs.
SWSs serving DACs are primarily located in rural portions of the East Valley. These SWSs are independent
from GSA water systems and depend on local private wells for drinking water supply. In 2017, CVWD
estimated that about 10,000 Coachella Valley residents relied on private wells for drinking water (Rumer,
Desert Sun, 2017). A recent assessment conducted for this Update used the GAMA data viewer and DDW
system information to identify 101 small water systems with 2,772 connections (see also Chapter 2, Plan
Area). Most of these SWSs are located within the CVWD service area. Systems marked as inactive were
excluded. These water systems include both transient (e.g., campgrounds) and non-transient (e.g.,
schools, office buildings) non-community systems as well as community water systems, many of which in
the Plan Area are mobile home parks. Most of the small systems have only one active well. To ensure safe
groundwater quality and a reliable supply to these SWSs in its jurisdiction, CVWD initiated a program to
connect them to CVWD’s system on a priority basis.
8.4.1 Groundwater Supply Issues
Groundwater supply to small water systems in Indio Subbasin may face supply challenges related to
system reliability, aging infrastructure, lack of funding and expertise for maintenance and operation, and
population growth. Water systems with only one or two wells are more vulnerable to a water outage than
a larger system. However, groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin show recovery of historical
groundwater lows, so it is unlikely that wells will be vulnerable to going dry from lowering water levels.
Additionally, most small water system wells with known depths are 400 feet or deeper.
8.4.2 Groundwater Quality Issues
SWSs often do not have the infrastructure to remove contaminants from groundwater. Elevated
concentrations of several contaminants have been identified in SWSs. While some SWSs have not
reported groundwater quality test results for trace contaminants to DDW in the past 10 years, a total of
76 out of the 101 identified systems reported at least one water quality measurement since 2010.
Many SWSs are vulnerable to naturally-occurring contaminants like arsenic, fluoride, and chromium-6
(see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, for information on groundwater quality in
Indio Subbasin). For arsenic and chromium-6, chronic exposure to trace concentrations is harmful to
human health, and water treatment to remove trace contaminant concentrations is not possible for most
small water systems. In brief, 59 wells from 48 SWSs have reported arsenic concentrations since 2010. Of
these, 12 systems reported at least one well with a maximum arsenic concentration greater than the 10
μg/L MCL, and at least 50 percent of arsenic measurements from 2010-2020 had concentrations higher
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-17 TODD/W&C
than the MCL for wells in 11 water systems. For fluoride, a total of 65 wells from 54 SWSs reported fluoride
data since 2010, and wells from 13 SWSs have reported fluoride concentrations greater than the 2 mg/L
MCL. At least 50 percent of measurements had fluoride levels exceeding 2 mg/L in wells from 9 water
systems. Chromium-6 was measured in 30 wells from 25 water systems. Chromium-6 concentrations were
>10 μg/L in 10 wells from 9 water systems, but the maximum result recorded in SWSs was 21 μg/L.
High nitrate and TDS concentrations are more prevalent in raw water from SWSs than in untreated
groundwater from larger water systems because the wells are more likely to be shallow. Two SWSs
measured TDS concentrations between 500 and 1,000 mg/L. No SWSs recorded TDS concentrations
greater than 1,000 mg/L.
Nitrate (as N 2) was measured in 85 wells from 72 SWSs. Nitrate concentrations were higher than the 45
mg/L MCL in 5 wells from 5 SWSs. The maximum nitrate concentration measured since 2010 was 97.46
mg/L nitrate as nitrate (reported as 22 mg/L nitrate as N).
8.4.3 Small Water System Consolidations
In response to these water supply issues, the GSAs with multiple small water systems within their
respective jurisdictions have completed and continue to work on consolidating communities that
currently are not connected to a municipal water system and do not have a reliable water supply source.
CVWD initiated the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project
(ECVWSP) (CVWD, 2018) that assessed the cost and feasibility
of connecting 83 small water systems in DACs. The connections
were grouped into 43 projects. The timing of connection largely
depends on funding availability, with priority given to projects
based on cost, permit status, critical need, and the number of
systems that can be consolidated through a single project.
CVWD’s small water system consolidation and infrastructure is
overseen by CVWD’s DAC Infrastructure Task Force.
Other consolidations include CWA’s Shady Lane Water
Connection Project to connect the severely disadvantaged
mobile home community to the CWA municipal water system.
In addition, IWA is consolidating two small mutual water
systems in the City of Indio that serve DACs (Boe Bel Heights
Mutual Water Association and the Waller Tract Mutual Water
Association)
2 The MCL is 10 mg/L for nitrate when measured as nitrogen. All nitrate as nitrogen concentrations were
converted to nitrate as nitrate for this groundwater quality assessment.
The East Coachella Valley Water
Supply Project prioritized small
water system consolidations in the
East Valley.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-18 TODD/W&C
8.5 Climate Change
Climate change has the potential to affect the availability of imported water supply from the Colorado
River and SWP and to affect local water supply and water demand in the Plan Area. Since the 2010 CVWMP
Update, substantial climate modeling has yielded quantitative projections of climate change (including
temperature increases and changes in precipitation on a regional scale) that are useful to water managers.
The State of California has directed considerable effort toward assessing climate change and incorporating
it into planning processes such as the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Integrated Regional Water
Management IRWM Plan, and SGMA planning processes.
Since 2010, Indio Subbasin water agencies have included climate change in their respective UWMPs. In
addition, the 2018 Coachella Valley IRWM & Stormwater Resource Plan Update (CVRWMG, 2018) includes
extensive discussion of the climate change legislative and policy context, effect of climate change on water
supply and demand, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. While the focus of this section is
climate change impacts on water supply and demand, it is also recognized that climate change will affect
related issues such as stormwater and flood risk, surface water quality, and water-related environments.
As part of this Alternative Plan Update, water supply reliability of Colorado River and SWP Exchange water
(including climate change effects) is discussed in Chapter 6, Water Supply, and a numerical modeling
scenario addressing climate change is described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
The following sections provide brief updates on climate change effects relative to the Colorado River,
SWP, and local water supply and demand. Recycled water supply is highly reliable and less affected by
climate change.
8.5.1 Colorado River Basin
The 2010 CVWMP Update summarized DWR and USBR studies available at the time, which provided
mostly qualitative discussions of climate change impacts, including: a decrease in annual flow and
increased variability (e.g., more frequent and more severe droughts), an increase in evaporative losses
and reduced runoff, and earlier snowmelt and a greater proportion of runoff due to rainfall. Given the
substantial reservoir storage in the Colorado River Basin relative to annual runoff, a change in the timing
of annual runoff was not considered a significant effect. The 2010 CVWMP Update noted that the Plan
Area is protected by California’s first priority to Colorado River supply in the lower basin and CVWD’s high
priority among California users of Colorado River supply. Consequently, no reduction in CVWD’s Colorado
River supplies was projected at the time.
In 2012, USBR released the 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study; USBR
2012). The Basin Study evaluated Colorado River Basin water supply and demand projections (with specific
attention to projected climate change through 2060) and evaluated strategies to meet the supply and
demand gap. The Basin Study indicated that climate change will reduce system runoff from the Colorado
River primarily because of warming and loss of snowpack. Over the next 50 years, Upper Colorado River
streamflow is projected to decrease by approximately 9 percent, along with a projected increase in both
drought frequency and duration as compared to the observed historical record. Droughts lasting 5 or more
years are projected to occur 50 percent of the time over the next 50 years.
In 2019, in response to historical drought and low storage levels in Lakes Powell and Mead, federal
legislators passed the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act, which implements two
Drought Contingency Plans, one each for the upper and lower basins (also see Chapter 6, Water Supply).
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-19 TODD/W&C
The Upper Basin DCP involves management of upper basin reservoirs, water demand management, and
weather modification to augment precipitation. The Lower Basin DCP sets rules for scaling back water use
based on Lake Mead storage conditions. Each of the lower basin states (and California contractors
including CVWD) made storage commitments to keep Lake Mead above critically low levels.
Since the Basin Study, USBR has not updated their long-term projections for future conditions of the
Colorado River system under climate change. This is due in part to the fact that the Interim Guidelines and
Lower Basin DCP only extend through 2026. However, USBR has released interim guidelines for lower
basin shortages, which have been conservatively used in this Alternative Plan Update’s scenario of
anticipated reductions in Colorado River supplies due to climate change.
8.5.2 State Water Project
The 2010 CVWMP Update summarized DWR analyses based on various global climate models that
predicted a warming trend for California, a reduction in exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
a decrease in reservoir carryover storage, and a change in the timing of Sierra Nevada runoff due to
snowpack changes. All of these were considered to reduce SWP reliability.
The 2018 IRWM & Storm Water Resources Plan Update (IRWM Plan) presents extensive discussion of the
effect of climate change on SWP water supplies, noting the water delivered to State water contractors
will depend on the amount of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water storage, pumping capacity from the Delta,
and water demand. Temperature increases are expected to modify rainfall and runoff, which may in turn
affect SWP operations. As indicated in the IRWM Plan, changes in the regional and seasonal distribution
of precipitation and effects on Sierran snowpack are most problematic; increased temperatures may
reduce the snowpack at a faster rate, thereby releasing snowmelt water earlier and faster than anticipated
and thereby reducing capabilities to capture and store runoff. Water demands in and near the water
source could increase, diminishing water availability and reliability to SWP contractors downstream. The
reliability of SWP water supply is expected to be reduced for the range of future climate projections
studied.
Notably for SGMA planning, in July 2018 DWR published its Guidance Document, Guidance for Climate
Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development (DWR, 2018). This document
provides GSAs with information regarding DWR climate change datasets and related tools as technical
assistance to develop projected water budgets. DWR provides four projected climate conditions and
desktop tools that can be used by GSAs to process the climate change datasets for their water budget
studies or to incorporate into a groundwater/surface water model.
As described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, climate change effects on SWP supply
have been evaluated accounting for the recent history of SWP allocations (including drought periods).
Climate change (including effects not only on SWP but also Colorado River supplies) is addressed in four
projected scenarios for numerical modeling with comparison to a baseline scenario.
8.5.3 Plan Area Supplies and Demands
Projected water demands are described in detail in Chapter 5, Demand Projections, while Chapter 6,
Water Supply, describes available and future water supplies including climate change. DWR’s 2018
Guidance Document (DWR, 2018) provides some summary information on projected climate changes for
the Colorado River hydrologic region in California (including Indio Subbasin). Average temperature
increases are 2.6 and 5.7 degrees Fahrenheit for 2030 and 2070, respectively, and average precipitation
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-20 TODD/W&C
changes are decreases of 1.3 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, for 2030 and 2070 (DWR, 2018, Figures
A-13 and A-14).
Increased temperatures in the Plan Area would increase water demands for crop and landscape irrigation,
municipal water use, and evaporative losses from canals and open reservoirs. Increasing temperatures
could also change the distribution and form of precipitation from snow at higher elevations to rain,
shifting the timing of runoff earlier in the year. Decreased precipitation would result in decreased runoff
and availability of local surface water for diversion. In addition, climate change may result in greater
seasonal and annual variability of local precipitation, including higher peak stormwater events that strain
the capacity of diversion and recharge facilities. As described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan
Scenarios, potential climate change effects on local surface water hydrology have been assessed using
local, recent hydrologic and drought data the numerical groundwater flow model.
Climate change could also lead to shifts in population, industry, and agriculture, which would in turn affect
water demands.
8.6 State Water Conservation
In 2009, the State Legislature enacted Senate Bill X7-7 (SBX7-7), the Water Conservation Act of 2009,
which requires water suppliers to increase their water use efficiency. The legislation amended the water
code and laid out actions to be conducted by DWR to implement the law, including collaboration with
urban and agricultural stakeholders, development of methodologies for measuring and reporting water
uses, development of urban water conservation targets, preparation of guidebooks, and development of
grant and loan funding criteria as incentives for water conservation. The purpose of the law has been to
encourage both urban and agricultural water providers to implement conservation strategies, monitor
water usage, and report data to DWR. Implementation of water conservation by urban water suppliers
has been reported primarily through UWMPs and by agricultural water suppliers through Agricultural
Water Management Plans (AWMPs).
In passing this law—which was identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update for close tracking—California was
the first state to adopt urban water use efficiency targets, namely a 20 percent reduction in urban per
capita water use by 2020. All four GSAs submitted UWMPs in 2010 and 2015 in compliance with the Urban
Water Management Planning Act. For the 2020 UWMP, six water suppliers (CVWD, Coachella Water
Authority, DWA, IWA, Mission Springs Water District, and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company)
collaborated to prepare a Regional UWMP (Water Systems Consulting, 2021). As documented in the
Regional UWMP, all six suppliers achieved and in fact exceeded the per capita water use reduction of 20
percent by 2020.
With regard to AWMPs, CVWD has an agricultural conservation program in the 2010 CVWMP Update.
CVWD has a long history of agricultural water conservation programs. As a signatory to the QSA, CVWD is
currently exempt from the portion of SBx7-7 that requires agricultural water suppliers to develop an
agricultural water management plan and implement efficient water management practices. Under the
QSA, CVWD implemented an Extra-ordinary Conservation Program including scientific irrigation
scheduling, salinity management, salinity field mapping, conversion of irrigation systems to micro-
irrigation, distribution uniformity evaluations, grower training and meetings and engineering evaluations.
Subsequently in 2018, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606, which
together lay out a new long-term water conservation framework that affects both urban and agricultural
water providers. Four primary goals for the framework are to:
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-21 TODD/W&C
• Use water more wisely,
• Eliminate water waste,
• Strengthen local drought resilience, and
• Improve agricultural water use efficiency and drought planning.
DWR and SWRCB developed a “Primer” or handbook that summarizes the 2018 Water Conservation
Legislation. Entitled Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life – Primer of 2018 Legislation on
Water Conservation and Drought Planning, Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668
(Friedman), the Primer outlines the key authorities, requirements, timeline, roles, and responsibilities of
State agencies, water suppliers, and other entities during implementation of actions described in the 2018
legislation. To plan, develop and implement the new framework, DWR and the SWRCB are working in
collaboration with stakeholders to develop new standards for:
• Indoor residential water use,
• Outdoor residential water use,
• Commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water uses for landscape irrigation with dedicated
meters, and
• Water loss.
CVWD and DWA have been actively engaged in the stakeholder workgroups helping to develop the
methodologies and procedures for the regulations. Specifically, CVWD has been a participant in two
variance studies addressing indoor use and seasonal residential population and DWA has been a pilot
agency for Landscape Aerial Measurements.
With the new law, urban water suppliers will be required to stay within annual water budgets for their
service areas, based on these standards. In addition, water suppliers will need to report on
implementation of new performance measures for CII water use. The legislation also made important
changes to existing urban and agricultural water management planning, with enhanced drought
preparedness and water shortage contingency planning for urban water suppliers, small water systems
and rural communities.
Urban water conservation is being enhanced by local agencies to provide water supplies efficiently and to
prepare for water shortages, including drought. While providing these important benefits, it also is
recognized that water conservation has broader water management implications including reduction of
wastewater flows, decreased availability of recycled water, and potential increases in wastewater salinity.
8.7 Subsidence
Land subsidence is documented in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions. Subsidence
was discussed in the 2010 CVWMP Update as an emerging issue, having been recognized in the 1990s as
occurring with increased pumping in the East Valley since the 1970s. In 1996, the USGS in cooperation
with CVWD established a geodetic network of ground surface monuments to monitor elevation changes.
Results of the monitoring program published in 2007 (Sneed and Brandt, 2007) documented the
occurrence of subsidence—and some uplift—and indicated causes as including tectonic activity and
groundwater pumping and associated groundwater level declines.
CVWD and USGS have continued the monitoring and analysis program. As documented in a 2020 USGS
Scientific Investigations Report (Sneed, et al., 2020) and summarized in Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions, as much as 2 feet of subsidence occurred in the Indio Subbasin from 1995 to
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 8-22 TODD/W&C
2010. Since 2010, groundwater levels have stabilized or partially recovered in response to the
implementation of source substitution, conservation, and groundwater replenishment programs included
in the 2010 CVWMP Update. Elsewhere, up to 1 inch of uplift has been measured since 2011 in the Palm
Springs area, corresponding to higher groundwater levels in response to upgradient WWR-GRF recharge.
In the Thermal area, the ground surface has also rebounded about 2 inches over the past 10 years,
returning to elevations observed in 2001. Land subsidence stopped in many areas and even rebounded.
Sustainable management criteria for subsidence are discussed in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management,
continued monitoring of groundwater levels and subsidence is discussed in Chapter 10, Monitoring
Program, and relevant projects and management actions are presented in Chapter 11, Projects and
Management Actions.
8.8 Other Issues
8.8.1 Invasive Species
The 2010 CVWMP Update identified an invasive species,
Quagga Mussels, which have been found in the Colorado
River System and pose a threat of infestation to canal and
channel facilities. CVWD has successfully prevented
infestation through chlorination and maintenance of
turbulence in its conveyance system. Monitoring
continues to detect and address any problems.
8.8.2 Seismic Response
Seismic response was included in the 2010 CVWMP
Update, which summarized the probability of a magnitude
6.7 or greater earthquake in California as greater than 99
percent, as presented in a 2008 USGS study (USGS Fact
Sheet 2008-3027). With the occurrence of earthquakes
since 2008, USGS has continued refinement of its
earthquake forecast model for California. As summarized
in its USGS Fact Sheet 2015-3009, the near-certainty of a
large event has not changed. However, the likelihood of
moderate-sized earthquakes (magnitude 6.5 to 7.5) is
lower, whereas that of larger events is higher because of
the inclusion of multi-fault ruptures.
The 2010 CVWMP Update summarized the CVWD Emergency Response Plan and the disaster/emergency
preparedness plans of DWA, City of Coachella, and City of Indio. The federal America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018 requires that community (drinking) water systems serving more than 3,300
people develop or update risk assessments and Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) with regular 5-year
updates and recertifications.
Recognizing the consequences for water systems, DWR is conducting seismic upgrade projects on its own
facilities and has strengthened requirements for local water agencies. For example, upcoming 2020
UWMPs are required to identify potential catastrophic water shortages and appropriate response actions.
New 2020 requirements include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan for water system facilities.
CVWD monitors for Quagga Mussels in
the Coachella Canal and Lake Cahuilla.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 9: SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, in 2016 the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) submitted an Alternative Plan to DWR (approved in July 2019) that presented the ongoing
management of the Indio Subbasin. The Alternative Plan included discussion of goals and objectives,
groundwater conditions, emerging issues, water supply and demand, and projects and management
actions, among other topics. The Alternative Plan has continued to guide water management in the Indio
Subbasin as demonstrated in the annual reports and in this Alternative Plan Update.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved the Alternative Plan as functionally
equivalent to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and provided recommendations to the GSAs in its
Alternative Assessment Staff Report (DWR, 2019). This chapter discusses sustainability consistent with
the groundwater management objectives of the GSAs and—recognizing the benefits of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) approach in defining terms, establishing procedures, and setting
objective metrics for sustainability—is responsive to the specific DWR recommendations that address
sustainability and DWR’s ongoing evaluation.
9.1 Sustainability Indicators and Criteria
SGMA provides a consistent, state-wide definition of sustainable management as the use and
management of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without causing undesirable results,
which are defined as significant and unreasonable effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring
throughout a basin:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of
supply
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage
• Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant
plumes that impair water supplies
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse
impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water
The above indicators provide a framework for addressing the multi-faceted and complex nature of
sustainability. SGMA also provides the following criteria for quantitative measures that support
demonstration of sustainability:
• Minimum Threshold (MT 1) – numeric value used to define undesirable results for each
sustainability indicator
• Measurable Objective (MO) – specific, quantifiable goal to track the performance of sustainable
management
1 The abbreviations for Minimum Threshold (MT) and Measurable Objective (MO) are provided because these terms
are used often; however, the full unabbreviated term is used when helpful for clarity or when included in a
quotation.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-2 TODD/W&C
• Interim Milestone – target value representing measurable groundwater conditions, in increments
of 5 years
While providing consistent definitions and criteria, SGMA allows multiple pathways to meet the local
needs of each basin. These include not only development of each of these sustainable management
criteria, but also use of the groundwater level sustainability indicator as a proxy, identification of
additional indicators as decided by local GSAs for a basin, and identification of indicators that are not
applicable to the basin. Moreover, it is understood that continued data collection and an improved
understanding of basin conditions in the future may lead to changes in the sustainable management
criteria through adaptive management.
Sustainability is discussed here with reference to the sustainability goal and objectives that have been
defined for water resources management of the Coachella Valley overall and for the Indio Subbasin
specifically. Sustainability indicators are presented in the context of management through the Alternative
Plan—which is the approved functional equivalent of a GSP—and the Recommended Actions provided by
DWR in its Alternative Assessment Staff Report (Staff Report) (DWR, 2019) (see Chapter 1, Introduction).
9.2 Sustainability Goal and Approach
The 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2002 CVWMP) (Coachella Valley Water District
[CVWD], 2002) and the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (2010 CVWMP Update)
(CVWD, 2012) developed an overarching goal for the Valley “to reliably meet current and future water
demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.” This Alternative Plan Update continues to be guided
by this overall goal, which extends beyond groundwater sustainability to include all available water
supplies for Indio Subbasin and water demand management as integral to an overall balance of water
supply and demand.
The 2010 CVWMP Update also identified six objectives, which continue to guide this Alternative Plan. In
addition, a seventh objective has been developed to address climate change and drought. The updated
objectives are as follows:
• Meet current and future municipal water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer
• Avoid chronic groundwater overdraft
• Manage and protect water quality
• Collaborate with tribes, state and federal agencies on shared objectives
• Manage future costs
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts
• Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts
These goals and objectives extend beyond groundwater resources and thus, for this Alternative Plan
Update, a sustainability goal was developed specifically for groundwater sustainability. It is nested under
the broader plan goals. The sustainability goal included here supports, rather than supersedes, the plan
goals, and provides a qualitative description of the objectives and desired conditions of the Indio Subbasin:
To maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for existing
and future beneficial uses in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid the occurrence of
undesirable results.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-3 TODD/W&C
The sustainability goal has been defined in light of information developed in this Alternative Plan Update.
This information includes the basin setting (Plan Area, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater
Conditions, and Water Budget), discussion of sustainability indicators in this chapter, and the description
of planned projects and management actions to ensure that the sustainability goal is achieved and
maintained (see Chapter 10, Monitoring Program; Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions; and
Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation).
This Alternative Plan Update incorporates a comprehensive approach to local groundwater management.
While acknowledged as functionally equivalent to a GSP, it also utilizes sustainability indicators and
criteria as needed. This Alternative Plan is also responsive to the DWR Staff Report Recommended Actions,
which are recognized as supporting DWR in its evaluation of Alternative Plan implementation. As indicated
in Chapter 1, Introduction, the DWR Alternative Assessment Staff Report provided Recommended Actions
1 through 7, which are reproduced below and addressed in this chapter (and elsewhere in the Update as
appropriate). The DWR Staff Recommended Actions included:
• Recommended Action 1. Staff recommend that the Agencies [GSAs] incorporate the information
and management activities in the Garnet Hill area from the Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water
Management Plan (Garnet Hill WMP, 2013) into the Alternative for the Indio Subbasin.
• Recommended Action 2. Staff recommend that the Agencies describe whether the 2005
groundwater levels can be used as a threshold for land subsidence in the East Valley and the Indio
Subbasin generally; determine whether those groundwater levels could also be used as a
threshold for other sustainability indicators, such as declining groundwater levels and
groundwater storage. If it is determined that the 2005 groundwater levels are not appropriate
thresholds or a proxy for thresholds, then the Agencies should provide other quantitative
thresholds for groundwater levels, groundwater in storage, and subsidence, and for other
sustainability indicators, such as declining groundwater levels and groundwater storage. If not
appropriate, provide other quantitative thresholds for groundwater levels, groundwater in
storage, and subsidence.
• Recommended Action 3. Staff recommend that the Agencies provide maps showing the areas
affected by the primary water quality constituents of concern, which include, at a minimum,
fluoride, arsenic, hexavalent chromium (chromium-6), and dibromochloropropane (DBCP). DWR
indicated that the wells known to be affected by these constituents should be shown on a map.
• Recommended Action 4. Staff recommend that the Agencies incorporate an approved Salt and
Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) into future iterations of the Alternative.
• Recommended Action 4a. Staff recommend that the Agencies continue efforts to study the rate
and level of increased salt contents in groundwater due to the importation of Colorado River
water.
• Recommended Action 5. Staff recommend that the Agencies provide the modeled groundwater
elevation that minimizes the risk of saltwater intrusion and discuss how the recent groundwater
levels near the Salton Sea referenced in the Alternative compare to the modeled elevation. The
Alternative should discuss why the water balance includes inflow from the Salton Sea to the Indio
Subbasin and should correlate that inflow with recent groundwater levels and the groundwater
model.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-4 TODD/W&C
• Recommended Action 6. Staff recommend that the Agencies clarify whether there is a minimum
threshold associated with the amount of flow in the subsurface drains, below which significant
and unreasonable undesirable results would occur, and what that quantified minimum threshold
is, if applicable, and the implementation horizon for when the goal for the amount of subsurface
flow will be achieved, so as to avoid undesirable results.
• Recommended Action 7. Staff recommend that the Agencies provide an identification of
groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the Subbasin.
Recommended Action 1, to incorporate information and management activities for the Garnet Hill
Subarea, is addressed throughout this Alternative Plan Update. As summarized in Chapter 2, Plan Area,
and described in Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, and Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions, the Garnet Hill Subarea is included in the Indio Subbasin. Management of the
Garnet Hill Subarea has been coordinated through the Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan
(MC/GH WMP, 2013) developed by CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Mission Springs Water
District (MSWD) in coordination with the 2010 CVWMP Update. The Subarea is included in this Alternative
Plan Update and is also included in the Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. Management
activities for the Garnet Hill Subarea are incorporated into this Alternative Plan Update, for example
through numerical modeling and project implementation (see Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan
Scenarios and Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation).
9.3 Quantitative Criteria for Groundwater Levels
Recommended Action 2 in the DWR Alternative Assessment Staff Report discusses minimum thresholds
for groundwater levels. The Staff Report recommends that the GSAs provide quantitative thresholds and
consider groundwater levels as a proxy for other sustainability indicators including storage and
subsidence.
Quantitative minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are provided in this section, recognizing that
chronic lowering of groundwater levels can indicate significant and unreasonable depletion of supply,
causing undesirable results to domestic, agricultural, municipal, and other beneficial uses of groundwater
if continued over the planning and implementation horizon. As a clarification, drought-related
groundwater level declines are not considered chronic if groundwater recharge and discharge are
managed such that groundwater levels recover during non-drought periods.
Declining groundwater levels directly relate to other potential undesirable effects (for example,
groundwater storage, land subsidence, interconnected surface water, and seawater intrusion); these are
described in subsequent sections. Effects on groundwater users are described here.
Groundwater elevation trends in Indio Subbasin are documented in Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions; hydrographs are presented for 68 wells across the Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin
is no longer characterized by overdraft with widespread chronic groundwater level declines. However, the
hydrographs (e.g., Figure 4-3 through 4-5) show declines that persisted until the late 2000s, and as shown
in Figure 4-9, groundwater in storage in the Indio Subbasin was at its minimum in 2009. The groundwater
level declines were halted with the combined effects of groundwater replenishment, source substitution
for groundwater (e.g., imported surface water and recycled water), and conservation. Since that time,
groundwater levels have risen or at least stabilized throughout the Subbasin.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-5 TODD/W&C
As noted in the DWR Staff Report, the 2010 CVWMP Update suggested that groundwater levels be
maintained above 2005 levels in order to prevent subsidence. However, as discussed in Section 9.5, a
2020 USGS study has provided documentation that subsidence stopped after about 2010. This occurred
with stabilizing and rising groundwater levels that followed the historical low groundwater levels and
storage in about 2009. As discussed below, historical low groundwater levels were selected as the
conceptual basis for meaningful and protective minimum thresholds.
9.3.1 Description of Undesirable Results
Chronic groundwater level declines are widely recognized to cause undesirable effects in production wells.
Relatively shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. Private domestic wells may be relatively
shallow and thus susceptible to declining groundwater levels. In addition, a private well may be more
susceptible to undesirable results because of well construction or maintenance problems. A private well
may also represent the sole source of drinking water supply for one or more households.
The following is a generalized description of the undesirable results associated with chronic groundwater
level decline; in other words, what can happen in a production well with declining groundwater levels. As
groundwater levels decline in a well, a sequence of increasingly severe undesirable results occurs. These
include an increase in pumping costs and a decrease in pump output (e.g., flow in gallons per minute).
With further declines, the pump may break suction, which means that the water level in the well has
dropped to the level of the pump intake. Well operators can lower the pump inside the well, but this can
cost thousands of dollars. Chronically declining water levels will eventually drop below the top of the well
screen. This exposes the screen to air, which can produce two adverse effects. In the first, water entering
the well at the top of the screen will cascade down the inside of the well, entraining air; this air
entrainment can result in cavitation damage to the pump. The other potential adverse effect is
accelerated corrosion of the well screen. Corrosion eventually creates a risk of well screen collapse, which
would likely render the well unusable. If water levels decline by more than about half of the total thickness
of the aquifer (or total length of well screen), water might not be able to flow into the well at the desired
rate regardless of the capacity or depth setting of the pump. This might occur where the thickness of basin
fill materials is relatively thin. While describing a progression of potential adverse effects, at some point
the well no longer fulfills its water supply purpose and is considered to have “gone dry.” For the purposes
of this discussion, a well going dry means that the entire screen length (to the bottom of the deepest
screen) is unsaturated.
9.3.2 Potential Causes and Effects of Undesirable Results
The Indio Subbasin currently is characterized by stable or increasing groundwater levels, but chronic
groundwater declines have occurred, most recently until about 2009. No reports are known of wells
adversely affected by groundwater levels at that time although other impacts of groundwater level decline
(e.g., subsidence or water quality changes) were recognized and addressed. Similarly, groundwater levels
typically are affected by drought. Effects on groundwater levels of the most recent drought were variable
across the Subbasin and resulted in some decreased groundwater storage from 2012 to 2016, but the
GSAs and DWR have received no reports of well problems with groundwater level declines.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-6 TODD/W&C
Nonetheless, undesirable results of chronic
groundwater level declines could potentially
occur. Causes of declines could include severe
and prolonged drought, climate change (locally
and/or in imported water source areas), or long-
term imbalance of demand over supply. Water
demands may exceed supply if a reduction of
imported water supply occurs. Accordingly, the
GSAs have defined sustainability criteria as
summarized here.
Some of the potential causes of groundwater
level changes, including declines, are within GSA
responsibility; most notably, a GSA is responsible
for groundwater basin management without
causing undesirable results such as chronic
groundwater level declines. SGMA also requires
that a GSA address significant and unreasonable effects caused by groundwater conditions throughout
the basin. This indicate s that a GSA is not solely responsible for local or well-specific problems and
furthermore that responsibility is shared with a well owner. A reasonable expectation exists that a well
owner would construct, maintain, and operate the well to provide its expected yield over the well’s life
span, given historical groundwater levels (including droughts) and with some anticipation that neighbors
also might construct wells (consistent with land use and well permitting policies).
Groundwater level declines across broad areas of the Indio Subbasin could have deleterious impacts on
individual wells and well yields, including the ability of private well owners and small communities to reach
groundwater for domestic and drinking water supply. Declining groundwater levels also could have
negative effects on other beneficial uses with ramifications for the regional economy: for example,
agricultural irrigation and cropping, municipal and golf course cost of supplying water, and property
values.
9.3.3 Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Levels
The general approach to defining sustainability criteria is based on recognition of the following: 1) that
historical low groundwater levels have occurred relatively recently in the Indio Subbasin and 2) there has
been a lack of reported problems. Accordingly, it can be assumed that maintaining groundwater
elevations at or above minimum historical values should not cause undesirable results. This has been
substantiated by a review of available information on the location and depths of wells serving small water
systems, which indicated that historical groundwater low levels were above the shallowest well depths.
This approach is protective of existing production wells and conservative. In fact, it is quite possible that
groundwater levels could be locally lower than the historical minimum without resulting in undesirable
effects. However, the lack of undesirable results at historical lows is known and relatively certain. A lower
level that remains protective is not known unless local wells in the area are fully documented in terms of
well construction (e.g., elevation of screen and bottom of well) with assessment of groundwater levels
that might cause undesirable results. As described in Section 12.2.7, Monitoring Network Improvements,
Plan Implementation includes an expanded well inventory to document the location and construction of
existing wells, which will provide a comprehensive basis for such assessment. Ongoing cooperation with
The GSAs have been working to reverse
groundwater overdraft through imported water
replenishment.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-11 TODD/W&C
After all wells with water level monitoring were scored and ranked, the wells were plotted and vetted
against additional considerations. These considerations are more qualitative but help refine the selection
of higher ranked wells. These considerations include:
• Small Water Systems – Wells in and around small community water systems are considered in
order to be protective of pumping.
• GSA represented – All four of the GSA jurisdiction areas should be represented.
• All Subareas represented – insofar as possible at least one well was included per Subarea.
• Depth of well – The depth of Key Wells should be representative of the static regional levels.
Wells less than 300 feet were not selected unless they were needed for areal distribution or
providing a very long and complete record.
• Location relative to active recharge – Selection of key wells should not be unduly influenced by
Groundwater Replenishment Facilities (GRF). Accordingly, monitoring wells for a GRF or on GRF
property were not included. The key wells were selected to monitor regional trends and not local
operational effects of these facilities.
• SNMP – Wells in the SNMP workplan were considered to provide some overlap of the two
programs while recognizing that these are for SNMP objectives.
• Representative but not redundant – Hydrographs were visually identified for similar trends in
nearby wells to avoid redundancy.
9.3.3.2 Identification of Minimum Threshold
The historical low level represents the conceptual definition of the MT. The MT for each Key Well was
based on reviewing its respective hydrograph (from 1990 to 2020) and identifying the historical low
groundwater elevation (see hydrographs in Appendix 9-A). These groundwater elevations were
designated as MTs. In some cases, the historical low appeared to be a significant outlier and the MT was
adjusted. All adjustments were upward, in other words, more protective.
Under current conditions, groundwater levels in all Key Wells are above the MTs and no undesirable
results are known to occur. To substantiate this, available information was reviewed on the location and
depth of wells serving small water systems, including non-community systems (e.g., schools, businesses)
as well as community water systems (e.g., mobile home parks). Section 8.4, Small Water Systems, provides
information on small water systems and GSA programs to help provide them with reliable and safe water
supplies. While many wells for small water systems do not have known construction or depths, review of
available information from 48 wells evaluated in the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Consolidation
Study (CVWD, 2018) indicates a range of well depths from 225 to 1,060 feet. Comparison of known depths
for small water system wells with the MTs indicated that the respective MTs are above known depths for
all small water systems with available information and are protective.
For the future, the GSAs will continue to cooperate with agencies responsible for well permitting to ensure
that new wells are constructed with sufficient depth to accommodate groundwater level changes relative
to the MTs. This will include provision of information on the Key Wells and the MTs and applicable
Subbasin areas, which may be accomplished by contouring MTs or by designating applicable areas around
each Key Well to define minimum well depths.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-12 TODD/W&C
9.3.3.3 Minimum Thresholds and Criteria for Undesirable Results
Undesirable results are based on exceedances of MT levels and must be defined not only in terms of how
they occur (see Section 9.3.2 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results), but also when and where. By
definition, undesirable results are not just drought-related but chronic and are not just local but basin-
wide.
Regular groundwater level monitoring (at least three times per year) and annual reporting provides
regular updates that allow response by the GSAs and local groundwater users. Management action
response times vary. For example, it may take some time for increased replenishment at GRFs to benefit
water levels in the Subbasin. Due to some inevitable delays in results from actions, an undesirable result
is when water levels fall below MTs for five consecutive same-season events (e.g., five October monitoring
events).
Local areas of groundwater level declines can occur due to conditions such as locally increased pumping.
However, local declines do not necessarily indicate Subbasin-wide issues such as overdraft. Undesirable
groundwater level declines of Subbasin-wide significance could occur due to influences such as severe
and prolonged drought, climate change, reduction of imported water supply and increased groundwater
pumping. While not likely to occur uniformly across the Indio Subbasin, groundwater level declines could
be fairly widespread under these conditions. Significant and undesirable results are defined as occurring
when groundwater levels are below the MT for five consecutive same-season monitoring events in 25
percent of Key Wells.
To summarize for the Indio Subbasin:
The Minimum Threshold for undesirable results relative to chronic lowering of groundwater
levels is defined at each Key Well by historical groundwater low levels. Undesirable results are
indicated when groundwater levels are below the MT for five consecutive same-season
monitoring events, in 25 percent or more of the Key Wells in the Indio Subbasin.
9.3.3.4 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
For groundwater levels, the MOs are defined here as an operating range of groundwater levels above the
MT, allowing reasonable fluctuations with changing hydrologic and surface water supply conditions and
with conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater. The groundwater level MTs represent
the bottom of the operating range and are protective of groundwater users and beneficial uses. The top
of the operating range is not specified because there is no particular high groundwater level to be a
sustainability objective and groundwater levels in many areas are increasing. While unconfined
groundwater levels across much of the Subbasin are below historical highs, other areas are characterized
by artesian conditions or by use of drainage systems to control high groundwater levels.
The Measurable Objective is to maintain groundwater levels above the groundwater level MTs
(as quantified above), and to maintain groundwater levels within the operating range as defined
in this section.
Groundwater conditions with respect to chronic groundwater level declines are already sustainable and
there is no need to define interim milestones.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-13 TODD/W&C
9.4 Quantitative Criteria for Groundwater Storage
Groundwater storage is the volume of water in the Subbasin. It provides a reserve for drought or water
shortage. The minimum threshold for reduction of groundwater storage is the volume of groundwater
that can be withdrawn from a basin or management area without leading to undesirable results.
Undesirable results would involve insufficient stored groundwater to sustain beneficial uses through
drought or shortage. The storage criteria are closely linked to groundwater levels. Unlike the other
sustainability criteria, the reduction of groundwater storage criteria is not defined at individual monitoring
sites but is evaluated as a volume on a basin-wide basis. The sustainability indicator for groundwater
storage addresses the ability of the groundwater basin to support existing and planned beneficial uses of
groundwater even during drought and water supply shortage.
9.4.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results
As with declines in groundwater level, reduction of groundwater storage could be due to influences such
as severe and prolonged drought (locally and/or in imported water source areas), climate change, or a
longer-term imbalance of demand over supply. Storage is related to groundwater levels, thus, undesirable
results associated with storage would likely be accompanied by one or more undesirable results
associated with groundwater levels, including reduced well yields, subsidence, seawater intrusion, and
potential depletion of interconnected surface water. Reduction of groundwater storage could affect the
ability of groundwater users to support beneficial uses through drought and shortage and have negative
effects on the regional economy.
9.4.2 Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Storage
The potential for reduction of groundwater storage exists for the Indio Subbasin and thus the GSAs have
considered minimum thresholds to be defined as the maximum groundwater volume that can be
withdrawn without leading to undesirable results. However, use of the groundwater level sustainability
criteria (e.g., MTs and MOs) as a proxy for groundwater storage is acceptable provided that GSAs
demonstrate a correlation between groundwater levels and storage. Groundwater levels and storage are
directly related. This is demonstrated by comparison of groundwater level and storage trends, which
reveal similar patterns of historical overdraft, recovery, and response to different water year types
including drought (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions). The relationship of
levels and storage is reflected in the calibrated groundwater flow model (see Chapter 7, Numerical Model
and Plan Scenarios) that has been used to simulate groundwater levels and storage under projected
conditions.
Use of groundwater levels as proxy for storage is responsive to DWR’s Recommended Action 2. The
rationale for using groundwater levels as a proxy metric for groundwater storage is that the groundwater
level MTs and MOs are sufficiently protective to ensure prevention of significant and unreasonable results
relating to storage depletion. In brief, groundwater level MTs have been defined to protect beneficial uses
and are based on the following:
• A broad geographic distribution of Key Wells that are representative of basin production wells.
• MTs based on historical low groundwater levels that are generally consistent with the historical
low storage in about 2009, which occurred without reported well problems.
• Groundwater level MTs involve groundwater levels below the MT for five consecutive same-
season monitoring events, in 25 percent or more of the Key Wells in the Indio Subbasin. Thus,
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-14 TODD/W&C
GSAs are alerted to groundwater level change as it may occur across a broad area, and this
perspective will be revealing about storage change as it occurs across the Subbasin.
Accordingly, the MT for storage for the Indio Subbasin is fulfilled by the MT for groundwater levels,
modified as follows:
The Minimum Threshold for undesirable results relative to chronic lowering of groundwater
levels and depletion of storage is defined at each Key Well by historical groundwater low levels.
Undesirable results are indicated when groundwater levels are below the MT for five consecutive
same-season monitoring events, in 25 percent or more of the Key Wells in the Indio Subbasin.
For groundwater storage, the MOs is fulfilled by the minimum threshold for groundwater levels, modified
as follows:
The Measurable Objective for groundwater storage is to maintain groundwater levels above the
groundwater level MTs (as quantified above) and within the operating range as defined in this
section.
Groundwater conditions with respect to groundwater levels and storage are sustainable and there is no
need to define interim milestones.
9.5 Quantitative Criteria for Land Subsidence
Land subsidence, the differential lowering of the ground surface, can damage structures and hinder
surface water drainage. Portions of the Indio Subbasin are susceptible to and have experienced historical
subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions). In response to subsidence, CVWD and United States Geological Survey (USGS) have
collaborated on a series of investigations that documented the location and rate of subsidence and
provided a correlation of subsidence to groundwater level declines. The most recent USGS study (Sneed
and Brandt, 2020) documented stabilized or rising groundwater levels since 2010 that reflect the
combined effect of various projects to increase recharge and reduce groundwater pumping. This study
also documented that, although a few areas subsided (albeit at a slower rate), most areas stopped
subsiding from 2010 to 2017 and some even uplifted.
9.5.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results
The land subsidence experienced historically in Indio Subbasin has been caused by declines in
groundwater elevations due to pumping exceeding recharge. Potential undesirable results of land
subsidence include disruption of surface drainage, water supply conveyance, and flood control facilities;
damage to infrastructure such as pipelines, airport runways, railroads, roads, and highways; damage to
structures such as housing, septic systems, distribution lines, and piping; and potential subsidence around
a production well, disrupting wellhead facilities.
9.5.2 Sustainability Criteria for Land Subsidence
According to the GSP regulations Section 354.28(c)(5), the minimum threshold for land subsidence is
defined as the rate and extent of subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses and may
lead to undesirable results. However, land subsidence in Indio Subbasin was clearly caused by
groundwater level declines, and accordingly, the groundwater level sustainability criteria (MTs and MOs)
can be used as a proxy for land subsidence. Use of groundwater levels as proxy for subsidence also is
responsive to DWR’s Recommended Action 2.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-15 TODD/W&C
The historical low groundwater levels and storage occurred in about 2009. Since that time groundwater
levels have generally increased and subsidence has stopped or slowed, with some variability reflecting
different groundwater level trends in specific areas and residual compaction. The 2010 CVWMP Update
indicated that groundwater levels should not be allowed to drop below 2005 levels. However,
groundwater levels did generally decline until about 2009 and subsequent USGS study has shown that
subsidence rates slowed since about 2010 (Sneed, M. and Brandt, J. T., 2020). Accordingly, the historical
low groundwater levels represent a demonstrable turning-point.
While subsidence-induced sagging affected the Coachella Canal (a portion was realigned subsequently in
2014; Sneed, M. and Brandt, J. T., 2020), maintaining groundwater levels above historical lows levels
generally is protective against subsidence. Given the mechanics of subsidence, it is unlikely that significant
and unreasonable inelastic subsidence would occur with groundwater levels maintained above their MTs.
Accordingly, the MT for land subsidence for the Indio Subbasin is fulfilled by the minimum threshold for
groundwater levels, modified as follows:
The Minimum Threshold for defining undesirable results relative to chronic lowering of
groundwater levels and subsidence is defined at each Key Well by historical groundwater low
levels. Undesirable results are indicated when groundwater levels are below the MT for five
consecutive same-season monitoring events, in twenty-five percent or more of the Key Wells in
the Indio Subbasin.
For subsidence, the MO is fulfilled by the minimum threshold for groundwater levels, modified as follows:
The Measurable Objective for subsidence is to maintain groundwater levels above the
groundwater level MTs (as quantified above), and to maintain groundwater levels within the
operating range as defined in this section.
Groundwater conditions with respect to groundwater levels and subsidence are sustainable and there is
no need to define interim milestones.
9.6 Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems
As stated in Section 9.1, one of the SGMA undesirable results is depletion of interconnected surface water
that has significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. Beneficial
uses of surface water are various (recreation, water rights, etc.) but an often-important beneficial use is
the existence of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). GDEs are ecological communities (e.g.,
riparian vegetation or wetlands) or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or on
groundwater occurring near the ground surface.
9.6.1 Background on Indio Subbasin GDEs
As summarized in the DWR Alternative Assessment Staff Report, interconnected surface water is
described in the Alternative Plan as not being present in the West Valley because groundwater levels are
generally much lower than the ground surface. This is substantiated by depth to groundwater mapping
(Figure 4-6) that shows depth to groundwater exceeding 100 feet where groundwater level data are
available. However, Figures 4-1 and 4-6 also indicate areas where groundwater level data generally are
lacking, and these include western canyon areas where Probable GDEs have been identified (see Chapter
4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions). These Probable GDEs may be associated with surface
runoff, snowmelt, or springs and seeps from up-gradient sources.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-16 TODD/W&C
In the East Valley, depths to regional groundwater generally exceed 20 feet but a shallow semi-perched
aquifer zone also is present (see delineated area on Figure 4-6). In areas with shallow, semi-perched
groundwater, an agricultural tile drain system was installed in the 1950s through the mid-1970s that
allows continued agriculture by providing drainage and salt management.
The DWR Staff Report notes that the groundwater model includes evapotranspiration (ET) by
phreatophytic vegetation on undeveloped lands that overlie the semi-perched aquifer area and are not
served by the subsurface agricultural drain system in the East Valley. As described in Chapter 7, Numerical
Model and Plan Scenarios, the current groundwater flow model retained the ET boundary condition, by
which ET is calculated by the model based on the extent of the drain system (see Figure 2-5), simulated
shallow groundwater elevations, assumed plant rooting depths, and reference ET values. The computed
ET rates range from 4,100 to 5,300 AFY and as illustrated in Figure 7-19, are relatively small and uniform
over the period 1997-2019. Inclusion of such ET in the model ensures a complete water budget and
acknowledges the hydrologic possibility of phreatophyte ET, including potential GDEs but also non-GDE
vegetation around agricultural fields and along drainage channels. In brief, the groundwater model
indicates the potential for GDEs and accounts for simulated water use (ET) in the water budget.
9.6.2 Identification of GDEs
Vegetation mapping is required to identify the presence of GDEs. In its Staff Report (Recommended Action
7), DWR recommends that the GSAs provide such an identification of groundwater-dependent ecosystems
in the Subbasin.
This Alternative Plan Update has included a focused study of GDEs in Indio Subbasin. This study, Indio
Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study, prepared by a Professional Wetland Scientist, is
presented in Appendix 4-B. It included a systematic desktop assessment of the California Natural
Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) database for the Indio Subbasin, a field
assessment of 13 selected sites by the wetland scientist and CVWD environmental staff, and identification
of probable GDEs, probable non-GDEs, and playa wetland communities. Described in more detail in
Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, and mapped in Figure 4-34, these are defined
as follows:
• Probable GDEs consist of areas with apparent dense riparian and wetland vegetative communities
along mapped drainage systems with potential for deep-rooted phreatophytes, and/or visible,
natural surface water flow. These are located along stream channels in upper canyon locations that
convey snowmelt, water from cold and hot springs, and mountain front inflow from the surrounding
bedrock.
• Probable Non-GDEs are areas not correctly mapped in NCCAG including dry upland areas, cultivated
and/or flooded agricultural land, obvious human-made ponds, lakes, and other features,
channelized drains, and areas with no other indicators of groundwater near the surface, such as dry
washes, arroyos, bajadas, and other ephemeral channels where water only flows in response to
heavy precipitation events.
• Playa Wetland Community included areas of wetland habitat along the Salton Sea exposed seabed
(playa) generally downstream of agricultural drains or the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
(CVSC). The recession of the Salton Sea is exposing thousands of acres of playa each year and water
from irrigation ditches and other drainages that previously flowed directly into the Sea now spreads
out on the exposed Salton Sea playa where new vegetation and wetlands currently exist.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-17 TODD/W&C
As described in the next sections, three upper canyon sites have been identified as including Probable
GDEs that rely on various up-gradient sources. While recognized as wetland habitat, the Playa Wetland
Community habitats are sustained largely by agricultural drain flows and CVSC outflows.
9.6.2.1 Probable GDEs
Probable GDEs are located in the northwestern Indio Subbasin in three canyons along streams (Chino
Canyon, Tahquitz, and Palm Canyon creeks). These streams convey mountain front runoff from snowmelt
and mountain front recharge, namely subsurface inflow from fractured bedrock along the perimeter of
the Indio Subbasin. This mountain front inflow is derived from recharge to mountain areas beyond the
Indio Subbasin jurisdiction of the GSAs and sustains the upper canyon flows with runoff, snowmelt, springs
(both cold and hot springs), and seeps.
Although flowing into the upper canyon reaches of the Subbasin (see Figure 4-34), the canyon flows are
unlikely to be influenced by GSA management and groundwater pumping of the downstream regional
groundwater table. This reflects several factors including topographic differences (the canyons are fifty to
hundreds of feet higher than the main portion of the Subbasin), and distance upstream and away from
active groundwater production areas (see Figure 2-13). While noting that the upper canyon areas with
Probable GDEs do not have existing groundwater data, this is because of the lack of local wells and
groundwater extraction.
9.6.2.2 Playa Wetland Communities
The Playa Wetland Communities are recognized in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan as containing sensitive natural communities and potentially containing desert pupfish
habitat. These communities are located at the outlets of agricultural drains and the CVSC and are
sustained largely by agricultural drain flows and stormwater channel outflows. As such, these are not
associated with depletion of groundwater contributing to interconnected surface water. The agricultural
drain system is artificial: designed, built, and maintained for the purpose of conveying agricultural return
flows and controlling shallow groundwater levels and quality to allow continued agriculture. The CVSC
also is an artificial channel designed and maintained to convey stormwater, drain flows, and other flows
to the Salton Sea.
The Salton Sea elevation, however, has declined (for example, by ten feet since 1997 as shown in Figure
7-11) and its shoreline has retreated from the drain outlets and has exposed intervening playa with widths
ranging from one quarter mile to more than one mile depending on location. This is illustrated in Figure
9-2 by a series of aerial images for selected years from 1997 to 2019.
As illustrated in Figure 9-2, the Playa Wetland Communities have occurred and expanded as a relatively
recent consequence of the shoreline retreat. While the drivers for the location and extent of the wetlands
include the drainage outflows coupled with the Salton Sea recession, the relationship between areal
extent of the playa wetlands, drain flows, Salton Sea recession, and other factors remain uncertain. The
Playa Wetland Communities may continue to change over time affected by continuing Salton Sea
recession and by future Salton Sea restoration activities. The interconnection between these factors is
uncertain, changing as the Salton Sea recedes, and dependent on other state and federal entities’
management of the Salton Sea.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-19 TODD/W&C
9.7 Water Quality Constituents of Concern
The 2010 CVWMP Update identified specific water quality issues including salinity, arsenic, perchlorate,
hexavalent chromium (chromium-6), uranium, nitrate, carcinogens, and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds
(EDCs). Some of these were regarded as emerging issues, not having violated water quality standards. As
noted in the Alternative Plan Bridge document, the 2010 CVWMP Update did not establish specific water
quality thresholds and goals. However, through the Alternative Plan process, the GSAs have continued to
identify and track the occurrence of constituents of concern (COCs) with reference to established drinking
water standards, have maintained an extensive water quality monitoring program, and have implemented
applicable management responses. This is reflected in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, and in
Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions. Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions, identifies current COCs to include salinity (total dissolved solids or TDS), nitrate, arsenic,
chromium-6, uranium, fluoride, perchlorate, and DBCP. These are briefly described in Section 4.4 (along
with any drinking water standards) and discussed in terms of occurrence in Indio Subbasin.
In Recommended Action 3, DWR staff recommend that the GSAs provide maps showing the areas affected
by the primary water quality constituents of concern, which include, at a minimum, fluoride, arsenic,
chromium-6, and DBCP. DWR staff recommend that the maps show the particular wells known to be
affected by these constituents.
As documented in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, this Alternative Plan Update
has included substantial collection of water quality data into a database. This was followed by evaluation
not only of the mapped extent of the four recommended COCs, but also TDS, nitrate, uranium, and
perchlorate (see Figures 4-11 through 4-18). In addition, Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions, provides water quality cross sections for constituents with vertical differentiation (TDS,
nitrate, arsenic, and chromium-6) and time concentration plots that represent temporal trends in TDS and
nitrate.
9.7.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results
In addition to salinity, the DWR Staff Report identifies fluoride, arsenic, chromium-6, and DBCP as a
minimum list of primary water quality COCs. Given that, the following brief summaries are provided along
with summaries of the GSA-identified COCs of uranium and perchlorate. These summaries include the
drinking water standard (Maximum Contaminant Level [MCL]), general cause of the COC occurrence,
distribution in the Subbasin, and management response. The following COCs are linked to potential health
effects and all are being monitored. GSAs are addressing COC problems through efforts (such as the CVWD
Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Task Force) to identify and consolidate small water systems
with water quality and reliability issues. Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, and
Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, provide additional documentation and discussion.
• Nitrate has a primary drinking water MCL of 45 mg/L, measured as nitrate. Nitrate concentrations
in Indio Subbasin groundwater are variable, reflecting multiple sources such as historical extent
of mesquite forests; use of nitrogen-based fertilizers for agriculture, golf courses, and
landscaping; septic tank percolation; and wastewater disposal through percolation. Large water
systems selectively drill wells in areas with low nitrate concentrations and have deactivated
historically affected wells. The GSAs are assisting small water systems as noted above.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-20 TODD/W&C
• Arsenic has a primary drinking water MCL of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L). It is naturally
occurring with high concentrations locally in the Indio Subbasin and at depth. Arsenic has been
addressed in large public water systems by selectively drilling wells in areas or to depths with low
arsenic concentrations, by decommissioning affected wells, or by providing water treatment to
remove arsenic prior to delivery. Riverside County and the GSAs are assisting small water systems
is being addressed by affected by arsenic as noted above.
• Chromium-6 in Indio Subbasin is naturally occurring with relatively higher concentrations in the
Thousand Palms and central Thermal Subareas. The total chromium (hexavalent and trivalent)
primary MCL is 50 μg/L, but an MCL of 10 μg/L for chromium-6 was set in 2014 and later rescinded.
As discussed in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, the GSAs have anticipated a chromium-6
MCL that is lower than the total chromium MCL and have investigated possible water treatment
options. Replenishment activities may reduce chromium-6 concentrations.
• Uranium has a primary MCL of 20 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), or about 30 μg/L. Uranium in Indio
Subbasin is naturally occurring with high concentrations in the northwestern portion. However,
concentrations greater than the MCL have been detected in only four shallow monitoring wells.
• Fluoride has a primary drinking water MCL of 2 mg/L. It is naturally occurring and found in high
concentrations along the eastern side of the Indio Subbasin and northern boundary of the Salton
Sea. Large water systems selectively drill wells in areas with low fluoride concentrations or provide
treatment, and small water systems are assisted by the GSAs as noted above.
• Perchlorate has a primary MCL of 6 μg/L and has been detected locally in Indio Subbasin. It may
be natural but also is associated with historical manufacturing contamination that affected the
Colorado River and has since been mitigated to below detection levels.
• DBCP is a pesticide with a primary MCL of 0.2 μg/L. While banned since 1979 it is persistent in
groundwater. It has been detected in private irrigation wells in a localized area of central Thermal
Subarea. CVWD has managed replenishment to avoid mobilizing DBCP.
Salinity (TDS) is addressed in a subsequent section. Unlike the COCs above, TDS is regulated by Secondary
MCLs (or Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Level Ranges) that are set by the SWRCB based on aesthetic
concerns such as taste, color, and odor.
9.7.2 Evaluation of Sustainability
The DWR Staff Report finds that the Indio Subbasin GSAs have reasonable quantifications and standards
related to groundwater quality, with a recommendation to provide maps to facilitate its ongoing
evaluation of the Alternative Plan relative to achieving sustainability. These are provided in Chapter 4,
Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, along with other water quality information. As
summarized in the Bridge Document, the Alternative Plan has included identification of COCs, monitoring
of groundwater quality, tracking relative to drinking water standards (as relevant), reporting, and
management actions. This Alternative Plan Update has improved the data compilation and management
relative to water quality COCs and the documentation of groundwater quality conditions.
Groundwater quality monitoring, data compilation, and data review will continue on an established
regular basis (see Chapter 10, Monitoring Program) and will detect emerging issues or water quality
problems. The 5-Year Alternative Plan Updates will be sufficient for comprehensive examination of water
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-21 TODD/W&C
quality conditions relative to COCs such as listed above, given that groundwater quality conditions
generally do not change rapidly. Groundwater quality conditions can be documented with maps and other
graphics as warranted.
Additional efforts to define sustainability indicators or to set specific quantitative thresholds are not
needed at this time for COCs such as those listed above. However, if a COC water quality condition
develops or is recognized with significant and unreasonable results throughout the Subbasin and
associated with Subbasin management activities, the ongoing monitoring allows detection, analysis, and
reporting of the issue.
9.8 Water Quality Management
The Alternative Plan has recognized salt addition from imported Colorado River water as a significant
impact related to managing groundwater overdraft. Elimination of overdraft was identified in the 2002
CVWMP and retained in the 2010 CVWMP Update as a primary goal. This goal recognized the multiple
adverse effects of overdraft including chronic groundwater level declines, storage depletion, irreversible
subsidence, and seawater intrusion potentially resulting in permanent loss of freshwater storage.
Importation of Colorado River water for irrigation and for replenishment was recognized as critical for
halting overdraft although it added salts. The Alternative Plan (including the 2002 CVWMP and 2010
CVWMP Update) has included ongoing studies to assess the addition of salts and to identify reasonable
projects and management action.
As summarized in the DWR Staff Report, the GSAs have demonstrated understanding of the water quality
impacts associated with using Colorado River to replenish groundwater and have investigated various
means to address such impacts, including preparation of a SNMP. As a near-term path toward
sustainability with regard to salt management, the DWR Staff Report strongly encouraged the GSAs to
further quantify the nature and scope of water quality issues associated with water importation, to
establish reasonable and achievable standards, and to begin to adopt and implement projects and
management actions to achieve sustainability with regard to groundwater quality.
Specifically, in Recommended Actions 4 and 4a, DWR staff recommend that the GSAs incorporate an
approved SNMP into future iterations of the Alternative Plan and continue efforts to study the rate and
level of increased salt contents in groundwater due to importation of Colorado River water.
9.8.1 Description, Causes, and Effects of Undesirable Results
Salinity was described in the 2002 CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update in terms of the salt balance (salt
inputs, salt outputs, and net addition). Those descriptions have been supplemented in Chapter 4, Current
and Historical Groundwater Conditions, of this Update. Section 4.4, Groundwater Quality, presents a TDS
map representing recent conditions, water quality cross sections, and time concentration plots that show
temporal trends in TDS.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, groundwater in the Indio
Subbasin shows a wide range of salinity, measured in terms of TDS concentrations. TDS is regulated by
Secondary MCLs (or Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Level Ranges) that are set by the SWRCB based
on aesthetic concerns such as taste, color, and odor. Undesirable results of elevated TDS to drinking water
systems can include damage to plumbing and appliances, increased treatment costs, use of bottled water,
and increased sampling and monitoring. A recommended level is 500 mg/L, an upper level is 1,000 mg/L,
and a short-term level is 1,500 mg/L.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-22 TODD/W&C
The spatial distribution of TDS (see Figure 4-11) shows a general range of concentrations from less than
250 mg/L in the center of the Subbasin to more than 1,500 mg/L near the Salton Sea. Similarly, the water
quality cross sections in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, indicate that TDS
concentrations generally are less than 500 mg/L with lowest concentrations in deep wells in the central
Indio Subbasin. TDS concentrations in shallow zones typically are higher and more variable than in deeper
zones.
The spatial and vertical distribution of TDS
in groundwater reflects multiple sources
including deep infiltration of precipitation,
percolation of precipitation runoff, recharge
of imported Colorado River water,
percolation of treated wastewater, seepage
from septic systems, return flows from
agricultural and landscape irrigation, and
subsurface inflows from adjacent bedrock,
other Subbasins (e.g., Desert Hot Springs
Subbasin) and deep thermal sources (West
Yost, 2021). Historical intrusion from the
Salton Sea also has been indicated (see
Section 9.10). In addition, the occurrence
and distribution of TDS in the Indio Subbasin
has been influenced by historical land uses and water/wastewater management practices.
Percolation through the soil and unsaturated zone involves complex processes that affect the volume,
concentration, and specific constituents of TDS; these processes include evapotranspiration that
concentrates salts in the root zone and geochemical transformations. Once in the groundwater system,
the groundwater flow generally is from northwest to southeast (toward the Salton Sea). However, salt
migration through the groundwater system (both vertical and horizontal) is driven by dynamics of
groundwater recharge and discharge and thus influenced not only by recharge/percolation, but also by
groundwater pumping and the presence of agricultural drain systems that intercept and discharge shallow
groundwater. Such relationships are particularly important in the East Valley, where higher salinity occurs
in perched and shallow zones. Under conditions of overdraft, lowered groundwater levels in the deep
Principal aquifer can result in a downward groundwater flow gradient that could allow higher salinity
water to migrate downward to affect deeper zones. Reversal of overdraft and restoration of upward
gradients flushes the saline perched water into the agricultural drains and out of the system, thereby
protecting deep groundwater quality.
Outflows of TDS from the groundwater systems are primarily through groundwater pumping, agricultural
drain flows to the CVSC and Salton Sea, and subsurface outflow toward the Salton Sea.
9.8.2 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
A SNMP was developed by the CVWD, DWA, and IWA and submitted to the Colorado River RWQCB in
2015. The 2015 Coachella Valley SNMP describes hydrogeology, ambient groundwater quality, projected
water quality, objectives, management strategies, and a monitoring plan. However, in a letter (RWQCB,
February 19, 2020), the RWQCB provided comments and recommendations on the 2015 SNMP’s
compliance with the updated Recycled Water Policy (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020).
CVWD monitors water quality in groundwater, surface
water, and recycled water.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-23 TODD/W&C
The Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CV-SNMP) was
restarted in 2020 by the CV-SNMP agencies (water and wastewater agencies including CVWD, CWA and
Coachella Sanitary District, DWA, IWA, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, VSD, MSWD, and City of
Palm Springs) working in cooperation with RWQCB staff. This has involved preparing a SNMP
Development Workplan to define the approach to be used to update the CV-SNMP in a manner that
addresses management of salts and nutrients from all sources in order to protect beneficial uses, comply
with the Recycled Water Policy (as revised in 2018, see Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues), and to
address the specific findings and recommendations previously provided by RWQCB staff. The SNMP
Development Workplan includes a Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan (West Yost, 2020) to
define the updated SNMP monitoring network, including wells needed to address network gaps, which
will be used to monitor the spatial and vertical distribution of salts and nutrients in the Basin.
As of August 2021, workplan development has included preparation of a Groundwater Monitoring
Workplan, which was approved by the RWQCB on February 21, 2021. The agencies have begun
implementing the Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan and will submit annual reports to the
RWQCB by March 31 of each year beginning in 2022. A draft SNMP Development Workplan was submitted
to the RWQCB on May 3, 2021 (West Yost, 2021). The agencies are working on integrating comments
received from the RWQCB and will submit the final SNMP Development Workplan in September 2021.
Implementation of the SNMP Development Workplan is scheduled to begin during the first quarter of
2022.
The SNMP update and Alternative Plan Update are coordinated efforts. Elements of this Plan Update
specifically supporting the SNMP include:
• Collection and organization of water quality data into a database
• Evaluation of the sources, areal extent, vertical distribution, and time trends for TDS and nitrate
• Analysis of the water budget (which supports analysis of TDS and nutrient loading, assimilative
capacity, etc.)
• Update and refinement of the numerical model (a potential basis for fate and transport modeling)
• Improvement of the monitoring program relative to TDS, nitrate, and shallow/deep zones
• Identification of projects and actions relevant to water quality management.
The CV-SNMP addresses the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 7-021 excluding the San
Gorgonio Pass Subbasin) and therefore includes the Indio Subbasin. The Alternative Plan Update can
incorporate elements of an approved SNMP relevant to the Indio Subbasin and within the context of the
basin-wide SNMP. Progress on the implementation of the SNMP Development Workplan will be provided
in the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports and the next 5-year Alternative Plan Update.
9.8.3 Continuing Studies of Salinity in Groundwater
Staff of both DWR and the Colorado River Basin RWQCB have recommended additional study of salinity
in groundwater. The DWR Staff Report (Recommendation 4a) calls for continuation of efforts to study the
rate and level of increased salt contents in groundwater due to Colorado River importation.
Additional study of salinity in groundwater—including analysis of the rate and level of increased salt
contents in groundwater due to Colorado River importation—will be achieved in large part by the CV-
SNMP update. Such analysis will be based on data collection to characterize TDS and nitrate loading,
including not only quality data but also volumes of multiple sources such as subsurface inflow,
replenishment (including the Colorado River sources), wastewater and recycled water, septic systems,
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-24 TODD/W&C
and applied water. The analysis also will include characterization of current groundwater quality in all
Subbasin areas/Subareas (with delineation of Management Zones), identification of areas of historical
changes, and documentation of historical trends in TDS and nitrate loading. Overall, the analysis will
satisfy the recommendation for more information on the rate and level of increased salt due to Colorado
River importation.
More broadly, these analyses provide the necessary baseline for SNMP forecasting of TDS and nitrate
concentrations in groundwater. The forecasting (using enhanced modeling tools to be developed as part
of the SNMP update) will involve simulation of a baseline scenario and management scenarios.
Subsequent selection of a preferred CV-SNMP scenario can be the basis for establishment of management
zones (including consideration of vulnerable areas), description of groundwater beneficial uses for each
management zone, recommendation of numeric TDS objectives for each management zone, identification
of projects and management actions, and development of implementation measures and schedules to
achieve sustainability with regard to groundwater quality.
In addition to the CV-SNMP, this Alternative Plan Update has included the systematic efforts of building
the data management system, analyzing available water quality data, reviewing the results for data gaps,
and planning for new monitoring sites. While not implemented solely to understand salinity, the update
and refinement of the numerical groundwater flow model, assessment of the groundwater basin water
budget, and quantification of water supplies and demands all contribute to understanding of the
groundwater system, which is fundamental to studying salinity.
The assessment of the monitoring network for this Update has been coordinated with the development
of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan, which includes a Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
(West Yost, 2020). The CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan describes the physical
setting of the groundwater basin as context for the monitoring network, presents an initial sampling
network, identifies existing spatial and vertical gaps in the monitoring network, and describes how the
gaps will be filled and how the monitoring program will be implemented. Specific wells are identified for
groundwater sampling, including 83 wells representing the shallow aquifer system, 98 wells for the deep
aquifer system, and 6 wells for the perched aquifer system. The SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Workplan also identified 23 gaps in the monitoring network and provides justification for filling these
gaps. Reasons for inclusion in the SNMP monitoring program include spatial gaps and the need for tracking
potential sources such as subsurface inflows, WWTP discharges, septic tank areas, agricultural and
landscaping/golf course areas.
As part of ongoing groundwater basin management in 2021, the GSAs have prepared two applications to
DWR for Technical Support Services to install new monitoring wells in the Indio Subbasin and Mission
Creek Subbasin. The proposed monitoring wells would provide both groundwater levels and quality data,
and thereby support improved basin management for the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, Mission
Creek Alternative Plan Update, and the CV-SNMP.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-26 TODD/W&C
planned monitoring well network improvements will yield additional data on perched, shallow, and deep
groundwater levels and quality. All data will be compiled into a GIS database as part of the Data
Management System (DMS). In addition, the drain flow study can support calibration of the numerical
model (which simulate drain flows as an output) and provide important input to any salt balance studies.
By way of background, downward migration of groundwater is a function not only of geology (i.e., the
fine-grained aquitard in the East Valley; see Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model), but largely of
vertical hydraulic head differences. Available data indicate that high groundwater levels in the deep zones
are generally protective of those deep zones. This is substantiated by the evaluation of TDS and nitrate
concentrations with depth in East Valley cross sections (Figures 4-30 through 4-33) that show low
concentrations of TDS and nitrate at depth, despite decades of active irrigated agriculture, and higher
concentrations in shallow zones. It is also supported by the TDS and nitrate time-concentration plots (e.g.,
Figure 4-34) that indicate relatively low concentrations in deep wells and less variability, indicating
reduced exposure to shallow influences.
Building on the 2010 CVWMP Update, and applying the concepts of SGMA, the GSAs have defined a
specific, potential undesirable result, which is degradation of water quality in the deep Principal Aquifer
due to downward migration of water with elevated TDS levels found in shallow groundwater zones. High
groundwater levels in the deep zone have a direct relationship with good water quality at depth, and
accordingly, the GSAs are considering groundwater levels as an appropriate proxy.
According to SGMA, groundwater levels can serve as a useful proxy for a minimum threshold. However,
documentation of a strong correlation is needed between the metric (groundwater levels) and the specific
undesirable result being assessed (degradation of the deep Principal Aquifer). This documentation is
provided in part by this Alternative Plan Update. Additional information will be provided by the new
monitoring wells being installed in 2021, specifically with regard to differentiation of shallow and deep
groundwater levels and quality. Assuming that groundwater levels can be serve as proxy, a subsequent
step will involve identification of representative monitoring sites and establishment of minimum
thresholds with respect to protecting deep water quality.
9.10 Seawater Intrusion
SGMA generally has perceived seawater intrusion relative to the Pacific Ocean and not an inland body
such as the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is distinguished by several aspects: salinity in excess of 69 parts per
thousand (about twice the amount in the ocean), salinity that gradually is rising, surface water levels that
are decreasing, and a shoreline that is retreating.
9.10.1 Background on Monitoring and Management for Seawater Intrusion
Seawater intrusion from the Salton Sea has been emphasized in the Alternative Plan as a potentially
substantial and irreversible consequence of overdraft, whereby reduced groundwater pressure in
Subbasin aquifers would cause relatively dense saline water to intrude and displace freshwater. The 2002
CVWMP Update noted the difficulties in reversing seawater intrusion and removing salts with the
potential for permanent loss of freshwater storage. Thus, seawater intrusion is a consequence of
overdraft with undesirable results including adverse effects on groundwater quality and associated loss
of groundwater supply and loss of groundwater storage.
Recognizing these potential undesirable results in the context of overdraft in the East Valley, the 2002
CVWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update identified and implemented projects and management actions to halt
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-27 TODD/W&C
overdraft. These projects and actions including groundwater replenishment, source substitution, and
conservation have been successful in halting and reversing groundwater level declines, increasing
groundwater storage, and restoring groundwater outflows to stop seawater intrusion.
CVWD installed nested monitoring wells in 1995 and 2002 near the Salton Sea to provide site-specific data
to assess the risk of seawater intrusion (see list in Table 10-2). Monitoring of these wells for levels and
quality (as part of the overall monitoring program) allows documentation of areal and vertical extent of
seawater intrusion (if any in the vicinity of the wells) and tracking of trends that could provide early
warning of seawater intrusion. Groundwater quality constituents including TDS and chloride are tracked
in the nested monitoring wells. While TDS concentrations in one of the deepest zones (deeper than 1,430
feet below ground surface) are elevated and fluctuating (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions), the nested monitoring wells have shown no evidence that seawater intrusion
is occurring.
In addition, local groundwater management (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions) has focused on minimizing potential seawater intrusion by increasing groundwater levels and
restoring groundwater outflow to the Salton Sea. While protective groundwater elevations were not
determined, the groundwater flow model was applied to evaluate seawater intrusion as a potential inflow
to the Indio Subbasin groundwater. This approach has provided a broad indicator of the risk of seawater
intrusion.
The DWR Staff Report acknowledges the Alternative Plan approach and in Recommended Action 5
indicates the following recommended actions for the Update as rephrased below:
• Discuss why the water balance includes inflow from the Salton Sea to the Indio Subbasin.
• Discuss how recent groundwater levels near the Salton Sea compare to the modeled elevation.
• Correlate Salton Sea inflow with recent groundwater levels and the groundwater model.
• Provide the modeled groundwater elevation that minimizes the risk of saltwater intrusion.
Each of these is addressed in the following sections.
9.10.2 Water Balance and Inflow from Salton Sea
DWR recommended discussion of why the water balance includes inflow from the Salton Sea to the Indio
Subbasin. This question is relevant to the water balance (see Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan
Scenarios) and to a description of the undesirable results of seawater intrusion. The undesirable results
of Salton Sea intrusion have been long recognized in the Indio Subbasin as degradation of water quality
and loss of freshwater storage.
The water balance includes inflow from the Salton Sea because it includes all inflows and outflows to the
Subbasin and then uses the groundwater flow model to compute water levels and change in storage.
Accounting for all elements of the water balance is fundamental to understanding the local groundwater
system. In other words, seawater intrusion is considered an inflow to the water balance but is not
considered a groundwater supply.
9.10.3 Groundwater Elevations and Salton Sea Inflow
DWR recommended discussion of how recent groundwater levels near the Salton Sea compare to the
modeled elevation. The correlation of measured and modeled groundwater levels near the Salton Sea is
illustrated in Figure 7-17 showing model calibration hydrographs. As discussed in Chapter 7, Numerical
Model and Plan Scenarios, the model is very well calibrated.
Chapter 9: Sustainable Management FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 9-28 TODD/W&C
With regard to Salton Sea inflow, the groundwater flow model has been used to simulate flow between
the Indio Subbasin and the Salton Sea. For this Plan Update, the 2010 CVWMP Update model input data
were updated for 1997-2019, and some were modified including addition of Salton Sea bathymetry and
use of Salton Sea elevations for 2009-2019 to account for Salton Sea level declines. As illustrated in Figure
7-20, inflows from Salton Sea have decreased since about 2005 and outflows to the sea have increased.
Net groundwater outflow to the Sea first occurred in 2015. This is consistent with generally increasing
groundwater levels after about 2010.
Groundwater elevation contour maps are provided in the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports for water years
2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, roughly the period when groundwater outflows to
the Salton Sea have exceeded inflows. For reference, the elevation of the Salton Sea has declined from
about -235 to -238 feet msl over this period. Review of these maps (with a focus on the groundwater
elevation contours closest to the Salton Sea) show the -200-foot contour crossing the shoreline in 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018. In the successive two maps, the -200-foot contour is completely inland (as is the -
220-foot contour) indicating that groundwater levels have risen. At the shoreline, current groundwater
levels are mapped as about 18 feet above the current Salton Sea level. This differential would increase
with Salton Sea level decline and with groundwater level rise.
In Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, Figure 7-14 shows the simulated groundwater
elevations in 2020 for the shallow and deep aquifers. Consistent with the 2019-2020 measured data, the
-200 foot and -220 foot contours in the shallow aquifer are inland of the shoreline and higher than the
sea while the –200 foot contour for the deep aquifer crosses the shoreline, indicating upward
groundwater flow. These modeled groundwater elevations indicate a minimal risk of saltwater intrusion.
Regular review of simulated groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the Salton Sea is warranted in
addition to the data review and water budget modeling as part of the Annual Reports and 5-Year Updates.
The nested wells provide real data on local groundwater quality from discrete depth zones, any of which
could potentially be affected by seawater intrusion. Complementary to the local, zone-specific data is the
modeling assessment of outflows and inflows, which provides a broad indicator of net potential for
seawater intrusion for the Subbasin.
Similarly, the simulated groundwater elevations can be used as a general indicator of the relative risk of
seawater intrusion along the shoreline. Such use of simulated groundwater levels is not a substitute for
analysis of measured groundwater levels. However, it can be a reasonable, cost-effective indicator given
the low potential for seawater intrusion, as evidenced by the net outflow of groundwater from the
Subbasin to the Salton Sea and the lack of data indicating seawater intrusion.
In addition, Salton Sea water levels are currently decreasing, and the shoreline is retreating. Accordingly,
the risk of seawater intrusion is declining. Review of any groundwater levels relative to the Salton Sea
water levels will need to be monitored and evaluated regularly until the Salton Sea is stabilized.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 10: MONITORING PROGRAM
The Indio Subbasin has been extensively monitored by the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs) for
decades, guided by the primary objective to evaluate the effectiveness of water management programs
and projects and to modify actions and plans based on factual data. This Alternative Plan Update continues
and builds on the existing monitoring programs as presented in previous CVWMP documents and
summarized in the Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016; see also summary in Chapter 2, Plan
Area).
This chapter includes description of the monitoring network, methods and protocols for data collection,
and development and maintenance of the data management system (DMS). The monitoring program has
been assessed with reference to the sustainability goal and objectives, data gaps have been reviewed, and
improvements have been identified for implementation.
10.1 Description of Monitoring Network
As summarized in the following sections, the Monitoring Network addresses groundwater levels, climate
and hydrology, groundwater production, subsidence, water quality, and seawater intrusion.
Table 10-1 and the following text provide a summary of
the monitoring network, which documents
groundwater and related surface water and subsidence
conditions, in terms of the type of measurement,
monitoring site locations and spatial coverage,
monitoring frequency, and involved agencies. In most
cases, monitored data are compiled and summarized in
Annual Reports; these data will also be used to update
the Alternative Plan Update in 5 years.
Table 10-1 also documents other sources of data that
are important input to the water budget analysis and to
update of the numerical model. These include managed
water supplies and deliveries, such as imported water
deliveries, groundwater replenishment volumes,
wastewater percolation and water recycling, and
municipal water use. As shown, these are mostly
metered, and the data are compiled monthly and
documented in the Annual Report as part of the water
budget analysis.
The GSAs monitor groundwater levels and
quality.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-6 TODD/W&C
10.1.1 Groundwater Levels
As described in Chapter 2, Plan Area, the Indio
Subbasin GSAs monitor groundwater levels in
345 wells as part of their respective
groundwater level monitoring programs
(Figure 2-11 shows the wells in the current
monitoring network). As shown, 52 of these
wells have been monitored by the Indio
Subbasin GSAs and Mission Springs Water
District (MSWD) as part of the California
Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
(CASGEM) program. As part of
implementation, the GSAs will upload water
levels for the Key Wells (see Chapter 9,
Sustainable Management) to the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) Monitoring Well
Module and data will be publicly accessible.
10.1.1.1 Spatial and Vertical Coverage
Locations of all wells monitored for groundwater levels are shown in Figure 2-11, while Figure 9-1 shows
the Key Wells used to monitor groundwater levels with respect to the Minimum Thresholds established
by the GSAs (see Chapter 9, Sustainable Management). The 57 Key Wells for groundwater levels are also
listed in Table 9-1 with the respective Minimum Thresholds. The methodology used to select the Key Wells
is described in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management.
The scientific rationale for inclusion of key wells in the overall GSAs groundwater level monitoring program
has considered the following factors:
• Spatial distribution and density of wells, accounting for variable geographic conditions including
topography, hydrology, geologic structures, aquifer characteristics, confined and unconfined
conditions, pumping patterns, management activities (including replenishment), and potential
impacts to beneficial uses/users
• Length, completeness, and reliability of historical groundwater level record
• Well depth and information on well construction
• Regular access to the well for measurements.
Wells in the Indio Subbasin groundwater level monitoring program have unique well information including
a well identification number, an identified vertical reference point for measurements, and well completion
report if available.
Well density has been a consideration in identifying new dedicated monitoring well sites and adding wells
to the monitoring program. By way of comparison, DWR guidance (DWR, Dec 2016 BMP, Table 1) generally
recommends between one to ten monitoring wells per 100 square miles. The Indio Subbasin program
exceeds this guidance with an area of about 525 square miles and 2020 monitoring of more than 385
wells. More importantly, the Indio Subbasin monitoring program has been developed to account for the
variable spatial factors listed above.
Monitoring well located at PD-GRF.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-7 TODD/W&C
In the future, some wells may become unavailable for various reasons (e.g., loss of access). Consistent
with ongoing practice, the GSAs will continue to assess the monitoring well network and find suitable
replacements. Monitoring program improvements as part of the Alternative Plan Update (coordinated
with the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan [SNMP]) include identification of additional existing wells
for monitoring across the Subbasin and will include installing new dedicated monitoring wells. Most wells
with known construction have long screened intervals and many are screened at depths greater than 300
feet below ground surface. Information on vertical groundwater gradients is available from nested wells,
from comparison of deep wells with nearby relatively shallow monitoring wells, and from observation of
artesian conditions. Available data have allowed identification of perched, shallow, and deep aquifer
zones in the East Valley (see Chapter 3, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model). Planning is underway to install
additional monitoring wells representing the perched and shallow zones; this is a collaborative effort of
the Alternative Plan and CV-SNMP (see Section 10.1.5).
10.1.1.2 Monitoring Frequency
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring Program (CASGEM program) require collection of static groundwater elevation measurements
at least two times per year to represent seasonal low and seasonal high groundwater conditions. The GSAs
in the Indio Subbasin generally provide groundwater level data at least three times a year (with more
frequent monitoring at some locations), which is more frequent than recommended and has allowed
tracking of seasonal and long-term trends.
10.1.1.3 Climate, Streamflow, and Drain Flow
As summarized in Chapter 2, Plan Area, and Table 10-1, the Indio Subbasin Monitoring Program provides
information on climate (rainfall and evapotranspiration), streamflow, and drain flows.
10.1.1.4 Climate
Climate data (including temperature, evapotranspiration, and precipitation) are available from DWR’s
California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for four active CIMIS stations (see Figure 2-
9 for spatial distribution). Precipitation data are collected by the 12 Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District precipitation monitoring stations, also shown in Figure 2-9. In addition,
temperature and precipitation data are available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) station in Indio. As noted in Table 10-1, daily climate data are downloaded and
compiled for the Annual Report. Data are used to support groundwater conditions characterization and
evaluation of irrigation water demands (agricultural and golf course).
10.1.1.5 Streamflow
Streamflow is measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at 19 locations within the Indio
Subbasin, also shown in Figure 2-9. Surface water diversions by Desert Water Agency (DWA) from Snow,
Falls, White Water, and Chino watersheds are measured by DWA. Daily streamflow data are downloaded
and compiled annually as part of the Indio Subbasin Annual Reports.
10.1.1.6 Drain Flow
The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and associated drains (see Figure 2-5) receive intercepted
shallow groundwater from agricultural fields and convey the flow to the Salton Sea. CVWD measures
drain flows (volumetric meters or flow in cubic feet per second) on a monthly basis at as many as 27 drain
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-8 TODD/W&C
sites (depending on occurrence of flow) plus monitoring of the CVSC. A USGS gage station measures flow
in the lower CVSC near the Salton Sea (see Figure 2-9). The CVSC and portions of the drain system receive
not only shallow groundwater but also flows of Coachella Canal water in excess of requested deliveries
(regulatory water), treated wastewater, and fish farm effluent. The drain flow data are used in tracking
groundwater outflow and in calibrating the numerical groundwater flow model.
10.1.2 Groundwater Production
CVWD and DWA have been monitoring
(assessing) groundwater production in the
Areas of Benefit (AOBs) making up the West
Whitewater River Subbasin Management
Area since 1982 and the East Whitewater
River Subbasin AOB since 2005. As defined
in the Water Code, Assessable Production
excludes groundwater production from
Minimal pumpers who extract 25 acre-feet
per year (AFY) or less within CVWD’s AOBs
and 10 AFY or less within DWA’s AOB. While
Water Code Section 31635.5 exempts
Minimal pumpers and production reporting
requirements for CVWD, the GSAs may
consider lowering the threshold for
reporting groundwater production as provided by SGMA authorities (Water Code Section 10725.8)
excepting de minimis extractors (extracting two AFY or less per year for domestic purposes).
Groundwater extractors with production above the thresholds of 25 AFY within CVWD’s replenishment
program areas and 10 AFY within DWA’s replenishment program area are required to install a water use
measuring device (i.e., a meter). CVWD encourages well owners to allow CVWD to read their meters
directly through metering agreements. However, the groundwater producer can choose to self-report
groundwater use totals, if needed. The CVWD groundwater production data set is audited two times a
year and summarized as part of the SGMA Annual Report and the annual Engineer’s Report. DWA also
audits its groundwater production data as part of the Annual Report and their Engineer's Report.
Figure 2-13 illustrates the groundwater production across the Subbasin for Water Year (WY) 2018-2019.
CVWD and DWA will continue to collect data for all groundwater wells with pumping above the applicable
thresholds. As indicated in Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation, the planned Subbasin Well
Inventory project will identify and compile information about all production wells in the Subbasin.
Resulting knowledge of existing wells will allow refinement of pumping estimates for wells that are not
metered.
10.1.3 Subsidence
Land subsidence, resulting from groundwater level declines and aquifer system compaction, has been a
concern in the Coachella Valley since the mid-1990s and has been investigated since 1996 through an on-
going cooperative program between CVWD and the USGS (Sneed and Brandt, 2020). The USGS has applied
satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying techniques to determine the location, extent,
and magnitude of the vertical land-surface changes in the Coachella Valley. These surveying techniques
CVWD and DWA have been monitoring (assessing)
groundwater production since 1982.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-9 TODD/W&C
include GNSS-Inferred Positioning System and Orbit Analysis Simulation Software (GIPSY-OASIS) and
interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) methods. In addition to areal mapping of vertical changes
in land surface elevation, GPS measurements have also been taken at 24 geodetic monuments that have
been paired with nearby water level monitoring wells to assess relationships between subsidence and
groundwater level change. Results of USGS studies are summarized in Chapter 4, Current and Historical
Groundwater Conditions.
The USGS has provided data and analyses through a series of published reports that have addressed
conditions from 1993 to 2017 (e.g., Sneed and Brandt, 2013; Sneed and Brandt, 2020). The partnership
with USGS is continuing. For the Indio Subbasin, the objectives of the study (October 1, 2021, through
June 30, 2025) are to (1) detect and quantify land subsidence using GPS methods (2015–22) and InSAR
methods (2017–23) and (2) evaluate the relation between changes in land-surface elevation and
groundwater levels at selected sites during 2015–23. USGS also will analyze DWR-provided InSAR results
to compute changes in land-surface elevation in the Indio Subbasin during 2017–23. Findings will be
published in a report in 2025.
In addition, DWR provides InSAR satellite-based data and GPS data to identify and assess land subsidence
across many California groundwater basins, including the Indio Subbasin. The data are available through
DWR’s SGMA Data Portal (see Table 10-1). As available, these data will be downloaded and reviewed
annually to detect significant changes in land surface elevation. The utility of annual review will be re-
evaluated at the next 5-Year Update, at which time the next USGS Report will be available.
10.1.3.1 Spatial Coverage
The satellite-based mapping provided by USGS (for example, see Figure 4-10) provides Subbasin-wide
information on subsidence. In addition, Figure 2-10 shows the current network of GPS stations in the
valley used by USGS. InSAR mapping for the entire Indio Subbasin is also available for download from the
DWR Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) portal.
10.1.3.2 Monitoring Frequency
The Monitoring Program will involve annual download and review of InSAR data from the DWR SGMA
portal with analysis for any signs (rate and extent) of significant cumulative subsidence. The USGS report
will be available for the next 5-Year Update.
10.1.4 Water Quality
Existing water quality monitoring programs for Indio Subbasin GSAs are summarized in Chapter 2, Plan
Area, while Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, includes discussion of various water quality topics and
regulatory-driven water quality monitoring programs. As indicated in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy
Issues, surface water and groundwater quality monitoring programs are conducted by various agencies
for multiple purposes. These address local surface water, imported water sources, groundwater, recycled
water, wastewater discharges, and agricultural drain water with sampling and analysis for different
physical parameters, inorganic and organic chemical constituents, and/or microbiological organisms.
While being conducted beyond the scope of the Alternative Plan Update, these programs represent
sources of information to better understand groundwater quality conditions and trends in Indio Subbasin.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-10 TODD/W&C
10.1.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring and Data Compilation
Multiple sources of water quality information are being compiled into the centralized DMS (See Chapter
12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation). As described in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions, this Alternative Plan Update has included compilation into a single database of groundwater
quality data from various sources including the USGS National Water Information System and the SWRCB
website and from each GSA. The GSAs conduct groundwater quality monitoring, as summarized below:
• CVWD—CVWD monitors domestic wells to monitor recharge areas, conducts special studies to
address a specific parameter (such as hexavalent chromium) or a specific area, and conducts
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) monitoring
• CWA—CWA monitors its domestic wells and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
• DWA—DWA monitors its domestic wells, monitors for State emerging contaminants (e.g., per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFASs]), and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
• IWA—IWA monitors its domestic wells and conducts CV-SNMP monitoring
Figure 2-12 shows the spatial distribution of the wells with available water quality data used in this
Alternative Plan Update. Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, provides the
documentation and analysis of the groundwater quality data for multiple constituents of concern
including salinity (total dissolved solids [TDS]), nitrate, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, uranium, fluoride,
perchlorate, and dibromochloropropane (DBCP). This water quality data compilation included collection
of water quality data not only for groundwater but also imported water sources, recycled water, and
wastewater discharges for the period 1990 through 2019.
An additional source of relevant water quality data is from the agricultural drain system (see Figure 2-5)
that intercepts shallow subsurface flow from agricultural fields in the East Valley. Drain flows are
monitored for water quality at 27 drain outlets for general minerals and metals annually and for field pH,
temperature, EC, and TDS semi-annually.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Plan Area and Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, the SNMP for the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CV-SNMP) was restarted in 2020. The CV-SNMP Groundwater
Monitoring Workplan, included in Appendix 2-A, recommended a CV-SNMP monitoring network to
include 187 existing wells with the suggested addition of 23 new wells. This Alternative Plan Update
includes a focused effort to install additional monitoring wells, including application to DWR’s Technical
Support Services (TSS) program for assistance in installing the monitoring wells.
The CV-SNMP agencies plan to monitor network wells at a minimum of once per 3 years, although many
are monitored more frequently as part of other programs. The CV-SNMP Development Workplan, also
included in Appendix 2-A, suggests a focused analyte list including TDS, nitrate, major cations, major
anions, and total Alkalinity. CVWD and other GSAs also plan to add the identified constituents of concern
(COCs) to this monitoring network to help meet the objectives of the Alternative Plan.
10.1.4.2 Spatial and Vertical Coverage
Figure 2-12 shows the spatial distribution of wells used in this Alternative Plan Update for groundwater
quality characterization and mapping. The existing water quality monitoring programs provide adequate
spatial coverage. The planned CV-SNMP monitoring network will provide very good coverage for TDS and
nitrate monitoring, with potential extension to other constituents of interest.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-11 TODD/W&C
Water quality concentrations vary with depth depending on constituent. As shown in Chapter 4, Current
and Historical Groundwater Conditions, general variations can be documented but depth-specific data
generally are limited due to current lack of shallow wells. The construction details for some wells are
unknown, and most wells with known construction data are screened at depths greater than 300 feet.
Exceptions include the monitoring wells that have been sited and designed to monitor GRFs and WRPs,
and the two sets of nested wells near the Salton Sea. Planned monitoring network improvements as part
of the CV-SNMP include installation of 6 new monitoring wells in the perched aquifer and 17 new wells in
the shallow aquifer.
The scientific rationale for selection of wells used in this Alternative Plan Update has included:
• Areal distribution across Indio Subbasin
• Length, completeness, and reliability of historical record
• Regular access to the well for sampling
• Well depth, with specific information on well construction preferred.
The water quality program relies heavily on existing municipal wells and existing monitoring programs.
Dedicated monitoring wells could be designed to meet requirements and address gaps not only in the
water level monitoring program, but also the water quality monitoring program.
10.1.4.3 Temporal Coverage and Monitoring Frequency
Groundwater quality data in the database complied for the Alternative Plan Update extend back to 1971.
Wells are sampled with a range of frequencies; community water systems and municipal wells are
generally sampled triennially for general constituents, but as often as annually for nitrate and quarterly
for total coliform bacteria. Agricultural drains are sampled annually or at a higher frequency. The GSAs
audit their groundwater quality monitoring programs to ensure that monitoring frequency is adequate.
10.1.5 Seawater Intrusion
The general monitoring of groundwater levels and quality is relevant to monitoring the potential for saline
water intrusion from the Salton Sea. As described in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions, saline water intrusion is monitored specifically through two sets of dedicated nested
monitoring wells, as summarized below in Table 10-2.
Locations of these CVWD monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2-12. One set of four wells is located
about 2.1 miles north of the Salton Sea and the other set of four wells is about one mile west of the Salton
Sea and north of Oasis. These are monitored for changes in groundwater levels and quality, both of which
can be used as potential indicators of saline intrusion.
In addition, the groundwater flow model has been used to simulate flow between the Indio Subbasin and
the Salton Sea. The relationship of simulated and observed groundwater elevations to the changing level
of the Salton Sea is discussed in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, and Chapter 9,
Sustainable Management.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-13 TODD/W&C
10.2.2 Field Methods for Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
Reference points and ground surface elevations are documented as described above prior to groundwater
elevation monitoring in the field. Field methods for collection of depth-to-water measurements are
described below:
1. Measurements in all wells will be collected within a consistent period.
2. Active production wells should be turned off prior to collecting a depth to water measurement.
3. Each agency should follow their standard operating procedure and ensure the well has been off
for an adequate period before a static measurement is taken (24 hours, when possible).
4. To verify that the wells are ready for measurement, GSA staff will coordinate with well operators
and/or owners as necessary.
5. Coordination with well operators/owners should occur approximately three days prior to the
expected measurement date. For municipal wells less lead time may be needed.
6. Depth-to-groundwater measurements are collected by either electric sounding tape (Solinst or
Powers type sounders) or by steel tape methods. These depth-to-water measurement methods
are described in DWR’s Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (DWR, 2010). Depth to
groundwater will be measured and reported in feet to at least 0.1 foot.
10.2.3 Field Methods for Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Groundwater sampling is conducted by trained professionals from the GSAs. Sampling follows standard
monitoring well sampling guidelines such as those presented in the National Field Manual for the
Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2012) and/or EPA Groundwater Sampling Operating procedure
(SESDROPC-301-R4, 2017).
Generally, the wells have been pumped
prior to sample collection, or are purged.
Purging is conducted until field instruments
indicate that water quality parameters (pH,
specific conductance, and temperature)
have stabilized, and turbidity
measurements are below five
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTUs). Wells
are typically purged a minimum volume
equal to three times the well casing and
parameters are monitored until stable
conditions are reached. The pumping or
purging demonstrates that the sample
collected is representative of formation
water and not stagnant water in the well
casing or well filter pack. For groundwater,
field temperature and conductivity are recorded while the well is being purged to ensure that physical
parameters have stabilized before collecting a sample. All groundwater samples are collected in
laboratory-supplied, pre-labeled containers and include prescribed preservatives.
CVWD collects water quality data at wells and
distribution system sites.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-14 TODD/W&C
All field measurements, if collected, are recorded in a field logbook or worksheets and the sample
containers are labeled correctly and recorded on the chain-of-custody form. The applicable chain-of-
custody sections are completed and forwarded with the samples to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the
samples at the laboratory, laboratory personnel complete the chain-of-custody and a copy of the chain of
custody is given back to the sampler.
QA/QC assessment of field sampling includes
use of field blanks when required for specific
parameters. Field blanks identify sample
contamination that is associated with the field
environment and sample handling. These
samples are prepared in the field by filling the
appropriate sample containers with the
distilled water used for cleaning and
decontamination of all field equipment. One
field blank per sampling event is collected.
Samples are analyzed in a certified laboratory
that has a documented analytical QA/QC
program including procedures to reduce
variability and errors, identify and correct
measurement problems, and provide a
statistical measure of data quality. The laboratory conducts all QA/QC procedures in accordance with its
QA/QC program. All QA/QC data are reported in the laboratory analytical report, including: the method,
equipment, and analytical detection limits, the recovery rates, an explanation for any recovery rates that
are outside of method specific limits, the results of equipment and method blanks, the results of spiked
and surrogate samples, the frequency of quality control analysis, and the name of the person(s)
performing the analyses. Sample results are reported unadjusted for blank results or spike recovery.
10.3 Data Management System (DMS)
Indio GSAs have been collecting and compiling groundwater data annually including water levels, water
quality, and water use for the Annual Report. These data, and other data from the GSAs and other sources,
are being compiled in relational databases, which comprise an Access database, GIS geodatabase, and
Excel workbooks. These have capabilities for queries to quickly check and summarize data. As part of the
Alternative Plan Update, the data management system has been redesigned to be practicable, usable,
intuitive, and cost effective. The relational database includes easy-to-update tables and reports that assist
in data analysis and sustainability goals. These tables include groundwater elevations, water quality,
groundwater pumping, direct deliveries of imported water, and well locations. The geodatabase contains
spatial files including jurisdictional areas, basin boundaries, monitoring locations, crop censuses,
groundwater contours (elevation and quality), geology, and hydrologic features.
The DMS will be updated annually as part of the annual report. In addition, a full review and update will
be conducted during the Alternative Plan 5-year update.
Water quality samples are analyzed in a certified
laboratory.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-15 TODD/W&C
10.4 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Program
The Bridge Document summarized the status of previously recommended monitoring and reporting
improvements and also presented monitoring data gaps. These are summarized below along with brief
updates.
• Surface water flow data to estimate potential yield from stormwater capture projects.
Stormwater capture, as a category of projects, is currently deferred. This reflects that significant
local runoff already is captured cost-effectively at existing facilities (e.g., WWR-GRF, debris basins,
West Valley unlined channels) or is integrated into flood control projects.
• Uniform reporting of urban water use by user class to track water conservation efforts. While
uniformity among agencies may not be generally feasible, CVWD has improved its reporting by
meter class (user type) and continues to make improvements as needed. Other GSAs also
continue to maintain and replace meters, as needed.
• Groundwater production data for wells in the East Valley, especially agricultural wells. CVWD has
addressed groundwater production reporting for entities producing more than 25 afy.
• Lack of a centralized groundwater database that allows all water agencies to share data. At this
time, development of the DMS is underway and is a major focus. As summarized in Section 10.3,
data on groundwater levels, water quality, and wells are being compiled and entered into the
DMS.
• Non-uniform coverage of water quality data. Coverage of water quality data is being addressed
through various efforts, such as the compilation of water quality data, data analysis and
documentation of groundwater quality in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions. As described in Section 10.1.5.1, a major effort is development of the CV-SNMP
Monitoring Workplan to include 187 existing wells with planned installation of 23 new monitoring
wells. As part of this Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs are moving ahead with options to fund
the new monitoring wells, including application to DWR’s Technical Support Services program.
Other monitoring improvements are part of Alternative Plan Update implementation and will be reviewed
and updated for each 5-year assessment.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-16 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 11: PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Maintaining sustainability in the Indio Subbasin will require implementation of projects and management
actions to offset forecasted increases in water demands. Water management elements included in this
Alternative Plan Update to help maintain sustainability consist of water conservation measures,
acquisition of additional water sources, source substitution and replenishment programs, water quality
improvements, and other studies and programs.
11.1 Project Selection and Implementation
The Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) have evaluated a range of potential projects and
management actions (PMAs) to help maintain sustainability. This section summarizes the process used to
select the PMAs for inclusion in this Alternative Plan Update, as well as the entities responsible for
implementing these activities.
11.1.1 Adaptive Management
The preceding chapters of this Alternative Plan Update have documented the success of the Coachella
Valley’s water management strategies. Expectations for population growth have changed since the
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012) and
resulted in a corresponding reduction in the projected urban development of agricultural and vacant land
in the Coachella Valley. At the same time, the reliability of imported water supply from the State Water
Project (SWP) has declined due to a combination of drought, climate change, and legal and environmental
restrictions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Uncertainty associated with forecasted water
demands and anticipated conservation legislation, coupled with climate change and supply constraints,
means that the GSAs need flexibility in determining what PMAs to implement in order to maintain a
balanced Indio Subbasin and avoid significant and unreasonable undesirable results. This Alternative Plan
Update incorporates a flexible and adaptive approach to water resources management that will allow the
GSAs to adjust the implementation strategy.
The Plan Scenarios evaluated in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, simulate a range of
potential conditions to ensure that forecasted demands can be met, while sustainably managing
groundwater resources. In each of the Plan Scenarios, a different suite of projected water supplies and
PMAs is identified. The actual selection of PMAs for implementation by the Subbasin GSAs throughout the
planning horizon will depend on how the various demand and supply uncertainties identified in this Plan
play out. The selection and implementation of PMAs will be adaptively managed by the GSAs.
The process is cyclical and depends on the outcomes of the Plan implementation activities outlined in
Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation. These Plan implementation activities include ongoing
monitoring, annual reporting on the state of the Subbasin, and 5-year updates including application of the
numerical model to evaluate potential future scenarios. Adaptive management involves five steps:
monitoring, reporting, evaluating, adjusting, and implementing (see Figure 11-1 below). The Plan
implementation actions – primarily ongoing monitoring and reporting through the Annual Reports – work
to direct the GSAs selection and implementation of PMAs, based on the monitoring outcomes as
compared with this Plan’s thresholds. This adaptive management approach also allows the GSAs to adapt
to changing conditions and delay or defer PMAs if no longer needed.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-3 TODD/W&C
6. Return to Step 1: Monitoring. Ongoing monitoring data will then be used to assess the results of
PMA implementation and if/how conditions change. If monitoring indicates that conditions have
been restored to acceptable conditions (i.e., well above the minimum threshold), implementation
of the PMAs will be deemed successful. If the exceedance is not addressed, the GSAs will identify
and implement additional PMAs to avoid undesirable results.
11.1.2 Project Identification
A variety of PMAs are planned to be implemented over the planning horizon (to 2045) to achieve
sustainability in the Subbasin. Projects were identified by the GSAs through a several-month process
involving the GSAs, the general public, and interested stakeholders. The GSAs began by reviewing and
updating the projects identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update to determine which had been successfully
implemented and could be removed, which could be carried out in the Alternative Plan Update planning
horizon, and which projects to defer, while also identifying new projects to add that have been developed
since the 2010 CVWMP Update. Project information was compiled into a draft list that was discussed and
presented during the SGMA Tribal Workgroup and Public Workshops held on March 3, 2020. The project
selection process included review and input from the GSAs and stakeholders, which was used to refine
the project list for inclusion in the Plan. This project list was created on the basis of priorities identified by
the GSAs and stakeholders.
11.1.3 Project Implementation
The PMAs contained herein will be administered by the GSA project proponents. The GSAs may elect to
implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs and/or other project partners, as
appropriate. The GSAs will individually consider the demand forecast in Chapter 5, Demand Projections;
the overall Subbasin water budgets in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios; and the needs of
the different management areas described in Chapter 2, Plan Area. The Annual Reports outlined in
Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation, will allow the GSAs to evaluate their cumulative progress
toward maintaining, protecting, and improving Subbasin conditions.
11.2 List of Projects and Management Actions
The GSAs reviewed and refined the multiple projects, programs, and activities in the 2010 CVWMP Update
to help the Subbasin maintain sustainability and achieve plan goals. The Alternative Plan Update includes
a final list of 30 possible PMAs representing a wide variety of activities by the four GSAs. Projects are
classified into four categories based on project benefits: water conservation, water supply development,
source substitution and replenishment, and water quality protection. Deferred projects, listed in Section
11.7, are those that do not meet the Subbasin’s immediate needs or are currently unfeasible and may be
revisited in the future. The categorized projects are shown in Figure 11-2. This project list contains a mix
of planned and conceptual projects. Planned projects are those that are in the planning or design stages
and will be implemented in the near future or as funding becomes available. Conceptual projects are in
the planning, design, and funding stages and will be implemented later in the planning horizon.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-5 TODD/W&C
The following sections provide project descriptions for the projects included in the Alternative Plan
Update grouped by project category.
11.3 Water Conservation
Water conservation is a major component of overall water management in the Indio Subbasin. As a desert
community reliant upon imported water supplies, the Coachella Valley has and will continue to use its
water resources efficiently. The 2010 CVWMP Update included water conservation efforts for agriculture,
urban, and landscaping water demands, and the GSAs continue to expand and strengthen water
conservation programs not only through the Alternative Plan Update, but also through other efforts, such
as the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) and the 2020 Coachella Valley
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2020 RUWMP) (CVWD, et al, 2021a).
Water conservation is also a requirement of the California Water Code (CWC) and legislation such as the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill [SB]x7-7) and the 2018 water conservation legislation. This
section summarizes water conservation policies and the existing urban, agricultural, and golf course water
conservation activities in the Coachella Valley, as well as potential water conservation implementation
strategies. Consistent with Plan objectives, the Alternative Plan Update achieves a level of water use
reduction consistent with applicable State law without causing dramatic lifestyle changes on the part of
those conserving.
11.3.1 California Water Conservation Laws and Policies
Urban water use is expected to grow significantly in the future as development occurs. CVWD, DWA, CWA,
and IWA are implementing several on-going water conservation programs for both large landscape
customers and residential customers. They are also working with local governments and developers to
reduce water use in new developments and are partnering with large water users, such as schools, to
improve water efficiency and reduce groundwater pumping. California law also establishes multiple
policies regarding water conservation. Legislation and policies driving these urban conservation measures
are detailed below.
1. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
(Assembly Bill 1881, Laird) required cities and counties to adopt water conservation ordinances
by January 1, 2010. In accordance with the law, the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) prepared an updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). For all cities
and counties that do not adopt their own conservation ordinances, DWR’s updated MWELO
would apply within their jurisdiction by January 1, 2010.
2. California Urban Water Conservation Council Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)/California Water Efficiency Partnership. In addition to state law requirements, water
agencies and public interest groups formed the California Urban Water Conservation Council
(CUWCC) in 1991 (CUWCC, 1991). As the State’s water conservation landscape began to change
in response to the State’s historic drought, the CUWCC voted to allow the organization to end and
be replaced with the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) in 2017. CalWEP set forth
eight long-term objectives in its Strategic Plan (most recently updated in 2021) to provide
leadership and expertise on California water issues, challenges, and opportunities within a
collaborative network (CalWEP, 2021).
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-6 TODD/W&C
3. California 2008 Water Conservation Plan and SBx7-7. The Water Conservation Act was passed in
2009, and the final 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was released in February 2010 (SWRCB,
2010). As part of the comprehensive Water Conservation Act of 2009, SBx7-7 mandates California
urban water agencies achieve a 10 percent reduction in urban per capita water demand statewide
by 2015 and a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Water use reductions are compared on a per capita
basis to a 10-year baseline period. As reported in the 2020 RUWMP, the RUWMP participating
agencies met the target water use reduction by 2020 (CVWD, 2021a).
4. 2018 Water Conservation Legislation. As the effects of climate change become more apparent
and in response to the State’s historic 2012-2016 drought, the State recognized that more
stringent water conservation legislation needed to be implemented. California signed the Water
Conservation Legislation into law in 2018, effectively reorganizing and strengthening the
conservation and reporting requirements for the drought emergency, mandating water-use
reductions, and making “water conservation a way of life” on a permanent basis. Together,
Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman) and SB 606 (Hertzberg) lay out a new long-term water conservation
framework, which involves developing new standards for indoor residential water use, outdoor
residential water use, commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water use for landscape
irrigation, and water loss. Urban water suppliers will be required to stay within annual water use
objectives, as determined by the State. DWR is currently in the process of conducting numerous
studies and investigations, along with development of standards, guidelines, performance
measures, data platforms, and recommendations for adoption by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). New water conservation regulations are anticipated as a result of this
2018 legislation, which will be relevant to the GSAs within the planning horizon.
The following sections describe existing urban, agricultural and golf course water conservation activities
as well as potential water conservation implementation strategies consistent with legislation and policies
driving the conservation measures.
11.3.1.1 PMA 1: Urban Water Conservation
For the past three decades, water purveyors have placed a significant focus on urban water conservation
as a way of life to address the increasing water demands due to population growth and economic
development in the Coachella Valley. Local urban water conservation programs began as early as 1988.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs have managed a suite of conservation programs and activities designed to
increase efficiency, reduce future water demand, and support fulfillment of the requirements of the
statewide Water Conservation Act. CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA have implemented ongoing programs for
both large landscape customers and residential customers for achieving increased water conservation in
the Coachella Valley.
The Regional Water Conservation Program (Regional Program) has been a cornerstone of water
conservation in the Coachella Valley. Implemented in 2015 by the CVRWMG, this multifaceted Regional
Program has achieved a significant level of conservation through a suite of programs and activities
designed to increase efficiency, reduce future water demand, and assist the Coachella Valley in meeting
regulatory requirements. The Regional Program had an emphasis on coordination and collaboration
between the member agencies of the CVRWMG (CVWD, 2020d). Together, under the Regional Program,
the agencies developed and branded “CV Water Counts” (https://cvwatercounts.com/) to conduct
education and outreach related to water conservation.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-9 TODD/W&C
CVWD uses water budget based tiered rates. Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to
reduce average or peak use, or both. CVWD uses water commodity rates for its domestic water, non-
potable (including Canal and recycled) water, and groundwater replenishment services. Every residential
customer is given a personalized water budget based on the number of people living in the home, the size
of the home’s landscaped area (budgeting more water to those with larger landscapes), and daily weather
(budgeting more water during hotter months). Every landscape meter is given a personalized water
budget based on the landscaped area served. Every commercial property is given a personalized water
budget based on the demand the entity places on the sanitation system and may include an allotment for
landscape area served. Customers pay the tier rate for all water used within that tier. In 2021, CVWD
updated water rate studies for its domestic water, Canal water, and replenishment assessment charges.
CVWD’s water loss program evaluates both apparent and real water loss. The programs and practices
used to constitute water loss reduction efforts include Production Well Meter Testing; Customer Meter
Testing, Leak Detection, and Repair; District Site Use Water Meters; Meter Reading; and Billing Reports.
CVWD’s Large Landscape Irrigation Audit
Program assists users in maximizing the
efficient operation of their irrigation system
by measuring performance, generating
irrigation schedules, and recommending
improvement actions. Audit sites are chosen
based on excessive water consumption, or in
response to a request for audit services. The
large landscape audit program operates
continuously and completes approximately 20
landscape audits per year. The success of this
program will be measured by the annual
water reduction achieved by large water users
participating in the program.
CVWD hosts a Landscaper Certification
Program (LCP) for professional landscapers that focuses on water use efficiency. CVWD partnered with
College of the Desert (COD) (a local community college with an established Landscape Management
Program), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the cities, county, and neighboring
water districts to implement the course and establish certification criteria for incorporation into each
city's business license qualification requirements. CVWD developed the curriculum of the LCP using
existing staff that hold licenses and certifications in irrigation efficiency, plant water use, horticultural
practices, arboriculture, and landscape/golf course irrigation auditing.
CVWD also hosts a Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper (QWEL) certification class each year. The QWEL
certification program was created by the Sonoma County Water Agency in partnership with the North
Coast Chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association and is nationally recognized by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense program for Irrigation System Audits. The QWEL
professional certification program provides landscape professionals with 20 hours of education on local
water supply, sustainable landscaping, soils, water budgeting and water management, irrigation system
components and maintenance, irrigation system audits, and scheduling and controller programming
Example of desert landscaping to reduce
irrigation demands.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-10 TODD/W&C
(QWEL, 2018). Upon completion of the course, an exam is given and participants will complete an
irrigation system audit. Once all components have been successfully completed, certification is earned.
Coachella Water Authority
CWA is currently offering a variety of rebate programs for indoor and outdoor water use. CWA continues
to build its conservation efforts with the development of a website
(https://www.conservecoachella.com/) dedicated to water conservation. CWA currently offers to its
customers Conservation Programs for CII Accounts, Large Landscape Conservation Programs and
Incentives, Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilet (ULFT) Replacement Programs, Residential Plumbing Retrofit,
and Water Survey Programs for Single- and Multi-Family Residential Customers (CVWD, 2021a).
The City of Coachella has a prohibition for wasting water
in Municipal Code Section 13.03.044, along with a tiered
rate structure for water service within its service area.
CWA’s water rates include a variable commodity charge
(monthly charge based on the amount of water used or
consumed by the customer in hundreds of cubic feet
[HCF]) and a fixed metered account charge (basic
monthly rate by meter size). The rates have been
designed to recover the full cost of water service in the
commodity charge, while discouraging wasteful water
use, and will continue to be implemented into the
future. Tiered rates are designed to incentivize
customers to be proactive in reducing water use.
Desert Water Agency
DWA continues to increase its investment in outreach
related to water conservation. DWA has a large section
on its website featuring conservation information and
program links (www.dwa.org/save), and hosts regular
information sessions, classroom curriculum, and
advertising on conservation topics. To date, these
investments account for significant water demand reduction within the community. DWA’s current
conservation programs include a Smart Irrigation Controller Program, Grass Removal Program, Efficient
Nozzle Program, Residential Washing Machine Incentives, Commercial Toilet Program, Conservation
Coupon Program, and Hospitality Conservation Program. The agency is also developing an Advanced
Metering Infrastructure network to give staff and customers access to near real-time water use
information.
DWA offers large-landscape customers water use evaluations and will perform them for residential
customers upon request. Customers receive a report documenting system deficiencies and outlining
water-saving recommendations.
Example of landscape remodel from
CWA’s turf rebate program.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-11 TODD/W&C
DWA is working to reduce its own water losses through water main replacement, proactive service line
replacement, meter testing and updated procedures.
In June 2021, DWA passed Ordinance No. 72 enacting its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The Ordinance
outlines water use restrictions to be implemented during various shortage scenarios.
Indio Water Authority
IWA continues to promote water conservation using different outlets such as social media, speaking
engagements, City events, bill inserts/messaging and the City of Indio newsletter. IWA promotes water
use efficiency via the agency’s website (www.indiowater.org) which features conservation tips, watering
guides, and link to rebates and incentives. IWA currently offer rebates and incentives for turf replacement,
clothes washer and toilet replacements, smart controller installation, and irrigation upgrades.
Additionally, IWA offers an online customer engagement tool where water customers can view water
usage, set water use allowance notifications, and be notified of possible leaks on their property. IWA also
promptly responds to water waste incidents that are reported via the State water waster portal and to
IWA conservation staff.
As part of the 2020 RUWMP, IWA (along
with other participating agencies) updated
its Water Shortage Contingency Plan to
reflect additional tiers/stages and aligned
its water use restrictions as a region to
better streamline communication and
outreach efforts in promoting
conservation. IWA continues to implement
Stage 1 of its Water Shortage Contingency
Plan, which outlines water use restrictions
and promotes water use efficiency as
outlined in the Governor’s Executive Order
B-37-16 which calls for making water
conservation a California way of life.
Previously in 2016, the City of Indio passed
Ordinance No. 1684 to adopt water use
efficient landscape development standards (i.e., MWELO), which applies to new development projects
with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet, and renovated landscape projects
with an aggregate landscape area equal or greater than 2,500 square feet. IWA also completes an audited
water loss report and reviews for water system distribution leaks as outlined in SB 606 to further curtail
inefficient water use.
11.3.1.2 PMA 2: Golf Water Conservation
Golf water conservation has been implemented by CVWD since development of the 2002 CVWMP and
recognition that demand management was essential to balancing the Indio Subbasin. The CVWD
Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1302.5), last updated July 2020, establishes uniform landscaping
standards throughout the Coachella Valley. The Ordinance specifies the maximum allowable turf area and
associated water demands for new golf courses, and other landscaping must use low water-using plant
IWA’s turf rebate program encourages water
use efficiency.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-12 TODD/W&C
materials (CVWD, 2019). Ordinance No. 1302.5 is one of the few ordinances in the State to establish turf
limitations for new golf courses. In addition, CVWD has identified various methods for existing golf courses
to further enhance water savings. CVWD is committed to working with new and existing golf courses to
reduce water demands through programs such as irrigation system audits, scheduling irrigation with the
best available science, plan checking, inspecting new golf courses for plan check compliance, and
monitoring maximum water allowance compliance.
In December 2013, CVWD collaborated with the local chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents
Association to create a Golf and Water Task Force. The initial objective of the Task Force was to discuss
water supply issues and explore ways in which CVWD could help the 106 golf courses in its service area to
reduce water use. The benefit of the collaboration has exceeded the initial goal. In 2014, the golf course
representatives on the Task Force were integral in helping develop a turf rebate program that would meet
the unique needs of the region’s golf courses. They also identified other rebate and incentive
opportunities that staff might not have considered without the valuable feedback. CVWD launched the
golf course rebate program in 2015, after securing a State grant. The golf course representatives helped
promote the program and in 3 years (2015-2017), 31 courses participated in the program with 8 courses
participating twice. The conversions equate to 161 acres of turf removed with an estimated water savings
of 956 acre-feet per year (AFY). The Task Force also adopted individual water budgets for each golf course
in the service area as a tool for understanding the correct amount of water needed. The golf course
representatives have been key liaisons for educating all courses about using the budgets and encouraging
water conservation among all golf courses. They have also provided feedback about possible rate
increases which has had a strong influence on staff and the Board of Directors. Perhaps the most beneficial
product of the Task Force is establishment of an open line of communication including invitations to speak
about drought and other water issues at regional golf industry events (CVWD, 2021a). CVWD is committed
to continued participation in the Task Force. The GSAs will also continue to seek grant funding to support
ongoing delivery and expansion of conservation programs targeted to golf courses, including those
identified by the Task Force.
One of the primary tools that CVWD has to reduce the impact of golf courses on the Indio Subbasin is the
non-potable water program. CVWD currently has 54 golf courses connected to the Mid-Valley Pipeline,
the Coachella Canal, or the blended delivery systems from WRP-7 and WRP-10. The conversion of golf
courses from private production wells to non-potable water reduces groundwater pumping volumes and
maximizes delivery of the region’s imported supplies. CVWD is committed to its ongoing non-potable
water expansion.
DWA has six courses within its boundaries in the Planning Area. Recycled water is available to and has
historically been used at four courses but is currently only accepted at three. The other two courses are
far from DWA’s recycled water infrastructure and haven’t been deemed cost effective to connect.
11.3.1.3 PMA 3: Agricultural Water Conservation
CVWD has implemented agricultural water conservation efforts since preparation of the 2002 CVWMP.
Following the 2010 CVWMP Update, a variety of agricultural conservation programs have been
implemented, including grower education and training, scientific irrigation scheduling, irrigation
upgrades/retrofits, and engineering evaluations. Programs with voluntary grower participation, such as
the Extraordinary Conservation Measures programs, have been effective in increasing water use
efficiency. The Extraordinary Conservation Measures programs were a series of voluntary agricultural
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-13 TODD/W&C
conservation measures designed to compensate United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for the
accidental overuse of the Colorado River supplies. Through voluntary agricultural conservation, CVWD
was able to pay back the overrun (73,200 acre-feet [AF]) by 2009. Between 2015 and 2018, an additional
71 acres of agricultural land were converted from flood/furrow to drip irrigation which resulted in an
estimated water savings of 252 AFY (CVWD, 2021b).
CVWD established the Agricultural Water Advisory Group (AWAG) in December 2015 to collaborate with
other organizations and educate Valley residents about the agricultural industry’s stewardship of water
in the Coachella Valley. The AWAG meets biannually to discuss water issues, legislative updates, grant
funding opportunities, best management practices (BMPs), and information to assist farmers. This
ensures collaboration with entities such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the United
State Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (CVWD, 2021b).
CVWD is committed to continued participation in the AWAG. The GSAs will also continue to seek grant
funding to support ongoing delivery and expansion of agricultural conservation programs, including those
identified by AWAG.
An agricultural resource page is available on CVWD’s website (www.cvwd.org/434/Agriculture) providing
links to various organizations, articles, meeting and training dates, and any available grant information.
11.4 Water Supply Development
CVWD and DWA continue their efforts to obtain additional water supplies to meet projected water
demands, increase the reliability of water supply, and to avoid undesirable results associated with chronic
groundwater level declines (including storage depletion, subsidence, and seawater intrusion). Sources of
additional water include Colorado River water, SWP water, recycled water, exchanges, entitlements and
transfers, and other water development projects.
11.4.1 Surface Water
11.4.1.1 PMA 4: Increased Surface Water Diversion
DWA’s surface water rights for Chino, Snow, Falls Creek, and Whitewater canyon flows total 13,309 AFY.
However, in different water year types, DWA has not always captured all the surface water it has had the
right to divert from those sources. DWA plans to divert as much water from those sources as may be
available and deliver that diverted surface water to the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment
Facility (WWR-GRF) for replenishment into the Indio Subbasin and subsequent extraction for use in DWA’
domestic water supply system.
11.4.2 SWP Water
CVWD and DWA are working with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and DWR to
both improve the reliability of SWP water and acquire additional supplies. Future SWP projects include
increased deliveries through the implementation of the Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF), the Lake Perris
Dam Seepage Recovery Project, and the Sites Reservoir Project. SWP supplies are expected to increase by
approximately 14,300 AF by 2045, along with increased SWP reliability of 26,500 AFY following
construction of the DCF.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-14 TODD/W&C
11.4.2.1 PMA 5: Delta Conveyance Facility
The DCF is a project led by DWR to improve SWP reliability and result in increased future deliveries relative
to projected long-term reliability (estimated to be 45 percent, see Chapter 6, Water Supply) by
modernizing SWP conveyance facilities in the Delta. The DCF will construct and operate a new tunnel to
bypass the existing natural channels that are currently used for SWP conveyance, which are vulnerable to
earthquakes, sea level rise, and pumping restrictions. The new facilities will convey water from the north
Delta to the south Delta and will be operated in coordination with the existing south Delta pumping
facilities. The planning process for the proposed DCF is moving forward, and a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is anticipated for public review in mid-2022.
CVWD and DWA have approved an agreement to advance their share of funding for DCF planning and
design costs and are considering approval of an Agreement in Principle for the Delta Conveyance Facility
(unpublished) in 2021. SWP contractors estimate that SWP Table A deliveries will increase by 500,000 AFY
and be restored to approximately 58 percent reliability after the DCF is built, resulting in an average SWP
supply delivery increase of 26,500 AFY to CVWD and DWA by 2040. The DCF would increase water supply
reliability and help prevent undesirable results in the Indio Subbasin associated with chronic lowering of
groundwater levels.
11.4.2.2 PMA 6: Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project
The Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project is a project led by DWR to collect and distribute SWP water
seeping under Lake Perris Dam and deliver the water to MWD in addition to its current allocated Table A
water. The proposed project consists of installing an integrated recovery well system that would include
up to six new seepage recovery wells and a conveyance pipeline connecting the wells to the Colorado
River Aqueduct. The project is proceeding as planned, and the Draft EIR was released in May 2021 for
public comments.
MWD has partnered with CVWD and DWA and is in the process of developing a funding agreement with
DWR to fund the environmental analysis, planning, and preliminary design of the project. CVWD and DWA
will need an additional agreement (or amendment to the existing Exchange Agreement) to exchange a
proportion of the recovered seepage water for Colorado River water delivered by MWD to WWR-GRF and
Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility (MC-GRF) (MWD, 2020) through MWD’s Colorado
River Aqueduct. As described in Chapter 6, Water Supply, the project is anticipated to deliver
approximately 2,753 AFY to CVWD and DWA beginning in 2025.
11.4.2.3 PMA 7: Sites Reservoir Project
The Sites Reservoir Project is a reservoir that will capture and store excess water from snowmelt and
winter runoff from the Sacramento River for use during dry periods. The Sites Reservoir is in the
Sacramento Valley and is considered “off-stream” meaning that it will not dam or impede the Sacramento
River or other stream. The Sites Reservoir will operate in conjunction with other California reservoirs to
increase water supply reliability and resiliency. The water storage capacity in Northern California is
expected to increase by up to 15 percent because of project implementation. Water supply and storage
capacity will be made available to water purveyors throughout California who want to purchase water
supply from the Sites Reservoir Project. The project is currently in the early planning and permitting
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-15 TODD/W&C
stages, and the Sites Project Authority is in the process of negotiating agreements to secure funding and
financing for design, construction, and operation of the project (Sites Project Authority, 2020a).
In 2019, CVWD and DWA both entered into an agreement with the Sites Project Authority for the next
phase of planning for the Sites Reservoir (Sites Project Authority 2019; 2020b). CVWD and DWA are
participating members at 10,000 AFY (5.2 percent) and 6,500 AFY (3.4 percent) levels, respectively.
Assuming a 30 percent conveyance loss, CVWD and DWA anticipate a total delivery of 11,550 AFY of Sites
Reservoir water beginning in 2035.
11.4.2.4 PMA 8: Future Supplemental Water Acquisitions
As described in Chapter 6, Water Supply, CVWD has entered into various agreements with Rosedale Rio-
Bravo, Glorious Lands Company, and MWD to deliver supplemental water to the Indio Subbasin. As
opportunities arise, CVWD and DWA will continue to make water purchases from programs such as SWP
Article 21 (interruptible water) and Turnback Pool water, Governor’s Drought Water Bank, the Yuba
Accord, and the Rosedale-Rio Bravo transfer.
11.4.3 Potable Reuse
11.4.3.1 PMA 9: East Valley Reclamation Authority Potable Reuse
In 2013, IWA and Valley Sanitary District (VSD) formed a Joint Powers Agreement for the East Valley
Reclamation Authority (EVRA), with the main objective to augment local water resources through
beneficial water reuse. Indirect potable reuse (IPR) involves use of advanced treated wastewater to
replenish groundwater and manage groundwater storage. IPR projects may be used for long-term storage
(banking) or shorter-term recharge and extraction. Both strategies help improve local groundwater supply
by increasing water levels and potentially improving groundwater quality in a given aquifer (EVRA, 2020).
In November 2020, EVRA evaluated the feasibility using treated wastewater from the existing VSD Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) for IPR (EVRA, 2020). The study, which explored both spreading and injection
as groundwater recharge options, recommended injection as a viable recharge alternative. The area
identified to be utilized for IPR activities, at the southern end of the VSD WRF, is located within a
geologically complex area. In addition, the sediments underlying the VSD site are of low permeability,
which is not conducive to surface water spreading. Additional work (i.e., geophysical surveys and a deep
boring) is needed to verify site-specific, subsurface hydrogeologic conditions. The data collected from this
work could be used to assist in the siting and design of potential IPR injection and/or monitoring wells.
In addition to proposed injection wells, an advanced treatment plant would be constructed at the VSD
WRF consisting of membrane filtration (microfiltration or ultrafiltration) followed by reverse osmosis (RO)
and an ultraviolet disinfection/advanced oxidation process to meet State requirements for subsurface
injection. By 2030, EVRA plans advanced treatment and recycling of 5,000 AFY of wastewater from the
VSD WRF to potable standards for groundwater replenishment and reuse.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-19 TODD/W&C
anticipated water quality regulations. Design for the WRP-7 expansion project is underway, and
construction is anticipated in 2025.
11.5.2.3 PMA 16: Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade
The Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade would upgrade the Mile Post (MP) 113.2 Canal water pump
station capacity in order to convey Colorado River supply for blending with WRP-7 recycled water. This
project will be designed/constructed in two phases (5.5 mgd and 6.2 mgd). The MP 113.2 Pump Station is
located at Madison and Avenue 40 on the southwest corner next to the Coachella Canal in Indio. Phase 1
will involve replacement of two 2,800 gpm pumps. Phase 2 will involve the addition of a third 2,800 gpm
pump. Additional NPW storage is also being designed as part of Phase 1 to provide flexibility for delivery.
Planning and design are expected to be completed by 2022, with project construction to be completed by
2026.
11.5.2.4 PMA 17: WRP-7 Recycled Water Delivery
WRP-7, located west of Interstate 10,
currently serves three golf courses with a
blend of recycled water and Canal water
from the Coachella Canal. WRP-7 has a
current tertiary capacity of 2,800 AFY and
delivered an average of 1,790 AFY from
2015-2019. This project will establish four
recycled water connections to add a total
estimated flow of 533 AFY by 2028. CVWD
may also increase recycled water deliveries
in the WRP-7 tributary area as the
surrounding areas within WRP-7’s proximity
become developed, resulting in increased
wastewater flows. Opportunities for
expansion include growth to the west of
WRP-7 within proximity to the existing WRP-7 customers, as well as increased deliveries to existing
customers.
11.5.2.5 PMA 18: WRP-4 Tertiary Expansion & Delivery
WRP-4 provides service to the Cities of La Quinta, Mecca, Palm Desert, and Thousand Palms. Under
current operations, the secondary system treats about 2.0 mgd average daily flow and does not have
tertiary treatment capacity. The treatment system produces secondary effluent which is discharged to the
Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC) under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, which has a maximum month average daily effluent flow of 9.9 mgd.
CVWD’s tertiary treatment expansion at WRP-4 will be implemented in four phases. To avoid potential
future restrictions on the minimum amount of treated wastewater that may be required to be discharged
to the CVSC, the first phase is recommended to be constructed as soon as possible. Phase 1, which will
provide 10 mgd of total tertiary treatment capacity, includes a secondary effluent equalization basin,
lagoon effluent pretreatment (if required), coagulation/rapid mix, Filter Building, and filters; expands the
chlorine contact basins and chemical feed systems; adds a new recycled water storage basin (up to 177
million gallons [MG]); and adds a new recycled water pump station (10 mgd capacity) and pipeline that
Golf courses in the mid-Valley area use recycled water
for irrigation.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-20 TODD/W&C
connects into a new non-potable system off-site. The project will also require new Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) with Colorado River RWQCB and a permit amendment for the NPDES permit
#CA0104973.
Phase 2 will provide overall space and structural elements for another 10 mgd of treatment capacity,
increase capacity to 13.3 mgd by commissioning the fourth filter, and add equipment to the existing
facilities, including coagulation/rapid mix, filters, chlorine contact basins, and recycled water pumps.
Phase 3 will increase capacity to 16.7 mgd and add equipment to the existing facilities, including media
and equipment to commission the fifth filter. Phase 4 will increase capacity to 20 mgd and add equipment
to the existing facilities, including filter media and equipment to commission the sixth filter. The recycled
water storage may also require expansion based on seasonal demand patterns, and the non-potable
system will be expanded (CVWD, 2020c).
Design is underway for the Phase 1 WRP-4 tertiary expansion, with construction anticipated in 2025.
CVWD is currently working on the Wastewater Change Petition process with SWRCB and the NPDES/WDRs
permitting process with the Colorado River RWQCB, along with project-level environmental compliance.
The outcomes of the Change Petition will determine the final construction timeline and recycled water
delivery volumes for the WRP-4 expansion. Since recycled water volumes are yet undetermined and
distribution system options are still being analyzed, WRP-4 deliveries have not been included in the water
budget modeling. However, CVWD plans to proceed with this project pending resolution of the Change
Petition.
11.5.2.6 PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled Water Delivery
The DWA WRP project will increase deliveries of recycled water in DWA's service area as new customers
are identified and consistent with wastewater flow growth up to the 11,200 AFY of existing tertiary
capacity.
11.5.3 Groundwater Replenishment
Three replenishment facilities are currently operated in the Indio Subbasin (see Figure 2-5): WWR-GRF,
Palm Desert GRF (PD-GRF), and Thomas E. Levy GRF (TEL-GRF). Groundwater replenishment is an
important component of Indio Subbasin management. With surface spreading, water is placed in shallow
ponds where it is allowed to percolate into the underlying aquifers. Surface spreading requires large areas
of open land for construction of ponds and the absence of significant confining clay layers that would
prevent the water from reaching the aquifers. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have replenished the western
portion of the Subbasin at the WWR-GRF with nearly 4 million AF of SWP Exchange water and at the PD-
GRF with a total of 14,836 AF since starting operations in 2019. CVWD has replenished the eastern portion
of the Subbasin at TEL-GRF with about 400,000 AF since full-scale operations commenced in 2009.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-22 TODD/W&C
assumes the reliability of Table A deliveries of 45 percent and diversions to MC-GRF of 8 to 10 percent,
with additional reductions in reliability starting in year 2045 under climate change conditions. CVWD also
currently replenishes a portion of its Colorado River supply at WWR-GRF (ranging from 35,000 to 50,000
AFY), based on its 2019 Exchange Agreement with MWD, until that water is needed in the East Valley. If
additional SWP exchange water can be acquired and/or SWP reliability improved through the DCF,
average annual replenishment could increase to 119,500 AFY. Further, advance deliveries from MWD may
increase individual year deliveries beyond anticipated annual averages.
11.6 Water Quality Protection
Groundwater quality is an important issue in the Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin has variable concentrations
of water quality constituents as documented in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions.
Some constituents (e.g., arsenic, hexavalent chromium) are naturally occurring. Sources of loading for TDS
and Nitrate include subsurface inflow, watershed runoff, artificial recharge, wastewater percolation,
septic seepage, and return flows (CV-SNMP Agencies, 2021). The GSAs conduct ongoing water quality
monitoring to understand water quality conditions. Below are the PMAs related to water quality that will
help protect the groundwater basin for beneficial uses and users and avoid undesirable results.
11.6.1 Water Quality Programs and Policies
As described in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, drinking, surface, and groundwater quality is
regulated by the SWRCB and its RWQCBs. The following water quality policies and programs are applicable
to the Indio Subbasin:
• Drinking Water Regulations. The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regulates public water
systems, oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, and supports and
promotes water system security. Drinking water regulations are contained in Title 17 and Title 22
of the California Code of Regulations. Each of the GSAs in the Indio Subbasin maintains drinking
water quality in compliance with DDW regulations. Note that private domestic wells are not
regulated by DDW; private domestic wells and State Small Water Systems (between 5 and 14
connections) are regulated by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
• Surface and Groundwater Regulations. The Colorado River RWQCB regulates surface and
groundwater within the Colorado River Basin, which includes the Indio Subbasin. The RWQCB
guides water quality protection with its Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin
Region (Colorado River RWQCB, amended 2019), in addition to adopting and enforcing waste
discharge and surface water discharge permits. Each of the GSAs in the Indio Subbasin complies
with RWQCB regulations in implementation of its projects and programs.
• Colorado River Salinity Forum. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was passed by
Congress in 1974 to address the growing salinity problem which would require cost-effective
salinity control measures on the river. The Salinity Forum is a seven-state approach to lowering
salinity levels by conducting triennial reviews of water quality along the river and reporting on
progress achieved. Over the last 30 years, the salinity concentrations in the Colorado River have
an overall, long-term downward trend, as a result of the programs. Weighted average annual
salinity are at or below the numeric criteria (see Figure 8-1), while the Colorado River Basin States
continue to develop their compact-apportioned water supply through projects and programs to
meet water supply needs. The Program has successfully controlled over 1.22 million tons of salt
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-23 TODD/W&C
annually and has identified additional measures to achieve the identified maximum potential salt
reduction of 2.35 million tons per year by 2040.
• Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP). To address rising salinities in
groundwater, the SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy in February 2009 which requires the
development of Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) for groundwater basins
throughout California. The plans require basin wide management of salts and nutrients from all
sources in a manner that protects groundwater quality and beneficial uses. In 2015, CVWD, DWA,
and IWA produced the Coachella Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) (CVWD, et
al., 2015). Subsequently, the Colorado River RWQCB evaluated the plan and concluded that the
2015 SNMP did not fully satisfy Recycled Water Policy requirements and provided a series of
recommendations (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020). In April 2021, an expanded SNMP agency
group which includes all water and wastewater agencies in the Coachella Valley prepared a
Development Workplan that describes a detailed scope of work to develop an updated CV-SNMP,
including a new monitoring program. The Colorado River RWQCB approved the CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Workplan in early 2021(see also Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy
Issues).
• Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Task Force. CVWD established the Disadvantaged
Communities Infrastructure (DACI) Task Force to collaborate with other entities and community
members to achieve safe and affordable drinking water, wastewater, and flood control services
in historically disadvantaged Coachella Valley areas. The DACI Task Force meets bi-monthly to
discuss the various consolidation and infrastructure projects that are underway. CVWD, in
collaboration with the DACI Task Force, completed domestic water and sanitation consolidation
master plans in 2018 to prioritize the systems that are to be consolidated. Coordination among
the groups’ local entities, regulators, and community members helps to garner support for
ongoing grant funding, permitting, and approval processes.
11.6.1.1 PMA 23: Eliminate Wastewater Percolation
Currently, CVWD’s WRP-7, WRP-10, and Palm Springs’ WWTP/DWA’s WRP all discharge to percolation
ponds within the Indio Subbasin. Over the last decade, non-potable water deliveries (described under
Section 11.5 above) in the Indio Subbasin have expanded dramatically and reduced wastewater
percolation. The GSAs will continue to reduce percolation of wastewater into the Indio Subbasin by
continuing to implement source substitution efforts. The GSAs will continue to work with the Colorado
River RWQCB to acquire permits for recycling of municipal wastewater, which will both protect
groundwater quality and deliver a reliable new water supply to local customers.
11.6.1.2 PMA 24: Wellhead Treatment
The Wellhead Treatment project will assess the need to expand groundwater treatment facilities to treat
additional wells in the future for arsenic, nitrate, or other constituents of concern. The GSAs are
collaborating with the County of Riverside and small water systems to expand the potable water system
to additional communities that are experiencing poor water quality in private wells (see also Chapter 8,
Regulatory and Policy Issues, on treatment for arsenic).
Elevated concentrations of nitrate exist in some western areas of the Indio Subbasin (see Chapter 4,
Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions), reflecting natural and human-induced sources.
Generally, wells with high nitrate concentrations are relatively shallow, and deeper groundwater tends to
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-24 TODD/W&C
be higher quality. Naturally elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater also have been found in the
East Valley, northwest of the Salton Sea (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions)
with indications of higher concentrations at depth.
Wellhead treatment technology can be designed to remove selected constituents (such as nitrate and
arsenic) in drinking water wells that exceed the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The GSAs will
continue to monitor the development of new MCLs (e.g., hexavalent chromium) and report on
groundwater quality and as needed. In addition, the GSAs will seek grant funding to consolidate small
water systems with recurring violations (see below) and will evaluate the feasibility of installing wellhead
treatment on GSA wells to ensure delivered drinking water meets state and federal MCLs established to
protect public health.
11.6.1.3 PMA 25: Small Water System Consolidations
Small water systems, often serving disadvantaged communities (DACs), may face challenges in providing
safe, accessible, and affordable water because they may not have adequate resources to support
maintenance, operation, and treatment costs. Primarily within the East Valley, the GSAs are working to
extend public water and sewer service to mobile home park communities with deficient infrastructure
and poor water quality. In 2018, CVWD completed the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project
(ECVWSP), a master planning effort to identify and prioritize small water systems within East Valley that
could benefit from consolidation with its public water system. The master planning effort involved
representatives from SWRCB, DEH, and multiple non-profits through the DACI Task Force. Over 80 small
water systems currently relying on private groundwater wells and septic systems were identified. The
ECVWSP grouped the systems into approximately 40 water consolidation projects based on proximity to
each other and to CVWD’s existing facilities. CVWD began the preliminary engineering and environmental
documentation for the two highest priority water consolidation projects in 2019 – Saint Anthony and
Valley View. The Saint Anthony Project has an estimated capital cost of approximately $34 million and is
currently under design. A portion of the project is anticipated to begin construction in 2021, with the
remaining portions beginning construction in 2023. The Valley View Project is estimated to cost
approximately $11 million. Preliminary design of the project is complete, and implementation is expected
to begin in the next 5 years. The ECVWSP identified other water consolidation projects; CVWD will
continue to implement these as funding becomes available in the future.
CWA is also working to consolidate multiple mobile home parks within its service area to address water
quality deficiencies identified by DEH. Grant funding is being sought for construction of the necessary
infrastructure for the small water system consolidations.
11.6.1.4 PMA 26: Septic to Sewer Conversions
Septic systems are a significant, documented source of nitrate to the groundwater basin. The Colorado
River RWQCB has adopted septic tank prohibitions in areas of where high septic tank density has caused
water quality degradation. Conversion from septic systems to sewer can offset a large proportion of this
existing nitrate source to the basin. CVWD is pursuing a number of septic to sewer conversions to improve
groundwater quality and sanitation within small communities in the East Valley. In 2018, CVWD completed
a master planning effort to identify and prioritize parcels with septic systems within East Valley that could
benefit from consolidation with its public sanitation system. The master planning effort involved
representatives from SWRCB, DEH, and multiple non-profits through the DACI Task Force. Nearly 90
individual septic systems were identified, ranked, and prioritized for consolidation. The effort screened
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-25 TODD/W&C
the priority systems to 55 and then grouped those into 18 sanitation consolidation projects based on
proximity and potential to develop a backbone system in the East Valley. Several of the top five ranked
consolidation projects in the master planning process – El Mesquite, Sunbird, Airport Blvd, Monroe Street,
and Avenue 66 – are currently in the preliminary design, environmental compliance, and funding phases.
Construction for those projects is anticipated to begin within the next 5 years. CVWD will continue to
implement consolidations as funding becomes available in the future.
11.6.2 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP)
In 2015, the CV-SNMP was developed for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin in accordance with the
Recycled Water Policy. The SNMP was prepared to manage salts and nutrients on a Subbasin-wide basis,
while encouraging recycled water use. However, the RWQCB found the 2015 CV-SNMP insufficient and
made recommendations for improvements in 2020. In 2020 and 2021, the CV-SNMP partners – which
include CVWD, Coachella Sanitary District, City of Palm Springs, CWA, DWA, IWA, Mission Springs Water
District, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, and Valley Sanitary District – prepared a CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan and a CV-SNMP Development Workplan to guide revisions
to the plan.
11.6.2.1 PMA 27: Implement CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
The GSAs, along with the other CV-SNMP partners, will implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring
Program Workplan (Monitoring Workplan; see Appendix 2-A) submitted to the RWQCB in December 2020
outlining an expanded groundwater monitoring program that would sufficiently determine whether
concentrations of TDS and N in groundwater are consistent with water quality objectives. The RWQCB
approved the Monitoring Workplan in February 2021. The Monitoring Workplan covers all Subbasins
within the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin except for the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin; includes
sampling from the deep, shallow, and perched zones of the aquifer; focuses on critical areas near large
WRPs, GRFs, and other potential sources of loading; and emphasizes areas near production wells. The
Monitoring Workplan establishes the monitoring network, sampling frequency, and reporting, and
identifies gaps to be filled in the monitoring network. Monitoring data will be reported to the GAMA
system annually starting in 2022. The monitoring program established in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program,
was coordinated with the CV- Monitoring Workplan.
11.6.2.2 PMA 28: Implement CV-SNMP Development Workplan
The GSAs, along with the other CV-SNMP partners, will implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan
(Development Workplan; see Appendix 2-A) submitted to the RWQCB in April 2021 outlining a scope of
work for updating the CV-SNMP in accordance with the Recycled Water Policy. The CV-SNMP agencies
have submitted a draft Development Workplan that will be presented to the RWQCB for discussion at
their September 2021 meeting. The goal of the Development Workplan is to outline the steps necessary
to resolve the challenges identified by the RWQCB in their review comments. Implementation of the
Workplan will involve conducting public outreach and creating a technical advisory committee,
characterizing current groundwater quality and loading, developing N/TDS forecasting methodologies,
completing forecasting for multiple scenarios, selecting a preferred scenario, establishing management
zones, and recommending TDS objectives. The implementation schedule for the Development Workplan
concludes with a final CV-SNMP submitted to the RWQCB in 2026.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-26 TODD/W&C
The CV-SNMP update may require implementation of mitigation for N/TDS loading, which will be
evaluated during implementation of the Development Workplan. Mitigation may include the types of
activities identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2015 CV-SNMP:
• Enhanced Septic Systems. For areas where sewer conversion is not feasible due to economic or
physical constraints, the use of enhanced septic technologies can provide additional nitrate
removal. The EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program’s Water Quality Protection
Center provides several septic technology alternatives for enhanced nutrient reduction.
• Regulation of Self-Regenerating Water Softeners. A preventable source of salts to the Subbasin
is the use of self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS). SRWS use an ion-exchange media to
replace calcium and magnesium that contribute to hardness in water, with sodium and/or
potassium. The salt added using SWRS enters the sewer/septic system and returns to the
groundwater basin through percolation ponds after waste treatment or through irrigation of
recycled water. In some regions of the State, prohibitions on the installation/sale of SRWS have
been implemented to manage salt addition to the wastewater stream.
• Fertilizer Application Optimization. Fertilizers containing nitrogen are a known source of nitrate
to the groundwater basin. The use of recycled water that contains higher concentrations of
nutrients can reduce the reliance on fertilizers as the nutrient source to a particular crop, resulting
in reduced importation of nutrients to the Subbasin. Agencies can communicate the nutrient
loads of their recycled water supplies to their users and the users incorporate these nutrient loads
when determining the need for fertilizer applications.
11.6.2.3 PMA 29: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
The Salinity Forum, which is a cooperative effort involving federal, state, and local agencies, includes
projects that remove salt tonnage. This will be accomplished principally by reducing the salt contributions
to the Colorado River from existing sources and minimizing future increases in salt load caused by human
activities. CVWD will continue to support and participate in Salinity Forum efforts, including construction
of salinity control measures (for example, prevention of inflow to the river from saline springs),
advancement of policies for effluent limitation (for example, policies addressing discharges from fish
hatcheries), and implementation of non-point source management plans (for example, improved
irrigation practices).
11.6.2.4 PMA 30: Source Water Protection
Well management programs are required to ensure that existing and future wells do not impact the
usability of the groundwater resource. Specific programs applicable to the Coachella Valley are well
construction/destruction/abandonment policies, artesian well management, and well capping:
• Well Construction, Destruction, and Abandonment. Improperly constructed wells can result in
poor yield and contaminated groundwater by establishing a pathway for pollutants to enter a
well, allowing migration between aquifers of water with varying quality, or enabling the
unauthorized disposal of waste into the well. Inactive or improperly abandoned wells present
a physical danger and can allow groundwater pollution. Existing well construction, destruction
and abandonment policies will be strengthened and implemented in cooperation with Riverside
County DEH.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-27 TODD/W&C
• Leaking Artesian Well Rebate Program. Historically, artesian groundwater conditions existed in
much of the East Valley. Artesian flows occurred in decreasing amounts until the early 1990s
(CVWD, 2010). As water management actions in the Indio Subbasin restore water levels,
artesian conditions may reoccur. However, most wells are not properly equipped to deal with
artesian pressure. CVWD will continue to implement the Leaking Artesian Well Rebate Program
to educate and work with well owners to properly control artesian wells to avoid unnecessary
waste of water and the potential for property damage.
11.7 Deferred Projects
The projects contained in this section have been determined by the GSAs as currently unfeasible or
unnecessary at this time given Indio Subbasin conditions; however, they are retained here for future
reference in case Indio Subbasin conditions change and additional management strategies are needed or
if projects become feasible in the future. The 2010 CVWMP Update includes more detailed description of
these projects. The deferred projects include the following:
• Intentionally Created Surplus Program. The potential may exist to develop additional supply
under the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program. The ICS program was created by the
Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake
Powell and Lake Mead in December 2007 (USBR, 2007). CVWD is currently not participating in the
ICS program.
• Yuma Desalter Saved Water. The Yuma Desalter was constructed by USBR in 1992 to treat saline
agricultural return flows from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. The plant has
been maintained since construction, but only operated three times since then. Given that the
Yuma Desalter has not been operated in the past 10 years, this project has been deferred.
• Development of Fargo Canyon Subarea Supplies. Growth in Indio Subbasin areas northeast of
the San Andreas fault will create additional demands for both potable and non-potable water.
CVWD and the cities of Coachella and Indio would need to investigate groundwater resources in
the Fargo Canyon Subarea of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin to determine the available supply
and suitability for meeting demands in the area.
• Stormwater Capture. Stormwater capture has been identified as a potential method to augment
local water supplies. Short duration, high intensity storms inducing large flows make it cost
prohibitive for long term capture. The cities and unincorporated communities within the Plan Area
– through the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit – require local runoff induced
by increased impervious area related to new developments to include stormwater capture and
recharge infrastructure. The potential yield of these smaller systems is not known at this time.
Consequently, stormwater capture is categorized as deferred, but may be considered in
conjunction with other projects that construct stormwater and flood control facilities.
• Storage Opportunities with Imperial Irrigation District (IID). As part of the QSA, CVWD and IID
have signed an agreement that allows IID to store surplus Colorado River water in the Coachella
Valley. This program would benefit Coachella Valley by providing higher levels of groundwater
storage while IID water is stored in the Valley. However, IID does not actively use the Indio
Subbasin for conjunctive use.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-28 TODD/W&C
• Urban Water Treatment. The use of Canal water for potable uses would require treatment to
meet drinking water regulations. In 2008, CVWD completed a pilot treatability study for Canal
water (Malcolm-Pirnie, 2008) which investigated three alternative treatment approaches for
meeting the Surface Water Treatment Rule and providing RO to reduce the salinity of Colorado
River water delivered for urban use. This project has been categorized as deferred because direct
treatment and use of Canal water is not planned by CVWD.
• Colorado River Desalination. This project proposes to construct three or more separate RO
treatment facilities, one at each recharge location, to remove the salt and other minerals from
Colorado River water and to recharge the treated water into the Subbasin. However, this project
has been categorized as a deferred project because the size, complexity, and intermittent
operation of required treatment facilities would be cost prohibitive, exceed available renewable
energy supplies, and would require a feasible plan for brine disposal.
• Construction of SWP Extension. This project includes direct delivery of SWP through the
construction of a SWP extension of the California Aqueduct. A direct connection to the terminus
of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct in Cherry Valley would require at least 23-miles of
conveyance pipeline. This project has been categorized as a deferred project because
construction of such a pipeline (or aqueduct) is an expensive alternative to the existing exchange
agreement with MWD and could adversely impact this agreement resulting in significant
reductions in SWP supplies. Additionally, project permitting and approvals present uncertainty
and there would be a significant environmental impact. In addition, direct importation of SWP
water would most likely result in the loss of approximately 100,000 AFY of Colorado River water
that results from the exchange of SWP water for QSA water from MWD.
• Drain Water Desalination. Drain water desalination was recommended for irrigation purposes
and considered a maximum of 100,000 AFY to be delivered to the Canal water distribution system.
CVWD has concluded drain water desalination is not needed at this time to meet projected
demands and is therefore categorized as a deferred project.
• Ocean Water Desalination. Coastal communities in Southern California are developing and
implementing ocean water desalination. Though opportunities to work with coastal communities
to develop ocean water desalination may arise in the future, ocean water desalination has been
categorized as a deferred project as it is more expensive than other sources of water, is energy
intensive, and requires multiple agreements to implement.
11.8 PMA Implementation
The sections above provide a menu of potential PMAs that could be selected and implemented by the
GSAs, depending on the outcomes of the monitoring programs and adaptive management process. Table
11-3 includes the implementation actions necessary to move these projects and programs forward to
ensure Indio Subbasin sustainability.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 12: PLAN EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This Alternative Plan Update describes the planning process for the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) in achieving a reliable and sustainable water supply. This chapter provides an evaluation of how
implementation of this Plan will achieve the dual goals of meeting projected demands and maintaining
groundwater sustainability. This chapter also outlines the Alternative Plan Update implementation
activities necessary to support those goals.
12.1 Plan Evaluation
This Alternative Plan Update includes analysis of the range of uncertainties facing the GSAs in planning for
a balance of future water demands and supplies. Chapter 5, Demand Projections, and Chapter 6, Water
Supply, both address potential future conditions that are outside of the GSAs’ control, including increased
municipal or agricultural demands, climate change, and regulatory changes. The planning process
considered those uncertainties in the development of the five Plan scenarios in Chapter 7, Numerical
Model and Plan Scenarios, which analyzed a range of potential future conditions given those uncertainties.
Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, then lays out an adaptive management process by which
the GSAs can identify and select projects and management actions (PMAs) for implementation based on
Indio Subbasin conditions. The PMAs are packaged in the Plan scenarios, and as described in Chapter 7,
Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, the scenarios associated with the 5-Year Plan and Future Projects
indicate that the GSAs can maintain the Subbasin water balance despite climate change. Indio Subbasin
conditions will be evaluated using the monitoring data as outlined in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program,
and as compared to the sustainability objectives and thresholds established in Chapter 9, Sustainable
Management. Each of these components of the planning process is essential to a water management
plan that meets projected demands and maintains groundwater sustainability.
12.1.1 GSA Priorities
Consistent with the development and approach of this Alternative Plan Update (see Chapter 1,
Introduction) and guided by the sustainability goal and objectives (see Chapter 9, Sustainable
Management), the GSAs have collaboratively defined priorities for the PMAs. While overdraft has been
reversed in terms of chronic groundwater level declines, storage depletion, subsidence, and seawater
intrusion, the GSAs still face uncertainties in terms of forecasted demands and water supply availability.
Accordingly, this Plan Evaluation has focused on securing water reliability and resilience, namely the ability
to provide consistent water supply and to respond to changing future conditions. Water supply reliability
in the Indio Subbasin is the GSAs’ ability to consistently provide adequate water supply to meet projected
demands while sustainably managing the Subbasin.
Chapter 6, Water Supply, describes currently available and projected future water supplies, but does not
quantify future groundwater supplies, which will be the result of conjunctive use of groundwater storage
and supplies with other water supplies. The role of groundwater is quantified using the numerical model
as described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios. In brief, the projected local surface water
and imported supplies alone are not fully adequate to meet the anticipated demands in Chapter 5,
Demand Projections, but the scenarios simulated with the model demonstrate that with available
groundwater supplies the Indio Subbasin can reliably and sustainably meet future demands under a range
of conditions. Historical data included in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions,
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-2 TODD/W&C
demonstrate that the management activities under the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010
Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD], 2012) have eliminated
groundwater overdraft, stopped subsidence, and reversed seawater intrusion. To maintain water
reliability and resilience through the planning horizon, the GSAs established the following priorities (in no
particular order) for use in selection of PMAs:
• Fully use available Colorado River water supplies
• Support improvement of the long-term reliability of SWP supplies, including participation in the
Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF)
• Continue developing recycled water as a reliable local water supply
• Implement source substitution and replenishment for resilience in response to changing
conditions and for maintenance of long-term groundwater supply reliability
• Increase water-use efficiency across all sectors
• Participate in development of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-
SNMP) to address salt and nutrient management in the Indio Subbasin.
The project list is provided in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, along with implementation
actions associated with each PMA. Using an adaptive management process, the GSAs can adjust project
implementation if monitoring shows that water demands and supplies are higher or lower than projected
or if tracking of groundwater levels indicates that undesirable results (including storage depletion and
subsidence) could occur in the foreseeable future. Projects listed as “deferred” in Chapter 11, Projects
and Management Actions, are not currently needed to achieve Indio Subbasin sustainability within the
planning horizon but are retained as possible PMAs for future implementation as needed.
12.1.2 Water Supply Evaluation
This Alternative Plan Update continues the provision from the 2010 CVWMP Update of a supply buffer on
both municipal and agricultural demands. A 10 percent supply buffer was applied to projected municipal
demands, plus an additional 1,500 acres of agricultural demands (see Table 12-1). This supply buffer
(28,415 acre-feet per year [AFY)] ensures that the GSAs are planning for adequate supplies to meet
anticipated growth over the coming 25 years. Table 12-1 also includes the demand forecast with expanded
agricultural demands that was considered in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-5 TODD/W&C
As shown in this Alternative Plan Update, the local surface water and imported water sources in the GSAs’
current water supply portfolio are adequate to meet projected demands if the supply buffer is not
considered. A comparison of the projected water demands (refer to Table 12-1) with the available water
supplies identified in Chapter 6, Water Supply, is presented in Table 12-2 and Figure 12-1. The figure shows
available water supplies, as modeled in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, in year 2045
because that is peak projected demand within the planning horizon. The baseline demand forecast in
Table 12-1 is 644,610 AFY by 2045 and all three Plan scenarios in Table 12-2 have adequate supply to meet
that demand, which some supply buffer. Additionally, as demonstrated in in Chapter 7, Numerical Model
and Plan Scenarios, all three with-project Plan scenarios will gain in groundwater storage over the
planning horizon. Should some type of extended shortage, drought, or emergency occur, the GSAs have
other water management tools, such as more aggressive implementation of water conservation programs
and Water Shortage Contingency Plans, to address supply gaps. To ensure water supply reliability and
resilience through the planning horizon, the GSAs are committed to the suite of additional supply and
source substitution projects identified in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions.
The GSAs manage their portfolio of local and imported water supplies conjunctively with groundwater
supplies, providing replenishment and utilizing the storage capacity of the Indio Subbasin. The modeling
described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, demonstrates that with consideration of
groundwater inflows and outflows, the GSAs can manage the amount of forecasted groundwater
production from the Indio Subbasin while maintaining sustainability and avoiding undesirable results
associated with chronic groundwater level declines (as well as storage depletion, subsidence, and
seawater intrusion). Figure 12-2 shows that the simulated groundwater balance generally includes more
inflows than outflows in the with-project Plan scenarios. With the groundwater budget factored in, along
with active conservation programming, the GSAs will be able to meet forecasted demands with the supply
buffer and contribute to increases in Indio Subbasin storage.
In the three with-project Plan scenarios that simulated varying project implementation and/or agricultural
demands, results show a net increase in storage at the end of the 25-year planning horizon and continuing
stability through the end of the modeling timeframe. Through implementation of this Alternative Plan
Update, the Indio GSAs will be able to meet projected pumping demands and maintain Indio Subbasin
sustainability with regard to water levels and storage under the range of potential futures established
through the Plan scenarios. The three scenarios demonstrate that continued imported water
replenishment and expansion of non-potable connections is essential to maintaining a balanced basin.
The simulated hydrographs and storage are projected to be higher than historical lows and to increase
over the planning horizon. To address uncertainties in water supply or demand, this Plan identifies a range
of PMAs that can be implemented by the GSAs. Under this Plan, conservation continues to be
implemented, available Canal water is fully utilized, SWP supplies are acquired, when possible, recycled
and non-potable water is expanded throughout the Mid-Valley, and domestic water and sewer
consolidations protect the groundwater supplies of disadvantaged communities. This flexible approach
allows for future implementation of more aggressive conservation or deferred projects to offset supply
gaps that might arise.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-6 TODD/W&C
Figure 12-1. Comparison of Planned Supplies and Demands Under Plan Scenarios, 2045
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-9 TODD/W&C
GSA governing boards and councils, whose meetings are publicly noticed. Tribal and stakeholder
engagement is described under Sections 12.6 and 12.7 below., respectively.
GSA administration includes coordination of Plan implementation activities, regular email
communications to update GSA members on ongoing Indio Subbasin activities, administration of projects
implemented by the GSA, and general oversight and coordination. This includes coordination of technical
activities associated with Plan implementation, including monitoring network improvements. Other
administrative actions involve tracking and evaluating Plan implementation and sustainability conditions,
as well as assessing the benefit to the Indio Subbasin. GSA program management also includes grant
applications and administration for potential funding sources. Administrative activities include oversight
of consultants or contractors that may be retained by the GSAs in support of Plan implementation,
including Plan updates, annual reporting, and monitoring.
GSA staff meetings are anticipated to be held annually, at a minimum, to discuss Annual Report data
collection and findings, implementation of projects and management actions, and other topics necessary
to implement this Alternative Plan Update. All oversight and administration activities are assumed to
occur as needed and on an ongoing basis.
12.2.2 Monitoring Programs
Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, identifies monitoring programs and provides procedures for tracking
sustainability progress. Monitoring programs are a critical element of Plan implementation. The
monitoring programs described in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, will allow the GSAs to track conditions
within the Indio Subbasin and adjust implementation of the management strategies described in Chapter
11, Projects and Management Actions. This Alternative Plan Update has identified monitoring networks
and protocols for groundwater levels, climate and hydrologic conditions, groundwater production,
subsidence, water quality, and seawater intrusion. Monitoring network data will be collected for the
following purposes:
• Characterize Indio Subbasin conditions
• Identify groundwater level, storage, and quality trends
• Determine if additional management activities are necessary
• Determine whether undesirable results are occurring
The following monitoring programs will be implemented to support ongoing groundwater management
and to support Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) compliance in the Indio Subbasin:
• Groundwater Levels. Groundwater levels are monitored at least three times per year in
approximately 345 wells by the Indio Subbasin GSAs as part of their respective groundwater level
monitoring programs. As part of Plan implementation, water levels will be uploaded to the DWR
Monitoring Well Module and data will be publicly accessible.
• Climate, Streamflow, and Drain Flow. Climate data (including temperature, evapotranspiration,
and precipitation) are available from DWR’s California Irrigation Management Information System
(CIMIS) for four active CIMIS stations. Precipitation data have been and will be collected for the
12 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District precipitation monitoring
stations. Temperature and precipitation data are also available from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station in Indio. Streamflow is measured by the United States
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-10 TODD/W&C
Geological Survey (USGS) at 19 locations within the Indio Subbasin. CVWD measures drain flows
at 27 drain sites on a monthly basis.
• Groundwater Production. The GSAs, specifically CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA), have
been monitoring (assessing) groundwater production in the West Areas of Benefit (AOBs) since
1982 and the East AOB since 2005. CVWD and DWA groundwater production data set is audited
two times a year and summarized as part of the SGMA Annual Report and the annual Engineer’s
Report. The GSAs also submit validated Water Loss Audits annually. These audits inventory all
sources of production and are publicly available.
• Subsidence. Land subsidence has been investigated since 1996 through an on-going cooperative
program between CVWD and the USGS. The USGS has applied satellite-based Global Positioning
System (GPS) surveying techniques to determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the
vertical land-surface changes in the Coachella Valley. GPS measurements have also been taken at
24 geodetic monuments that have been paired with nearby water level monitoring wells to assess
relationships between subsidence and groundwater level changes. In addition, DWR provides
interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) satellite-based data and GPS data to identify and
assess land subsidence across many California groundwater basins, including the Indio Subbasin.
In its cooperative study with the GSAs, USGS also will analyze DWR-provided InSAR results with
findings published in 2025.
• Water Quality. The GSAs monitor and report the quality of their water sources to the California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW). These data are
publicly available on the SWRCB’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program
(GAMA) website. CVWD also collects water quality data for other programs such as monitoring of
the GRFs. Groundwater quality data are also available from various other sources, including the
USGS National Water Information System. The new CV-SNMP monitoring program will be a robust
new source of compiled water quality data.
• Seawater Intrusion. Saline water intrusion is monitored specifically through two sets of dedicated
nested monitoring wells operated by CVWD. One set of four wells is located about 2.1 miles north
of the Salton Sea and the other set is about one mile west of the Salton Sea and north of Oasis.
Monitoring data for the representative well network, as described in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program,
will be managed and reported to DWR and stakeholders in the Annual Reports described in Section 12.8.
The monitoring networks build on the foundation of existing monitoring programs and develop further
monitoring to continue the characterization of the Indio Subbasin. The monitoring program will be
coordinated with DWR’s SGMA Portal, Monitoring Well Module, and partner agencies such as USGS.
12.2.2.1 Data Management System
The GSAs have been collecting and compiling groundwater data annually including water levels, water
quality, and water use. For this Alternative Plan Update and subsequent Annual Reports, these data, and
other data from the GSAs and other sources, are being compiled in relational databases, which comprise
an Access database, GIS geodatabase, and Excel workbooks. As part of the Alternative Plan Update, the
DMS has been redesigned to be practicable, usable, intuitive, and cost effective. These tables include
groundwater elevations, water quality, groundwater pumping, direct deliveries of imported water, and
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-11 TODD/W&C
well locations. The geodatabase contains spatial files including jurisdictional areas, basin boundaries,
monitoring locations, crop censuses, groundwater contours (elevation and quality), geology, and
hydrologic features. The regional DMS will be updated annually as part of the Annual Report. In addition,
a full review and update will occur during the 5-year Plan Update.
Additionally, DWR has built a DMS through its SGMA Portal (see: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/) for
submittal and viewing of Annual Report data by GSAs throughout the State. The GSAs, stakeholders, and
interested parties will rely on that database to make data from Key Wells widely available.
12.2.3 Tribal Coordination
Throughout the Alternative Plan Update process, the GSAs have engaged with the Indio Subbasin tribal
governments, namely the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians,
the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the Twenty-Nine
Palms Band of Mission Indians, each of which have provided representatives to the SGMA Tribal
Workgroup meetings. The SGMA Tribal Workgroup, established in 2017, has been active for several years
through submittal and DWR approval of the Alternative Plan and the Alternative Plan Update process.
During the Alternative Plan Update, the SGMA Tribal Workgroup continued to discuss major water-related
concerns facing the tribes and ensuring regional water management efforts, such as the long-term
implementation of the Alternative Plan Update, are responsive to those needs. During these meetings,
the GSAs presented work in progress and requested data from the tribes to support the planning process
(e.g., land use plans, water demands).
The GSAs will continue to engage with the tribes through quarterly SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings. At
the Workgroup meetings, the GSAs will present monitoring data, Annual Report findings, and status of
project implementation to support Indio Subbasin sustainability.
12.2.4 Stakeholder Outreach
The GSAs have conducted stakeholder outreach to identify and obtain input from groups that may be
otherwise limited from participating in the Alternative Plan Update process and implementation. The
GSAs have used a variety of outreach methods to coordinate among local stakeholders and communicate
SGMA-related information to interested parties during Plan development. The GSAs plan to continue
collaboration and public outreach during Plan implementation. This will include providing opportunities
for stakeholder participation at public workshops, providing access to Plan information through email
announcements and online (see project website: www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org), releasing Annual
Reports that evaluate the Plan’s progress toward implementation, and continued coordination with
entities representing diverse communities in the Indio Subbasin.
12.2.4.1 Stakeholder Workshops
During the Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs hosted seven public workshops to share information,
present work in progress, and request feedback from stakeholders.
The GSAs will continue to host stakeholder workshops to ensure open participation in Plan
implementation by members of the public and interested parties and to receive stakeholder input.
Stakeholder workshops are anticipated to be held annually to present the findings of the Annual Reports,
including reporting on monitoring data and compliance with sustainability criteria established in this
Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin website will be updated as needed to feature meeting
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-12 TODD/W&C
agendas and materials, so that stakeholders have access to past and current materials related to Plan
implementation.
Additionally, the GSAs will continue to report out to their Boards of Directors annually, at a minimum, for
review and discussion of the Annual Reports. Board meetings are publicly noticed and open to all
stakeholders to participate.
12.2.4.2 Outreach and Website Maintenance
The GSAs have used an email list to communicate with stakeholders and interested parties (see overview
in Section 1, Introduction). Announcements related to Plan implementation – such as availability of new
data, release of Annual Reports, and scheduling of public workshops – will continue to be distributed via
email. Prior to stakeholder workshops or meetings, email announcements will be circulated with access
to meeting materials via the website. Emails will also be distributed as specific deliverables are finalized,
when opportunities are available for stakeholder input, or when items of interest to the stakeholder group
arise, such as relevant funding opportunities.
The Indio Subbasin website will be updated as needed to feature meeting agendas and materials, Annual
Reports, and other program information as applicable.
12.2.5 Annual Reports
Annual Reports have been submitted by April 1 of each year since 2018, following the Alternative Plan
adoption. As summarized below, Annual Reports provide general information, documentation of Subbasin
conditions, and description of plan implementation progress.
12.2.5.1 General Information
The Annual Reports include an Executive Summary that highlights key contents and findings. The
Introduction presents the organization of the Annual Report, a summary of the Alternative Plan process,
and a map and overview of the Subbasin.
12.2.5.2 Subbasin Conditions
The Subbasin setting section provides updated context on climate, the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin, and the Indio Subbasin. Additional sections summarize current hydrologic and groundwater
conditions and monitoring program results with evaluation of how conditions have changed in the Indio
Subbasin over the previous year and comparison of groundwater data for the year to historical
groundwater data. Reporting will include comparison of groundwater conditions to any minimum
thresholds established by the GSAs, with discussion of adaptive management, as needed. Sections of the
Annual Report document groundwater elevation data, groundwater extractions, surface water conditions
(including local surface water, imported water deliveries, and recycled water), total water use, and change
in groundwater storage. Annual reports present selected hydrographs of groundwater elevation data,
groundwater level contour maps, groundwater level change maps, and graphs documenting pumping and
other elements of the water budget, and cumulative change in groundwater storage.
12.2.5.3 Plan Implementation Progress
Plan implementation progress is described in the Annual Reports, including projects and management
actions, acquisition of additional water supplies, source substitution, groundwater recharge, and water
quality improvements. Status of the monitoring program is also summarized.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-13 TODD/W&C
12.2.6 5-year Plan Update
The GSAs have committed to update of the Alternative Plan every 5 years to assess progress toward
meeting sustainability, incorporate changes in conditions including water demand and supply availability,
evaluate PMAs, and evaluate projected groundwater conditions using the numerical model.
12.2.6.1 Alternative Plan Update
The GSAs will evaluate the Alternative Plan Update every 5 years. At that time, the GSAs will report on
whether any Alternative Plan Update sustainability criteria (e.g., minimum thresholds or measurable
objectives established by the GSAs) should be revised, based on any significant changes and outcomes of
the monitoring programs. The 5-year Update will include the following:
• Sustainable Management—Description of the current Subbasin conditions with reference to
Alternative Plan objectives and any sustainability indicators established by the GSAs. New
information and significant changes will be identified and discussed.
• Plan Implementation Progress—Description of implementation activities, update of the
implementation schedule, and adjustments to projects and management actions.
• Update of Alternative Plan Elements—Update of Alternative Plan elements (such as Plan Area,
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater Conditions, Sustainable Management) to reflect
increased understanding available from ongoing monitoring, new information, and significant
changes.
• Monitoring Network Update—Reporting on the status of the Plan’s monitoring programs and
discussion of progress made in filling data gaps.
• Regulatory or Policy Issues—Summary of new regulatory or policy issues relevant to water
resources management of the Indio Subbasin.
• Plan Amendments—Identification of any amendments made to the Alternative Plan and
discussion of potential future amendments if identified.
• Coordination—Summary of coordination among GSAs within or outside of the Indio Subbasin and
collaboration with land use agencies.
12.2.6.2 Indio Subbasin Groundwater Model Update
The Indio Subbasin groundwater model will be updated annually to evaluate annual change in
groundwater storage and comprehensively reviewed and updated every 5 years based on additional
information provided by GSAs. This will include extending the historical model time series to the update
year and updating all inputs. Areas of higher uncertainty, such as agricultural demands and imported
water reliability will be refined using additional information made available through the monitoring
program and implemented projects. Additional drain flow information will be used to achieve better
calibration. Once the model has been updated and re-calibrated, the future scenarios will be designed
and simulated. Associated water budget and model outputs will be evaluated considering project
implementation.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-14 TODD/W&C
12.2.7 Monitoring Network Improvements
The groundwater monitoring networks have abundant historical data that meet or exceed data density
requirements outlined in DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management
Practices for Sustainable Management of Groundwater (DWR, 2016) in the deeper zones. The GSAs are
pursuing additional dedicated shallow monitoring wells to help monitor shallow and perched areas of the
Subbasin for both water levels and water quality.
12.2.7.1 Groundwater Monitoring Improvements
To better understand the basin in general and vertical gradients specifically, the GSAs are implementing
groundwater monitoring improvements. The GSAs will regularly assess the monitoring network and install
additional and/or replacement monitoring wells. This effort is being coordinated with the Coachella Valley
SNMP monitoring networks to achieve the overall goal of groundwater quality protection.
12.2.7.2 Subbasin Well Inventory
Unlike many other groundwater basins in California, the Indio Subbasin has an extensive well inventory
that has been compiled by CVWD and DWA in order to implement the Replenishment Assessment Charge
(RAC) Programs for assessable groundwater production. CVWD levies and collects the RAC from
groundwater producers that benefit from the Groundwater Replenishment Programs (GRPs) and extract
more than 25 acre-feet per year (AFY) within the CVWD’s West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit
(AOB) and East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB in the Indio Subbasin. DWA levies and collects the RAC
from groundwater producers that benefit from the GRPs and extract more than 10 AFY within DWA’s
West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. However, there is incomplete data on minimal pumpers who do
not meet these criteria. It is unclear how many wells producing less than the RAC criteria exist, and
approximations of unreported production are best estimates.
The GSAs are planning a well inventory for the Indio Subbasin that will identify and compile information
about all production wells located in the Indio Subbasin. CVWD is planning to initiate this effort, with the
other GSAs participating at their discretion. The well inventory will involve development of a well registry
to aid in this process. The well inventory will support any extension or refinement of the monitoring
network, allow improvement of groundwater extraction estimates, and improve the understanding of
how private wells may affect Indio Subbasin conditions and how Indio Subbasin management may affect
private wells. The well inventory will provide documentation of well locations and well construction
relative to the Key Wells and Minimum Thresholds identified for managing groundwater levels (see
Section 9.3.3, Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Levels). This will help substantiate the current
effectiveness of the groundwater level MTs in protecting wells or identify as-yet unknown shallow wells.
The comprehensive well inventory will also provide a basis for cooperating with well permitting agencies
(e.g., County of Riverside) to ensure that new wells are constructed with appropriate construction and
depth to provide reliable water supply despite reasonably anticipated and managed changes in
groundwater levels. Compilation of the well inventory may include the following:
• Review and organize the DMS to incorporate well inventory component
• Gather water well drillers reports with well construction information
• Coordinate with well owners to identify wells and obtain relevant information on location,
construction, use, status, and monitoring, if any
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-15 TODD/W&C
• Conduct as-needed field visits to verify well location, use, and status
• Input well inventory information into the DMS.
The GSAs will collaborate with DWR, local agencies, water users, landowners, and leaseholders to identify
and locate wells and compile information on construction, status, and use.
12.2.7.3 Expand Groundwater Production Reporting
SGMA (Section 10725.8) authorizes GSAs to require that the use of every groundwater extraction facility
(production well) be measured with a water-measuring device (meter) with the exception of de minimis
extractors (domestic users extracting 2 AFY or less). As explained in Section 12.10.2, both CVWD and DWA
already require metering and extraction reporting by groundwater produces using more than 25 and 10
AFY, respectively, based on their respective water management authorities. CVWD and DWA separately
author an Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment annually to assess the
groundwater supply conditions and the need for continued replenishment within their AOBs, to provide
a description of the current GRF operations, and to recommend adjustments to the RAC that is levied on
groundwater production (see CVWDs website: https://cvwd.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=43 and DWA’s
website: https://dwa.org/about-us/documents/library/).
The GSAs may consider expansion of groundwater extraction reporting to include groundwater pumpers
that produce less than the current assessment threshold but more than the de minimis threshold
established by SGMA. CVWD will initiate a Cost of Service Study within its service area to consider SGMA
fees that may apply to this reporting; the other GSAs may require reporting and develop fees within their
service areas at their discretion.
12.2.8 Refine Subbasin Characterization
Means to improve understanding of the Indio Subbasin have been identified in this Alternative Plan
Update, which the GSAs will explore over the coming 5 years. Refining the Indio Subbasin characterization
in these areas will improve the GSAs ability to manage the Indio Subbasin.
12.2.8.1 Drain Flow Study
There are 27 agricultural drains where CVWD collects flow measurements and water quality data. The
agricultural drain system was designed to intercept shallow, higher salinity groundwater (from return
flows and rising groundwater) and convey it to the Salton Sea. As discussed in Chapter 7, Numerical Model
and Plan Scenarios, the subsurface drain flows are an outflow from the Indio Subbasin included in the
groundwater balance. As such, they are an important component of the water budget output from the
groundwater model. The drains are also a source of salt outflow important to the Subbasin’s salt balance.
The Drain Flow Study will study the relationship between groundwater levels in the various aquifers,
current and historical crop water application, and flows and salt export through the drain system
Geochemical and isotope studies could be implemented to assess potential water sources (return flows
vs rising groundwater) of drain flows. The study will contribute to an improved understanding of the
relationship between groundwater levels in the various aquifers, protection of water quality in the deep
aquifer, drain flow volumes and salt export, which may result in refinements of this groundwater model
element.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-16 TODD/W&C
12.2.8.2 Subsidence Study
CVWD has on ongoing partnership with USGS. CVWD will collaborate with USGS and the other GSAs on
the current study (July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2025), whose objectives are to (1) detect and quantify
land subsidence using GPS methods (2015–22) and InSAR methods (2017–23), (2) evaluate the relation
between changes in land-surface elevation and groundwater levels at selected sites during 2015–23, and
(3) provide technical assistance to CVWD and their contractors in the potential development of
subsidence simulation capabilities for the existing numerical groundwater flow model. USGS also will
analyze DWR-provided InSAR results to compute changes in land-surface elevation in the Indio Subbasin
during 2017–23. Findings will be published in a report in 2025.
12.2.8.3 Subsurface Flow Study
The GSAs will conduct analyses of the San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Subbasin boundaries to better
estimate subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. The study will consider subsurface flow at faults
and to the Garnet Hill Subarea and will be used to update and improve the numerical model. This effort
will include coordination with the GSAs of adjacent groundwater Subbasins and their numerical models.
12.2.9 Pursue Funding Opportunities
The development of this Alternative Plan Update was funded, in part, through a Proposition 68
Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant. Costs of overall Plan implementation are expected to be
shared by the GSAs through the 2018 MOU, a second Supplement to the 2016 MOU, that establishes cost-
share agreements, individual agency contributions, and/or new cost-sharing agreements yet to be
developed (see Appendix 1-C). However, there will be a need to seek funding opportunities to support
Plan projects and management actions and ongoing implementation.
12.2.9.1 Pursue Grant Programs
Outside grants will be sought to reduce the cost of implementation to participating agencies and the
communities of the Indio Subbasin. Financing options under consideration include loans and grants for
projects and management actions, as well as monitoring network improvements and other
planning/feasibility analysis needed to support Plan implementation. Funding through grants or loans has
varying levels of certainty and may be available for some implementation activities (including capital
projects). Table 12-3 lists examples of potential funding options.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-19 TODD/W&C
12.2.10 Implement PMAs
Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, includes projects and programs that have been identified
to protect and improve groundwater levels and quality. Some of the PMAs are ongoing programs, some
are in the planning and design phases, and others are still conceptual. Based on the outcomes of the
monitoring programs described in Section 12.5 and analyzed in the Annual Reports described in Section
12.8, the GSAs will adaptively manage the Indio Subbasin. PMAs will be moved forward as needed to
maintain the Indio Subbasin in sustainable conditions, able to meet Plan Area water demands, and
groundwater levels and quality that avoid undesirable results. Table 11-5 in Chapter 11, Projects and
Management Actions, includes the implementation actions necessary to move these projects and
programs forward to ensure Indio Subbasin sustainability. With implementation of these PMAs as outlined
in this Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs are anticipated to meet their water management goals and
comply effectively with SGMA.
12.3 Implementation Timeline
Table 12-4 presents the implementation timeline for this Plan through the next 5 years when the next
Alternative Plan Update is due to DWR. Included in the schedule are activities necessary for ongoing Plan
monitoring and updates, as well as tentative schedules for anticipated projects and management actions.
Additional details about the activities included in the implementation timeline have been described
throughout this Plan.
GSA operations and Plan implementation will incur costs, which will require funding by the GSAs. The
activities associated with Subbasin-wide management and Plan implementation will be borne by the four
GSAs. Some activities (such as the Annual Reports and 5-Year Plan Updates) will be funded under the cost-
sharing arrangement established by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2016, along
with multiple supplements (see Appendix 1-C). Other management activities will be funded by individual
GSAs or through other cost-sharing agreements or amendment to the MOU. Projects will be administered
by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or
more GSAs.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-22 TODD/W&C
horizon, describes water supplies available to the GSAs, defines sustainable management for this region,
presents water management projects and programs to ensure Subbasin sustainability, and models the
simulated conditions that will result from implementation of those project portfolios. This planning
process has demonstrated that with the proposed projects identified in this Plan, and despite anticipated
climate changes, the Indio Subbasin GSAs are able to meet forecasted demands under a variety of
conditions and maintain the Indio Subbasin in balance, even increasing groundwater storage over time.
Subsidence and saltwater intrusion have been stopped and are not anticipated to occur during Plan
implementation.
As documented in this Alternative Plan Update, the water supply of the Indio Subbasin is managed
sustainably by the Indio Subbasin GSAs, with ongoing and adaptive management into the foreseeable
future. This Alternative Plan Update has been developed in collaboration with the recently initiated CV-
SNMP and the two plans will continue to be coordinated. The GSAs have succeeded in reversing historical
groundwater trends and are currently – and plan to continue – managing the Indio Subbasin sustainably.
This Plan demonstrates that the GSAs have the necessary tools to support effective water management
in the region.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-1 TODD/W&C
CHAPTER 13: REFERENCES
Chapter 1. Introduction
Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG). 2018. 2018 Coachella Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resources (IRWM/SWR) Plan Update.
December 2018. Prepared by Woodard & Curran. Available:
https://www.cvrwmg.org/irwm/irwm-plan/.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2002a. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan.
September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2002b. Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) CVWMP and State Water Project (SWP)
Entitlement Transfer.
CVWD. 2012a. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
CVWD. 2012b. Subsequent Program EIR for the 2010 Update.
CVWD, 2014. 2014 Status Report on the 2010 Update. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). 2015. Coachella Valley Salt and
Nutrient Management Plan. June 2015. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD, DWA, and Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water
Management Plan. January 2013. Prepared by MWH. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission-Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-
Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for
the Mission Creek Subbasin. Prepared by MWH/Stantec.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 2016. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020. Letter from Paula Rasmussen, Executive Officer to Steve Bigley, Mark S.
Krause, and Trish Rhay. Subject: Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, February
19, 2020.2
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report for the Indio
Subbasin
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability
Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by MWH/Stantec.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-2 TODD/W&C
Chapter 2. Plan Area
DWR. 2003. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003. October. Sacramento, California.
Available: https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/
bulletin-118-californias-groundwater-2003/.
DWR. 2021a. DAC Mapping Tool. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/
DWR 2021b. EDA Mapping Tool. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/edas/
CVRWMG. 2018. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater
Resources (IRWM/SWR) Plan Update. December 2018. Available:
https://www.cvrwmg.org/irwm/irwm-plan/.
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and
WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability
Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by Stantec. Available:
file:///C:/Users/rprickett/Downloads/20161228%20SGMA%20Bridge%20Document%20-
%20Indio%20-%20Final.pdf.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2020. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year
2018-2019. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/800.
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission-
Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
Colorado River Funding Area Partners. 2020. 2020 Colorado River Funding Area Water Needs
Assessment. July 2020. Prepared by Woodard & Curran. Available:
http://www.cvrwmg.org/resources/library/
Mission Creek GSAs. 2021. Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. Draft. Available:
http://www.missioncreeksubbasinsgma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/Vol I MCSB AltPlanUpdate PublicDraftSections 12345678refs 101
821 v1.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Detection and measurement of land subsidence and uplift using
Global Positioning System surveys and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 2010–17. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5093. Authors:
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J.T. Available: https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093.
Chapter 3. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
DWR. 1964. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 108—Coachella Valley Investigation. July.
Sacramento, California. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=8773.
DWR. 1979. Coachella Valley Area Well Standards Investigation: Los Angeles. California Department of
Water Resources, Southern District.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-3 TODD/W&C
DWR. 2003. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003. October. Sacramento, California.
Available: https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/
bulletin-118-californias-groundwater-2003/.
CVWD. 2017. Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater
River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2017-2018. April. Palm Desert, California. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/574.
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission-
Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2020. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year
2018-2019. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran. Available:
http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/800.
Chapter 4. Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions
DWR (1964). Coachella Valley Investigation, California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 108.
Central Arizona Project (CAP). 2015. 2014 Annual Water Quality Report, August 2015.
CAP. 2017. 2016 Annual Water Quality Report, May 2017.
CAP. 2019. 2018 Annual Water Quality Report, October 2019.
CVAG. 2007, amended 2016. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared on
behalf of Riverside County, the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian
Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, as well as Coachella Valley
Water District, Mission Springs Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, California State Parks,
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and Caltrans. Available:
https://www.cvmshcp.org/index.htm.
CVRWMG. 2018. Coachella Valley IRWM & Stormwater Resource (SWR) Plan Update. December 2018.
https://dwa.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/integrated-regional-water-
management-plan/2019/06/2019 04 03 CVRWMG-Final2018IRWMSWR-Plan 160437-
compressed.pdf
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002, prepared by MWH and
WaterConsult. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
County of Riverside. 2020. Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan, August 4, 2020.
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2021/ECVAP 5521.pdf
Hausladen, D. M., Alexander-Ozinskas, A., McClain, C., & Fendorf, S. (2018). Hexavalent chromium
sources and distribution in California groundwater. Environmental science & technology, 52(15),
8242-8251. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b06627
Huberty, M. R., Pillsbury, A. F., and Sokoloff, V. P., 1948, Hydrologic studies in Coachella Valley,
California, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-4 TODD/W&C
Jurgens, B. C., Fram, M. S., Belitz, K., Burow, K. R., & Landon, M. K. (2010). Effects of groundwater
development on uranium: Central Valley, California, USA. Groundwater, 48(6), 913-928.
https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00635.
McClain, C. N., Fendorf, S., Johnson, S. T., Menendez, A., & Maher, K. (2019). Lithologic and redox
controls on hexavalent chromium in vadose zone sediments of California’s Central Valley.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 265, 478-494.
McMahon, P. B., Brown, C. J., Johnson, T. D., Belitz, K., & Lindsey, B. D. (2020). Fluoride occurrence in
United States groundwater. Science of The Total Environment, 139217.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720327340
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) (2020). Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July
1, 2019 to June 30, 2020.
Salton Sea Authority (2020) 2020 Annual Report on the Salton Sea Management Program.
https://saltonsea.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Annual-Report 2-21-20-v3.pdf
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J. (2020) Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using
Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella
Valley, California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093, 74p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093
Todd Groundwater. 2019. TM1 - Data Review, Modeling and Monitoring Plan, Evaluation of the
Influence of Wastewater Reclamation Plant 10 (WRP 10) on Groundwater TDS and Nitrate
Concentrations, April 2019.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. High Levels of Natural Perchlorate in a Desert Ecosystem.
GeoHealth-USGS Newsletter. Vol. 11, No. 1 2014.
https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-06-09-natural perchlorate.html
Chapter 5. Demand Projections
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties
and the State, 2011–2020. May. Sacramento, California. Available:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
DWR. 2015. Website: Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-
Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance
DWR. 2017. Draft Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater, Engagement
with Tribal Governments. June. Sacramento California. Available:
https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/guidance-document-for-the-sustainable-management-of-
groundwater-engagement-with-tribal-governments-june-2017-draft/.
DWR and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Making Conservation a California Way
of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606
(Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman). November. Sacramento, California. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-
Efficiency/Make-Water-Conservation-A-California-Way-of-Life/Files/PDFs/Final-WCL-Primer.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-5 TODD/W&C
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002, prepared by MWH and
WaterConsult. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
CVWD. 2019a. 2019 Crop Report. Available: http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/864.
CVWD. 2019b. Ordinance 1302.4, An Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District Establishing
Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria. February. Coachella, California. Adopted by the
Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors February 12, 2019. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/93/Landscape-Ordinance-13024-PDF?bidId=.
County of Riverside. 2018. Riverside County Agricultural Production Report 2018. October. Riverside,
California. Available: https://www.rivcoawm.org/Portals/0/PDF/2018-Crop-Report.pdf.
Riverside County Center for Demographic Research. 2006. Riverside County Projections 2006. Month.
City, State. Available: URL.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. May.
Los Angeles, California. Available: URL.
SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy). May. Los Angeles, California. Available: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-
plan.
TXP, Inc. 2014. The Local Economic Impact of Participating Coachella Valley Short Term Rentals. March.
Presentation. Available: https://www.slideshare.net/STRadvocacy/txp-strac-impact-report-
coachella-0312141.
U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2020. Website: American Community Survey: 2014–2018 5-Year
Estimates. Available: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-
documentation/table-and-geography-changes/2018/5-year.html.
Water Research Foundation (WRF). 2000. Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. January
Denver, Colorado. Research partner: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.
Published as Residential End Uses of Water in 1999, and Commercial and Institutional End Uses
of Water in 2000. Available: https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/residential-
commercial-and-institutional-end-uses-water.
WRF. 2016. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2, Executive Report. April. Denver, Colorado.
Available: https://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/WRF REU2016.pdf.
Wheeler's Market Intelligence. 2009. Demographic Profiles of the Coachella Valley. 2009 Edition. Month.
La Quinta, California. Available: URL.
Chapter 6. Water Supply
CVWD. 2003. 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement. October 2003.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January 2012. Prepared by MWH.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-6 TODD/W&C
CVWD. 2019a. Amended and Restated Agreement Between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Coachella Valley Water District, and Desert Water Agency for the Exchange and
Advance Delivery of Water.
CVWD. 2019b. Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement Between Metropolitan and
Coachella for 35,000 Acre-Feet.
CVWD. 2019c. Drought Contingency Plan Implementation Agreement between Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and Coachella Valley Water District.
CVWD and DWA. 2014. Mission Creek Water Management Agreement. Dated as of July 15, 2014.
DWR. 2004. Amendment No. 19 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of
Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
transfer) dated February 23, 2004.
DWR. 2007a. Amendment No. 20 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department
of Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
transfer) dated May 9, 2007.
DWR. 2007b. Amendment No. 19 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department
of Water Resources and Desert Water Agency (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District transfer)
dated May 9, 2007.
DWR. 2007c. Amendment No. 21 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department
of Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Berrenda Mesa Water District transfer)
dated September 26, 2007.
DWR. 2007d. Amendment No. 20 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department
of Water Resources and Desert Water Agency (Berrenda Mesa Water District transfer) dated
September 26, 2007.
DWR. 2020a. Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019. August 26, 2020. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Library/Modeling-and-Analysis/Central-Valley-models-and-tools/CalSim-
2/DCR2019
DWR. 2020b. Technical Addendum to Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019. August
26, 2020. Available: https://water.ca.gov/Library/Modeling-and-Analysis/Central-Valley-models-
and-tools/CalSim-2/DCR2019
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 1973. Minute No. 242. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/min242.pdf
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). 2020. Summary of Lake Perris Seepage Recovery Project Sharing
Agreement Terms, DRAFT – As of November 26, 2019.
Secretary of the Interior. 2003. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification
Settlement Agreement for the Purposed of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. October
10, 2003. Available: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/crwda/crwda.pdf.
Sites Project Authority. 2019. 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, Dated as of April 1, 2019.
Sites Project Authority. 2020. First Amendment to 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, Dated as of
January 1, 2020.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-7 TODD/W&C
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1922. Colorado River Compact, 1922.
Available: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf.
USBR. 1928. Boulder Canyon Project Act. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf
USBR. 1931. 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/ca7pty.pdf
USBR. 1968. 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crbproj.pdf
USBR. 1986. 1986 Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of California for
Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
USBR. 2007. Record of Decision for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and
the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. December 2007. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/
USBR. 2018. 2018 Addendum to the Coordinated Operation Agreement, Central Valley Project/State
Water Project.
USBR. 2019. Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement.
USBR. 2020a. Draft Report – Review of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages
and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. October. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/7.D.Review DraftReport 10-23-
2020.pdf
USBR. 2020 (website). Boulder Canyon Operations Office – Programs and Activities, Lower Colorado
River Water Accounting Reports. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/wtracct.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020 (website). Water Project Biological Opinions. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/cvp-swp/index.htm
U.S. Government Printing Office. 1946. 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/mextrety.pdf
Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5490-93, 1994. Standard guide for comparing
ground-water flow model simulations to site-specific information.
ASTM D5981-96e1, 1998. Standard guide for calibrating a ground-water flow model application.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1979. Coachella Valley area well standards
investigation, Memorandum Report.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-8 TODD/W&C
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development. July. Available: https://www.water.ca.gov/-
/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-
Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-
Documents/Files/Climate-Change-Guidance---SGMA.pdf
DWR. 2021. Consumptive Use Program PLUS (CUP+). Available: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-
Use-And-Efficiency/Land-And-Water-Use/Agricultural-Water-Use-Models, Last Accessed: March
12, 2021.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan.
September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
Fogg, G.E., G.T. O’Neill, E.M. LaBolle, and D.J. Ringel, 2000. Groundwater Flow Model of Coachella
Valley, California: An Overview.
Reichard, E.G., and J.K. Meadows, J.K., 1992. Evaluation of a ground-water flow and transport model of
the upper Coachella Valley, California. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4142.
Stantec. 2019. Documentation for the Agricultural Water Conservation Goals and Recommended
Methods to Track Progress, Final Report.
Tetra Tech and the Salton Sea Authority. 2016. Salton Sea Funding and Feasibility Action Plan
Benchmark 2: Review and Update Existing Condition Data; SSAM Model Elevation Forecasts.
May 2016.
Wood. 2021. Predicted 2020-2069 Subsurface Flows across Segments of the Banning/San Andreas Fault
for Six Mission Creek Subbasin MODFLOW Model Scenarios. Microsoft Excel Workbook of flows
by boundary segment. July 13, 2021.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues
California Natural Resources Agency. 2020. 2020 Annual Report on the Salton Sea Management
Program. Available: https://saltonsea.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Annual-
Report 2-21-20-v3.pdf
California Natural Resources Agency. 2021. Salton Sea Management Program. SSMP Update to State
Water Board August 2020. Available: https://saltonsea.ca.gov/
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). July.
Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/
City of Coachella, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 27, 2016. Available:
https://www.coachella.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4620
Coachella Valley Irrigated Lands Coalition. 2015. Water Quality Compliance Program, February.
Available:
http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/8/12320841/assets/CVILC WQ Compliance Program
-February 2015.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-9 TODD/W&C
CVWD, DWA, and IWA. 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.
Final, June. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/2441/Coachella-Valley-Groundwater-Basin-Salt-
and-Nutrient-Management-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId=
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
CVWD 2018. Technical Memorandum No. 1, East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project – System
Identification. June 18.
CVWD. 2020. “As EPA lifts drinking water order for Oasis Mobile Home Park, CVWD sets sights on long-
term fix.” CVWD News, May 29, 2020. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=343
CVWD. 2020. Comment Letter – Hexavalent Chromium MCL Costs. Letter to SWRCB, December 31, 2020.
Available:
http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/5263/20201231-Comments-Cr6-MCL-Estimate-
of-Costs-Ltr?bidId=
Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan
Colorado River Basin – Region 7 (Basin Plan). Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb7/publications forms/publications/docs/basinplan 2006
.pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2014. Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Agricultural
Wastewater Discharges and Discharges of Waste from Drain Operation and Maintenance
Activities Originating within the Coachella Valley, Order R7-2014-0046. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board decisions/adopted orders/orders/2014/
0046cv ag waiver.pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2019. Notice Of CEQA Scoping Meeting in The Matter Of A Proposed
Amendment To The Water Quality Control Plan For The Colorado River Basin Region To
Incorporate The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels As Water Quality Objectives. April 16,
2019. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water issues/programs/basin planning/docs/p
n7 19 34.pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020a. General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste from
Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the
Coachella Valley, Riverside County, Order R7-2020-0026. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board decisions/adopted orders/boardorders
2020.html
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020b. 2020 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado
River Basin Region Staff Report. December. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water issues/programs/basin planning/docs/2
020/2020trsr main.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-10 TODD/W&C
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2020. 2020 Review of Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
Colorado River System. October. Available:
https://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2020%20REVIEW%20-%20Final%20w%20appendices.pdf
DWR. 2018. Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Development. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-
Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents
DWR. 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report-Coachella Valley-Indio (Basin No. 7-021.01), July 17,
2019. Available: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-
Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-
Management/Alternatives/Files/ExistingPlans/Indio/03 Indio Staff Report.pdf?la=en&hash=06
B70190C42BCD333B91AE8BB95730E324B5EF1C
DWR. 2021. 2018 Water Conservation Legislation. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-
Efficiency/Making-Conservation-a-California-Way-of-Life
DWA. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Available: https://dwa.org/wp-
content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2020/08/101-26P7-UWMP2015-AMENDED 2020-07-FINAL-
p.pdf
Drewes, J.E, Paul Anderson, Nancy Denslow, Walter Jakubowski, Adam Olivieri, Daniel Schlenk, and
Shane Snyder. 2018. Monitoring Strategies for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in
Recycled Water Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel Convened by the State Water
Resources Control Board. April 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/water recycling policy/docs/2018/2
018 final report cecs recycled water.pdf
Hoerling, M., D. Lettenmaier, D. Cayan, and B. Udall (Hoerling et al.). 2009. Reconciling Colorado River
Streamflow. Southwest Hydrology. May/June. Available:
http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8 N3/feature2.pdf
Montrose Press. 2021. “Bureau of Reclamation takes no action on Paradox salinity-control unit.”
February 9, 2021. Available: https://www.montrosepress.com/news/bureau-of-reclamation-
takes-no-action-on-paradox-salinity-control-unit/article d53b9116-6a7c-11eb-9c8d-
973c7ca13991.html
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. OEHHA Adopts Updated Public
Health Goal for Perchlorate. February 27, 2015. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/water/press-
release/press-release-water/oehha-adopts-updated-public-health-goal-perchlorate-
0#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Office%20of%20Environmental,for%20per
chlorate%20in%20drinking%20water.&text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20set%20at%20a,for%20peop
le%20of%20all%20ages.%E2%80%9D
Rumer, Anna. “CVWD pushes for safe water in disadvantaged communities.” Desert Sun. Feb 17, 2017,
p.A01. Available: https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2017/02/17/cvwd-
pushes-safe-water-disadvantaged-communities/97904606/
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-11 TODD/W&C
Salton Sea Authority. 2016. Salton Sea Funding and Feasibility Action Plan Benchmark 7: Project
Summary. Available: https://saltonsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SS-Benchmark-7 5-
11-16r.pdf
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J.T. 2007. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using global
positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California,
1996–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5251, v. 2.0, 31 p.
Available: https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20075251.
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J. 2020. Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global
Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093. 74p., Available:
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir202050
SWRCB. 2018. Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water. adopted December 11, 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adopted orders/resolutions/2018/121118
7 final amendment oal.pdf
SWRCB. 2018. Antidegradation Policy Project. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans policies/antidegradation.html
SWRCB. October 2020. Perchlorate in Drinking Water. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking water/certlic/drinkingwater/Perchlorate.html
Udall, Brad. 2017. Climate Change is Shrinking the Colorado River. Colorado State University, The
Conversation, June 14, 2017. Available: https://source.colostate.edu/climate-change-shrinking-
colorado-river/#
USBR. 2012. 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html
USBR. 2019. Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans, November 17, 2019. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/finaldocs.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Contaminants of Emerging Concern
including Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products. updated August 19, 2019. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/contaminants-emerging-concern-including-pharmaceuticals-and-
personal-care-products
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Sonny Bono Salton Sea. 2020. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/sonny bono salton sea/about.html
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. June 30. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting. Available:
http://www.cvrwmg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Coachella-Valley-RUWMP-draft.pdf
Chapter 9. Sustainable Management
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission-
Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-12 TODD/W&C
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and
WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
Colorado River RWQCB, 2020, Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, letter to Steve
Bigley, Mark S. Krause, Trish Rhay, February 19, 2020.
DWR. 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report for the Indio Subbasin.
Sneed, M. and Brandt, J. T., 2020, Mitigating Land Subsidence in the Coachella Valley, California, USA: An
Emerging Success Story, Proc. IAHS, 382, 809–813, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-382-809-2020,
2020.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2020. Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan, Coachella Valley
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update. December 23. Prepared by West Yost.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2021. Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan. Prepared by West Yost.
Chapter 10. Monitoring Program
Belitz, Kenneth, Dubrovsky; Neil M., Burow, Karen; Jurgens, Bryant; and Johnson, Tyler, 2003,
Framework for a Ground-Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program for California, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4166, Sacramento, California, 2003.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034166/
CVWD, 2012, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. Final Report. January 2012.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability
Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by Stantec. Available:
file:///C:/Users/rprickett/Downloads/20161228%20SGMA%20Bridge%20Document%20-
%20Indio%20-%20Final.pdf
Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S.
Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 151 p.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/pdf/tm1-a1.pdf
DWR. 2010. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Procedures for
Monitoring Entity Reporting, December 2010. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-
Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-Procedures-for-Monitoring-Entity-
Reporting-Final-121610_ay_19.pdf
DWR. 2016. Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management Practices for
Sustainable Management of Groundwater, December 2016. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-
Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-
Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-2-Monitoring-Networks-and-Identification-of-
Data-Gaps_ay_19.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-13 TODD/W&C
Sneed, Michelle, and Brandt, Justin, 2007, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global
Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 1996–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5251, 30 p.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5251/pdf/sir_2007-5251.pdf
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J., 2020, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global
Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093, 74p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093
CVWD. 2019. 2019-2020 Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment. April 2019.
Prepared by WEI. https://www.cvwd.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=43
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2020. Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan Coachella Valley
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. December 23, 2020. Prepared by West Yost.
Chapter 11. Projects and Management Actions
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) 1991. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Urban Water Conservation (MOU).
California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP). 2021. 2021-2023 Strategic Plan.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2021. Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan. April.
CVWD. 2008. Phase 2 Draft Surface Water Treatment Process Evaluation Report. July 2008. Prepared by
Malcolm-Pirnie.
CVWD. 2010. Unpublished Coachella Valley groundwater level data.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January 2012. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD. 2014. Oasis Area Irrigation System Expansion Project: Preliminary Design Report. Prepared by
DAHL Consultants (DAHL).
CVWD. 2019. Ordinance 1302.4. Coachella Valley Water District Establishing Landscape and Irrigation
System Design Criteria. February 2019.
CVWD. 2020a. 2020-2021 Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment. April
2020. Prepared by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc.
CVWD. 2020b. Sanitation Master Plan Update, Volume 1 General. April 2020. Prepared by CDM Smith.
CVWD. 2020c. Sanitation Master Plan Update, Volume 3 General. April 2020. Prepared by CDM Smith.
CVWD. 2020d. Regional Water Conservation Program Post Performance Report.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021a. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. June 2021. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA. 2021b. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2019-2020. February
2021. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. June 30, 2021.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-14 TODD/W&C
CCVWD, DWA, and IWA. 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.
Prepared by MWH.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Salinity Forum). 2020. Review Water Quality Standards for
Salinity, Colorado River System. October 28, 2020.
Colorado River RWQCB. Amended 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region.
East Valley Reclamation Authority. 2020. Evaluation of Indirect Potable Reuse at the Valley Sanitary
District Water Reclamation Facility. November 2020. Prepared by Geoscience Support Services,
Inc.
QWEL, 2018. Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper Reference Manual.
https://www.qwel.net/files/QWEL Reference Manual CA INTERACTIVE.pdf
Sites Project Authority. 2020a. Final Strategic Plan. December 2020. Prepared by the Catalyst Group.
SWRCB. 2010. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February 2010.
USBR. 2007. Colorado River Interim Guidelines for East Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for
Lakes Powell and Mead.
Chapter 12. Plan Evaluation and Implementation
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and
WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317.
DWR. 2016. Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management Practices for
Sustainable Management of Groundwater. December 2016.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-A
ALTERNATIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION OF EXISTING MODEL AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT
ALTERNATIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT ,
EVALUATION OF EXISTING MODEL
AND RECOMMENDAT I ONS
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
COACHELLA WATER AUTHORITY
DESERT WATER AGENCY
INDIO WATER AUTHORITY
October 2020
2490 Mariner Square Loop, Suite 215
Alameda, CA 94501
www.toddgroundwater.com
In cooperation with:
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations i TODD / W&C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 TM Organization ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 2010 CVWMP Update Background ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Planning Area ............................................................................................................................. 1-2
2.Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Population and Growth Projections ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Comparison to Actual Population and Growth .......................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Water Demand Projections ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.3.1 Urban Water Demands Assumptions................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 Golf Course Demand Assumptions .................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.3 Agricultural Demand Assumptions .................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.4 Fish Farms and Duck Clubs Demand Assumptions ............................................................ 2-4
2.4 Comparison to Actual Water Demands ..................................................................................... 2-4
3.Water Supply Projections................................................................................................................. ..3-1
3.1 Water Supply Projections......................................................................................................... ..3-1
3.1.1 Surface Water Assumptions ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Colorado River Assumptions ............................................................................................ ..3-1
3.1.3 State Water Project (SWP) Exchange Assumptions ......................................................... ..3-3
3.1.4 Non-Potable Water Assumptions ...................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.5 Conservation Assumptions .............................................................................................. ..3-4
3.2 Comparison to Actual Supplies ................................................................................................ ..3-6
4.Status of 2010 CVWMP Implementation ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.2010 CVWD Model EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Model Input and Construction ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages ................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.2 Model Grid and Layers ....................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.3 Aquifer Properties .............................................................................................................. 5-4
5.1.4 Initial Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.2 Groundwater Inflows ................................................................................................................. 5-5
5.2.1 Subsurface Inflow ............................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge ................................................................. 5-6
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations ii TODD / W&C
5.2.3 Artificial Recharge .............................................................................................................. 5-7
5.2.4 Wastewater Discharges ..................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.5 Return Flows ...................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.3 Groundwater Outflows .............................................................................................................. 5-8
5.3.1 Groundwater Pumping ....................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.2 Evapotranspiration ........................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.3 Drains ............................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.4 Salton Sea ......................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.4 Model Performance ................................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1 Head Calibration Hydrographs ......................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.2 Head Calibration Statistics ............................................................................................... 5-14
5.4.3 Water Budget Calibration ................................................................................................ 5-14
5.5 Model Update Recommendations ........................................................................................... 5-17
6.REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 3-1: Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Canal Water Diversions ................................... ..3-2
Table 3-2: SWP Table A Amounts............................................................................................................. ..3-3
Table 3-3: Projected Recycled Water Supplies, 2010 CVWMP (AFY) ....................................................... ..3-4
Table 3-4: Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings - 2045 ........................................................ ..3-6
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1-1: 2010 CVWMP Planning Area ................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 2-1: 2010 CVWMP Population Projections ..................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2-2: Comparison of Actual Population Growth with 2010 CVWMP Projections ............................ 2-2
Figure 2-3: Projected Demand from 2010 CVWMP ................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4: Total Historical Demand for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019) ................................................. 2-6
Figure 3-1: Projected Supply from 2010 CVWMP .................................................................................... ..3-7
Figure 3-2: Total Historical Supply for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019) .................................................. ..3-8
Figure 5-1: Model Area and Boundaries .................................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-2: Model Calibration Hydrographs ............................................................................................ 5-13
Figure 5-3: Simulated vs. Measured Groundwater Elevation Calibration Chart 1997-2009 ................... 5-15
Figure 5-4: Model Water Budget ............................................................................................................ 5-16
Figure 5-5: Simulated vs. Measured Drain Flows Model Update .......................................................... 5-17
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations iii TODD / W&C
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CWA Coachella Water Authority
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ET evapotranspiration
feet bgs feet below ground surface
feet msl feet above mean sea level
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
HCM hydrogeologic conceptual model
IWA Indio Water Authority
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWH MWH Americas, Inc.
PD-GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TEL-GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USGS United States Geological Survey
WWR-GRF Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility
WY Water Year
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-1 TODD / W&C
1.INTRODUCTION
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency
(DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) represent the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
responsible for managing the Indio Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA). In December 2016, these agencies, collectively the Indio Subbasin GSAs,
submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the 2010 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP) (CVWD, 2012a) and a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs,
2016), as an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) to comply with SGMA
requirements. The Alternative Plan has guided local water management since 2010 and, along with annual
reports and this Alternative Plan Update, will continue to guide water management.
As part of the Alternative Plan Update, Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran have prepared this
Technical Memorandum (TM) to summarize a review of the 2010 CVWMP and to document the
performance of the existing groundwater model through Water Year (WY) 2018-2019.
1.1 TM ORGANIZATION
This Technical Memorandum is divided into the following sections:
•Section 1 – Introduction summarizes the report organization, 2010 CVWMP background, and
planning area.
•Section 2 – Water Demand Projections describes the 2010 CVWMP population, growth, and
demand projections as compared to historical data.
•Section 3 – Water Supply Projections describes the planning assumptions used to develop water
supply projections for the 2010 CVWMP and compares these projections to actual supply used to
meet demand.
•Section 4 – Status of 2010 CVWMP Implementation describes the 2010 CVWMP projects and
highlights of implementation.
•Section 5 - 2010 CVWD Model Assessment documents the numerical groundwater flow model
that will be used to assess sustainability and future management alternatives for the Indio
subbasin.
•Section 6 – References provides references for this TM.
1.2 2010 CVWMP UPDATE BACKGROUND
The 2010 CVWMP, an update of the original 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2002
CVWMP), was prepared to reflect the changes in expected development within the Coachella Valley based
on conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses and the reductions in water supply reliability
estimates resulting from environmental and legal restrictions in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). Additional factors were also considered such as climate change, changing water
quality requirements, and the potential for other emerging issues.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-2 TODD / W&C
The programs and projects identified in the 2010 CVWMP are based on the following objectives:
1.Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer,
2.Eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft,
3.Manage and protect water quality,
4.Comply with state and federal laws and regulations,
5.Manage future costs, and
6.Minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Each objective contributes to improved water supply reliability for the Coachella Valley by ensuring
adequate supplies to meet current and future demands, eliminating the long-term depletion of
groundwater storage, and ensuring that basin water quality is protected from degradation.
1.3 PLANNING AREA
The Planning Area for the original 2002 CVWMP was the Indio Subbasin and the portion of Imperial County
served by CVWD. The Imperial County portion of the Planning Area depends on water supplies delivered
from the Indio Subbasin. The Planning Area for the 2010 CVWMP covered this same area, plus those
portions of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin that were within the incorporated boundaries or the spheres
of influence of the cities of Coachella and Indio. shows the Planning Area boundary used in the 2010
CVWMP.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-3 TODD / W&C
.
Figure 1-1: 2010 CVWMP Planning AreaSource: 2010 CVWMP (CVWD)
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 4-1 TODD / W&C
4.STATUS OF 2010 CVWMP IMPLEMENTATION
It is critical to perform periodic evaluations of Plan implementation. Current progress and preliminary
results provide guidance as to whether Plan goals or projects require revisions or adjustments. This section
summarizes 2010 CVWMP Implementation.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs continue to implement the goals and programs of the 2010 CVWMP. As noted in
the Indio Subbasin WY 2018-2019 Annual Report, groundwater production remains more than 25 percent
less than the historical highs in the early 2000s. The results of the on-going basin monitoring program
demonstrate the significant progress being made toward the goal of eliminating long-term groundwater
overdraft. In the last 10 years, the Indio Subbasin has gained over 840,000 AF of groundwater in storage.
Over the past ten years, much of the Indio Subbasin experienced water level gains as a result of continued
recharge at the WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF, conversion of golf courses from groundwater to Coachella Canal
and recycled water, and water conservation. Replenishment operations at the PD-GRF began in February
2019 and are expected to contribute significantly to improved groundwater level conditions in the mid-
valley region.
CVWD continues to work with the golf courses in its service area to extend the Mid-Valley Pipeline and
recycled water distribution system to serve additional courses with Coachella Canal and recycled water,
and to reduce their groundwater pumping. CVWD’s increased allocation of Colorado River water through
the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) added 5,000 AF of available supply in 2019.
Projects described in the 2010 CVWMP include:
•Water conservation: The Indio Subbasin GSAs have implemented water conservation programs
for both large irrigation customers and residential customers. Most water purveyors and several
cities have implemented landscape audit programs and rebates for replacement lawn conversion
and high-efficiency water devices. CVWD adopted a Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1302.4)
that establishes maximum allowable turf area and associated water demands for new golf
courses.
•New supply development: As part of the QSA, CVWD’s Colorado River allocation through the
Coachella Canal will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level until 2047,
decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates. CVWD and DWA are
actively participating in other statewide programs to improve the long-term reliability of the SWP
supply. As opportunities arise, CVWD and DWA make water purchases from other water transfer
programs.
•Source substitution: Golf courses connected to the Coachella Canal distribution system in the East
Valley meet a majority of their total water use with Coachella Canal water. CVWD is working on
design drawings for new connections to its Mid Valley Pipeline, which delivers non-potable water
to West Valley golf courses.
•Groundwater recharge: WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF continue to replenish the Indio Subbasin with
SWP exchange water and Colorado River water. In 2019, PD-GRF began replenishing the mid-
valley area of the basin with Colorado River supplies.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 4-2 TODD / W&C
•Water quality protection: The Indio Subbasin GSAs are operating wellhead treatment facilities to
address elevated arsenic in local wells. Additional water quality programs are being implemented
for well and septic system abandonment.
Overall, groundwater conditions documented in the Indio Subbasin WY 2018-2019 Annual Report
demonstrate the effectiveness of the 2010 CVWMP in guiding sustainable management of the Indio
Subbasin.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-1 TODD / W&C
5.2010 CVWD MODEL EVALUATION
This Section documents the numerical groundwater flow model that was updated and used for the 2010
CVWMP and evaluates the model’s suitability for additional update and improvement, followed by
assessment of sustainability and future management alternatives for the Alternative Plan Update. The
original model was developed for CVWD during the mid- to late-1990s as a tool for managing groundwater
in Coachella Valley. The model was constructed with the widely used USGS MODFLOW code and simulates
three-dimensional groundwater flow within and between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, includes
various sources of Subbasin recharge, discharge to production wells, evapotranspiration, flow to drains,
and flow to and from the Salton Sea. The model was originally calibrated over a 61-year historical period
from 1936-96. It was subsequently extended as a part of the 2002 and 2010 CVWMP and used to simulate
future subbasin management scenarios beginning in 1997 through a defined future planning period. The
most-recent version of the model, prepared for the 2010 CVWMP (and containing measured and
estimated of inflows and outflows through 2008), will be used as the basis for the calibration update and
future management simulations as a part of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan five‐year update (Plan
Update) for submission to DWR. Most of the inflow and outflow data for the period 1997-2008 will be
retained in the updated model, recent data will be used for the period 2009-2019, and new estimates will
be synthesized for predictive simulations of future conditions.
The original model was documented in a report prepared by Graham Fogg, the author of the model (Fogg,
et.al, 2000). Graham Fogg and his consulting team, along with David Ringel, Consulting Engineer,
consulted with Todd Groundwater staff, providing insights into construction and input data for the original
model and 2010 CVWMP version of the model, and providing selected data files and computer programs
used to develop and pre-process the model inputs (Fogg, 2020a,b; Ringel, 2020).
The following section describes the features and key input parameters of the model. Some of these input
parameters will be updated and refined for use in the Plan Update.
5.1 MODEL INPUT AND CONSTRUCTION
The area covered by the groundwater model is shown on Figure 5-1. The upstream and downstream ends
of the model correspond to the San Gorgonio Pass area and Salton Sea, respectively. The southwest flank
of the model represents the interface between the unconsolidated sedimentary fill and consolidated to
semi-consolidated rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The northeast flank of the model
represents the interface between the unconsolidated sedimentary fill and consolidated to semi-
consolidated rocks of the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Indio Hills, and Mecca Hills. Most of the
ephemeral stream flow into the basin originates along the southwest flank. Note that the San Gorgonio
Pass, Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs subbasins are not explicitly modeled; subsurface outflow from
these subbasins into the main basin is included in the boundary conditions at the Pass, and along the
Banning and San Andreas faults.
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-2 TODD / W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-3 TODD / W&C
5.1.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages
The original model was constructed using ‘MODFLOW 88’. For the 2010WMP, the code was updated to
‘MODFLOW 2005’. GFA used various data files and pre-processing programs to format the data and create
the MODFLOW input files.
The model utilizes the following standard MODFLOW Packages:
•BASIC (BAS)
•BLOCK CENTERED FLOW (BCF)
•HORIZONTAL FLOW BARRIER (HFB)
•WELL (WEL)
•RECHARGE (RCH)
•DRAIN (DRN)
•EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (EVT)
•GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY (GHB)
The original 1936-1996 model also used the TIME-VARIANT SPECIFIED HEAD (CHD) Package for the
northwestern boundary with the San Gorgonio Basin, but this was changed to a specified flux boundary
for the 2010 CVWMP version of the model, and the CHD Package is no longer used.
Input data for the original and 2010WMP models were generally pre-processed using various datafiles
and programs to accumulate and format the input types, that were then loaded into the text (ASCii)
MODFLOW input files. For example, the various sources of recharge such as mountain front and stream
channel recharge, return flows, artificial recharge, and wastewater percolation were pre-processed and
accumulated on a model grid cell basis to create the MODFLOW RCH Package for input.
For the model update, upgraded input data pre-processing methodologies including new databases and
GIS data sets will be used to streamline model input development.
5.1.2 Model Grid and Layers
The model consists of a three-dimensional, finite-difference grid of blocks called cells, the locations of
which are described in terms of the 270 rows, 86 columns and 4 layers. At the center of each cell there is
a point called a node at which head is calculated. The model has a node spacing of 1,000 ft in the x-y plane,
and variable vertical node spacing representing variable thicknesses of the corresponding aquifer or
aquitard intervals. The grid is oriented along the length of the valley, coinciding with the principal direction
of regional groundwater flow.
The MODFLOW model comprises four layers, representing the following hydrostratigraphic units:
•Layer 1 – semi-perched aquifer in East Valley and upper portion of shallow aquifer in West Valley
•Layer 2 – shallow aquifer zone
•Layer 3 – regional aquitard in East Valley and shallow-deep aquifer transition zone in West Valley
•Layer 4 – deep aquifer
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-4 TODD / W&C
The elevation of the tops and bottoms of the model layers are referenced to land surface elevations and
reflect aquifer and hydrostratigraphic unit thickness as inferred from borehole data across the basin. In
the lower valley, layer thickness follows geologic characterizations by DWR (1979) that were corroborated
by analysis of subsurface data. For example, Model Layer 1 approximately corresponds with the semi-
perched zone (100 ft thick), Layer 2 with the upper aquifer unit (80 to more than 240 ft thick), Layer 3 with
the regional aquitard (80 to more than 240 ft thick), and Layer 4 with a lower aquifer unit (1,000 ft thick).
In the upper valley, aquifer thickness estimated by USGS (Reichard and Meadows, 1992), was initially used
and later revised during model calibration.
5.1.3 Aquifer Properties
Distributions of aquifer hydraulic properties were developed to simulate the aquifer and aquitard units in
the shallow and deep aquifer zones. Aquifer hydraulic properties control the rates of groundwater flow,
amounts of water in storage, and aquifer responses to recharge and pumping, and include aquifer
transmissivity, horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, and unconfined and confined storage
coefficients. Initial estimates of transmissivity (T) were obtained in part from previously calibrated values
used in Reichard and Meadows (1992) for the upper valley, some pumping test results for the lower valley,
and fairly abundant specific capacity data for the entire valley. Hydraulic conductivity (K) of the confining
bed in multiple aquifer zones was estimated based on the sediment texture and heterogeneity and was
treated as a calibration parameter in the original 1936-1996 model. Similarly, vertical K (Kv) of the aquifer
zones was based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric and drillers logs as well as past
experience with three-dimensional heterogeneity in sedimentary basins; this parameter was also adjusted
in calibration.
Most model cells were assigned moderate to high hydraulic conductivities, based on the pumping test
and specific capacity data, and reflect the properties of the coarse sand and gravel deposits that
predominate in the subsurface. Transmissivities are higher on the southwest margins of the basin grading
to lower values in the center. Also, permeabilities tend to decrease southeastward toward the Salton Sea.
Southeast of Indio, tight silts and clays up to 100 ft thick are present in the upper aquifer and create a
semi-perched zone. The lower permeabilities were assigned to these model cells within Model Layer 3.
The specified ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity varies between 10 and 100 throughout
the model, based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric and drillers logs.
Distribution of specific yield (Sy) from Reichard and Meadows (1992) was initially used in the upper valley
for Model Layer 1; these values were subsequently modified slightly during calibration. Similar specific
yield values were initially estimated for the unconfined areas and semi-perched zone in the lower valley;
these values were later adjusted during calibration. Specific storage (Ss) values were estimated for each
of the Model Layers 2, 3 and 4, and were multiplied by layer thickness to obtain storage coefficient (S) for
each model layer. Ss varied in confined vs. unconfined areas. Storage coefficients of the aquifer system
are much greater in the upper unconfined alluvium than in the deeper confined units
The Garnet Hill Fault forms a partial barrier to flow between the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs subareas.
The MODFLOW HFB Package was used to simulate the barrier effects of this fault.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-5 TODD / W&C
5.1.4 Initial Conditions
Initial head conditions in the 2010 CVWMP model are set from the final computed heads for each cell in
the 1936-1996 calibration simulation, corresponding to the end of calendar year 1996. Thus, these are
the starting heads for the predictive model simulations, which begin in 1997. This approach maintains
consistency between the model computed heads and flows from the original calibrated model, as well as
continuity between the calibration and predictive models.
5.2 GROUNDWATER INFLOWS
The model addresses inflows to the subbasin, which involve recharge through a combination of natural
inflows of surface water and groundwater, imported water, and wastewater percolation. Sources of
recharge to the basin include
•Subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass and Mission Creek subbasins
•Mountain front and stream channel recharge
•Artificial recharge of imported water
•Wastewater discharges
•Return flows from municipal/domestic, agricultural, golf courses, and other sources
Combined return flows represent the largest source of recharge, followed by imported water recharge
and natural Mountain front and stream channel recharge.
Except for subsurface inflow boundaries, each of these sources of recharge was estimated individually,
then accumulated into a combined MODFLOW RCH Package. Recharge rates over time were accumulated
on a model grid cell basis, accounting for cell areas to preserve total recharge amounts, and applied as
recharge to Model Layer 1. The MODFLOW RCH Package was used to simulate mountain front and stream
channel recharge rather than the MODFLOW Streamflow Routing Packages, which is sometimes used to
simulate groundwater-stream interactions.
For the Alternative Plan model update, the individual components of recharge will be re -calculated for
the period 2009-2019 using measured data and better estimates, and the MODFLOW RCH Package re-
constructed. New simulations of the period 1997-2019 will be run to confirm model performance, prior
to conducting the future predictive simulations.
5.2.1 Subsurface Inflow
Figure 5-1 shows the locations of subsurface inflows specified in the northwestern and eastern boundaries
of the model. These boundaries simulate inflow from San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Groundwater
Basins. Flux rates were estimated for each boundary and applied to Model Layers 1 through 4.
Inflow from San Gorgonio Basin
A specified-flux boundary is used to simulate subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass subbasin to
the Indio subbasin. In the original historical model, the amounts of flow over time were computed by the
model with a time-dependent specified head boundary using the MODFLOW CHD Package. In the 2010
CVWMP model, the boundary condition was changed from a time-dependent specified head to a specified
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-6 TODD / W&C
flux boundary, which is used to represent the long-term average inflow for each cell. The amount of inflow
was set to a constant value of approximately 9,000 AFY in the 2010 CVWMP model.
Inflow from Mission Creek Basin
Subsurface inflow also occurs from the Mission Creek subbasin to the northeast into the Garnet Hill
subbasin, across the Banning and San Andreas faults. These faults consist of several parallel faults and
form the northeasterly boundary of the Indio groundwater basin. Groundwater level differences across
the Banning Fault in this area are on the order of 200-250 ft. The estimated flow across the Banning Fault
into the Garnet Hill Subbasin in the CVWMP Model was set to a constant value of 2,000 AFY. The Garnet
Hill Fault also forms a partial barrier to flow and demarcates the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs subareas
internal to the model. This barrier was simulated using the MODFLOW HFB Package and allows variable
flow between the subareas.
5.2.2 Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge
Rainfall runoff that recharges along the mountain front and infiltration of streamflow beyond the
mountain fronts are simulated in the groundwater model. Precipitation in the San Bernardino, San
Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains is the primary natural source of water to the subbasin, with only minor
recharge from precipitation in the Little San Bernardino Mountains. The total volume of tributary inflow
varies from season to season and year to year, due to wide variations in precipitation. Perennial
streamflow from the mountain watersheds is does not occur.
Rainfall-runoff relationships were developed for the twenty-four watersheds in the San Bernardino, San
Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains that contribute to groundwater recharge in the study area. Where
stream gage station data are available, annual streamflow amounts were recharged along the mountain
fronts and stream reaches. For un-gaged watersheds, synthetic runoff relations were developed based
on the rainfall-runoff curves developed for nearby gaged streams.
Mountain-front recharge includes subsurface inflow from the canyons and surface runoff from minor
tributaries along the mountain fronts. Mountain-front recharge from the watersheds was assumed to be
ten percent of the average annual streamflow, and evenly distributed to perimeter cells of the model
located in canyons and along mountain fronts. Recharge from infiltration of streamflow was distributed
to model cells differently depending on whether the year was relatively wet or dry. During dry years,
recharge from infiltration of streamflow was distributed to the perimeter model cells. During wet years,
recharge from streamflow on major tributaries was distributed to the streamflow recharge cells according
to a basic river routing model.
Recharge by infiltration of streamflow occurs primarily along the major stream channels within the model
boundary. For the 2010 CVWMP model, actual and synthesized stream flows were used for the period
1997-2008, and estimated average flows were used for the period after 2008. Total streamflow recharge
between 1997 and 2008 in the 2010 CVWMP model ranged from approximately 7,000 to 90,000 AFY.
Corresponding mountain front recharge ranged from 700 to 9,000 AFY. Recharge from the lower portion
of the Whitewater River Channel contributed another 800 to 4,600 AFY of recharge.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-7 TODD / W&C
5.2.3 Artificial Recharge
Managed artificial recharge occurs in the subbasin at several sites including the Whitewater Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF), Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF), and
recently constructed Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF). Minor amounts of
imported water were also recharged at the Martinez GRF. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have received
State Water Project (SWP) water through an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan). Water released from Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct flows
down the Whitewater River channel to the recharge ponds near Windy Point. A portion of the water
infiltrates along the channel, and some evaporates from the ponds before percolating down to the water
table. Estimates of the amount lost to infiltration in the channel and that to evaporation from the ponds
were made for the model. Note that during extremely wet years, over 100,000 AF of water are
replenished at the WWR-GRF, and groundwater levels in the artificial recharge area increased hundreds
of feet. Total annual artificial recharge amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately
1,000 to 162,000 AFY.
5.2.4 Wastewater Discharges
Treated wastewater that is not recycled is discharged to percolation ponds for disposal. The Palm Springs
Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), Valley Sanitation District WRP, and CVWD’s WRP7, WRP9 and WRP10
each discharge effluent to percolation ponds. Total annual wastewater percolation amounts between
1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 5,800 to 14,000 AFY.
5.2.5 Return Flows
Return flows represent the largest sources of recharge to the basin and groundwater model. Sources of
return flows include Agricultural, Municipal and Domestic, Golf Courses, and other sources.
Agricultural
Colorado River water from the Coachella Canal is used along with groundwater pumped from wells to
supply the needs of agriculture. Annual estimates of agricultural returns for each section were made for
the historical period using a water budget methodology, as documented in Fogg et al. (2000). Agriculture
areas, crop types, crop demands, consumptive use, and corresponding demands for surface water and
pumped groundwater were estimated, to develop the return flow amounts. These returns were
distributed uniformly to model cells within each section in the uppermost model layer using various
database and pre-processing programs. A FORTRAN program was also written to include these agricultural
returns, along with other sources of recharge, in the complete RCH package dataset for MODFLOW. Total
annual agricultural return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 106,000 to
146,000 AFY.
Municipal and Domestic
Municipal and domestic return flows to the groundwater basin result from septic tank effluent in
unsewered areas and from outdoor landscape irrigation returns, which are affected by the amounts of
water used indoors versus outdoors.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-8 TODD / W&C
The West Valley is generally sewered, and landscape irrigation is the main source of municipal and
domestic return flows. Based on water use analyses, West Valley returns were estimated to be 32 percent
of the total groundwater pumped for municipal and domestic uses. In the East Valley, landscape irrigation
represents a smaller fraction of municipal water use, and return flows are estimated to be 20 percent of
municipal and domestic groundwater pumping in sewered areas, and 54 percent of the pumping in
unsewered areas. Urbanized areas were assumed sewered while most on-farm domestic use is
unsewered. Returns from municipal and domestic use were distributed evenly to the cell at the well
location and the surrounding eight model cells in the uppermost model layer. Total annual municipal and
domestic return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 53,000 to 67,000 AFY.
Golf Courses
Annual returns from golf course irrigation were estimated to be 34.7 percent of applied water , based on
the difference between the applied water and turf evapotranspiration. These returns were evenly
distributed to Layer 1 model cells within the sections where the golf courses are located. Golf course
pumping is metered in the west valley management area; returns from metered golf course pumping were
estimated to be 34.7 percent of the pumped water and were distributed evenly to the cell at the well
location and the surrounding eight model cells in the uppermost model layer. Total annual golf course
return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 35,000 to 44,000 AFY.
Other Return Flows
In the original historical model, no groundwater returns are assumed to occur from fish farm and duck
club operations. Water losses at these facilities include evaporation and direct discharges to the drain
system for disposal. For the historical model, return flows from groundwater pumping for reclamation
leaching was returned to the groundwater system as recharge within the semi-perched zone in sections
where drains were installed. However, no reclamation leaching was assumed to occur during the
2010WMP period; thus, no such returns were specified for 1997-2008.
5.3 GROUNDWATER OUTFLOWS
The model quantifies outflows; groundwater is discharged from the Indio Subbasin through groundwater
pumping for multiple beneficial uses, evapotranspiration, drain outflows, and subsurface outflow to the
Salton Sea.
5.3.1 Groundwater Pumping
Annual estimates of agricultural, municipal, golf course, and other pumping for each section were made
for the historical model using the consumptive use method. Wells were simulated using the MODFLOW
WEL Package, with wells assigned to model cells based on known or inferred well locations and depths.
The agricultural pumping was distributed to known and inferred irrigation wells within each section in the
upper and lower aquifers. Unmetered golf course pumping was estimated in a similar manner. Pumping
for municipal and domestic use was compiled from SWRCB, USGS, CVWD and DWA records and estimated
where necessary. CVWD and DWA metered pumping for municipal and domestic use, and all available
metered golf course and fish farm pumping, was included where available in years 1997-2009 in the 2010
CVWMP Update. Pumping estimates also included any unmetered municipal and domestic use, golf
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-9 TODD / W&C
course, agricultural, greenhouse, on-farm domestic pumping from private wells, and any fish farms and
duck club pumping. Although metering of agricultural pumping in the east valley began in 2004, the data
were not complete until 2011-2012; thus, agricultural pumping was estimated for the 2010 CVWMP
Update. Metered pumping will be used after 2012 in the updated model simulations.
Pumping is simulated in the model using the standard MODFLOW WEL Package. Pumping amounts over
time were calculated and distributed to model grid cells corresponding to the known or estimated
production well locations and depths. Most pumping occurs from the deep aquifer (Model Layer 4).
For the Alternative Plan model update, the individual categories of pumping will be re-calculated for the
period 2009-2019 using measured and better estimates, and the MODFLOW WEL Package will be re -
constructed. New simulations of the period 1997-2019 will be run to confirm model performance, prior
to conducting the future predictive simulations.
Agricultural
Agricultural pumping, primarily in the east valley, represents a component of groundwater discharge from
the basin. For the 2010 CVWMP model, agricultural pumping was estimated based on water deliveries
and consumptive use. Details of the methodologies used to estimate agricultural pumping are provided
in Fogg (2000). Total annual agricultural water usage amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from
approximately 283,000 to 372,000 AFY, with pumping amounts during this period estimated to range from
53,400 to 105,900 AFY. Metering of agricultural pumping in the east valley began with the inception of
the East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit Groundwater Replenishment Program in 2005 and
was completed in 2011-2012. Metered well pumping data will be used in the model update.
Municipal and Domestic
CVWD and DWA have metered municipal groundwater pumping in the upper valley since the mid-1970s.
Most of the historical groundwater production in the East valley was unmetered and was estimated in the
2010 CVWMP model. On-farm domestic water use was included in the pumping distribution. Metered
municipal well pumping data will be used in the model update for both the upper and lower valley, with
minor unmetered domestic and other pumping estimated. Total annual municipal and domestic pumping
amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 179,000 to 230,000 AFY.
Golf Courses
Golf course pumping in the upper and lower valley was estimated in the historical model based on known
pumping amounts or estimated based on the acreage irrigated and year when each course was
constructed. For estimated amounts, water use was computed using turf demands, annual
evapotranspiration (ET) rates, leaching rates, and irrigation efficiencies. For the 2010 CVWMP model,
metered pumping data was used for golf pumping. Total annual golf course pumping amounts between
1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 82,900 to 93,400 AFY.
Fish Farms, Duck Clubs and Other
Fish farming is a water-using agricultural enterprise that benefits from the warm groundwater in the lower
valley near the Salton Sea. Fish farming grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, to approximately 1,000 acres
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-10 TODD / W&C
of fish farm ponds in the East valley. The total water demand by fish farms in 1997 was estimated to be
approximately 27,000 acre-ft.
Duck clubs provide water for ponds to attract ducks and other waterfowl during hunting season. The duck
clubs are located entirely within the East valley. The total water demand for duck clubs in 1996 was
estimated to be approximately 4,000 acre-ft.
5.3.2 Evapotranspiration
Native vegetation ET is simulated in the eastern portion of the historical model as described in Fogg et al.
(2000). An ET boundary condition was initially assigned to cells within the semi-perched zone in the
historical simulation; as land within the semi-perched zone was developed for agriculture, the ET
boundary was replaced with a drain boundary. Since no additional drains were installed after 1996, the
ET boundaries were maintained at 1996 conditions in the predictive model. ET amounts are calculated
based on specified plant rooting depths, reference ET values, and simulated shallow groundwater
elevations. Total annual evapotranspiration amounts simulated between 1997 and 2008 ranged from
approximately 4,400 to 5,100 AFY.
5.3.3 Drains
Shallow groundwater drainage systems are installed in the eastern portion of the Subbasin and serve to
maintain the water table below crop rooting depths. The model simulates drains in Layer 1 with
installation dates, locations, and drain elevations based on their construction records. On-farm drains are
constructed at approximately 6-ft depths and are connected to the CVWD drains. CVWD drains are
typically installed at depths of 8 to 10 ft. The model calculates the amounts of drain flow based on the
drain elevations, adjacent groundwater elevations, and aquifer/drain conductance, a permeability
parameter. Flow from the drains goes either into the CVSC or directly into the Salton Sea. No additional
drains have been installed since 1996 and 2002; consequently, the drain boundary conditions in the model
are maintained at the 1996 configuration. Total annual drain flow amounts simulated between 1997 and
2008 ranged from approximately 41,200 to 51,500 AFY.
5.3.4 Salton Sea
The Salton Sea is simulated as a GHB with time-varying elevations. Actual Salton Sea elevations were used
in the historical model then held constant at 1999 levels 2010 CVWMP Update simulations. Note that
Salton Sea levels have declined approximately 10 feet since circa 2000, and simulated elevations of this
boundary condition will be adjusted in the updated model. Simulated net flow between the Sea and
groundwater system is relatively small, less than 1,000 AFY in the 1997-2008 simulation.
5.4 MODEL PERFORMANCE
The original 1936-1996 regional model was well-calibrated to measured groundwater elevation and water
budget trends across the basin (Fogg, 2000). Errors between observed and simulated groundwater
elevations were generally low, and simulated drain flow amounts over time corresponded to measured
and estimated drain flows after the drains were installed.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-11 TODD / W&C
Performance of the updated 2010 CVWMP model was re-assessed to confirm the model continues to
accurately simulate of measured data for the period from 1997-2019. Model simulation results for the
latest 2010 CVWMP Update dataset were compared with measured groundwater elevations throughout
the valley, and with agricultural drain flows in the East Valley. Because the original model was constructed
and calibrated to 1936-1996 data, and since aquifer properties were not changed in the model for the
2010 CVWMP Update, calibration results for the updated period provide an additional validation step for
the original model.
It is noteworthy that the 2010 CVWMP Update dataset was developed during 2008-10 and includes
measured pumping and recharge data that were readily available at the time, generally through 2008.
However, for the simulation period from 2009 to 2019, for which data were not yet available, various
modeling assumptions (pertaining to natural and artificial recharge, municipal, resort and irrigation
pumping demands, as well as included CVWMP programs) were used to estimate future pumping and
recharge amounts and their distributions in the model. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the current model
to perform better from 1997-2009 than from 2010-19. Model inflows and outflows for the period 2009-
2019 will be updated and the model re-run to confirm calibration quality for this period.
5.4.1 Head Calibration Hydrographs
Figure 5-2 shows the locations of five wells considered to be representative of local groundwater level
conditions throughout the subbasin, and which have also been monitored for many years. These wells
were selected for plotting hydrographs for visual comparison with model-simulated results as well as for
calculation of error residuals. The original calibration results for the 1936 -1996 model, along with the
1997 through 2019 results from the 2010 CVWMP model update are included on the hydrographs. Model
year 1997 through 2008 simulation results are considered representative of actual historical conditions,
while 2009 through 2019 results are based on 2010 CVWMP projections of inflows and outflows and are
not representative of actual conditions during this period. The calibration results for the five wells are
described below from northwest to southeast, down the Valley.
Well 03S04E20F01S is completed in the unconfined aquifer near the WW-GFR and exhibits large
groundwater elevation fluctuations of around 250 feet between 1997 and 2008, in response to recharge
operations at the GRF. The 2010 CVWMP Update simulation results show the model generally reproduces
the observed trends in groundwater levels during the period 1997-2008. The modeled peak groundwater
elevations are lower that the observed peaks in 1998-99 and 2005-06, but this is due in part to the annual
stress periods of the model, that use average annual recharge volumes at the GRF, rather that the dynamic
amounts recharged across the year. Observed-simulated hydrographs after 2008 deviate, due to the
assumed relatively constant recharge and discharge amounts used for this simulation period.
Nearby wells 04S04E15J01S and 04S04E13C01S are in Palm Springs near the San Jacinto Mountain front
and completed in the lower aquifer. Both wells are shown on the hydrograph because they have different
periods of record but are closely located, with similar depths and water level responses, and are located
in the same model cell. As shown, the model simulation results compare well with observed groundwater
levels from 1997-2008. The model-simulated peaks from the hydraulic effects of the artificial recharge at
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-12 TODD / W&C
WWR-GRF and recovery are well-matched with the measured data, both of which exhibit muted and
delayed responses to the wet year WWR-GRF recharge events.
Well 05S06E05Q01S and nearby Well 05S06E23M01S are located near Indian Wells and completed in the
lower aquifer. Both exhibited similar water level trends for their periods of record. T he model results
compare well with the observed trends in groundwater levels through 2008, including the diminished
peaks due to large amounts of artificial recharge at WWR-GRF in 1998-99 and 2005-06 that, due to its
location downgradient from WWR-GRF, have been attenuated and delayed by approximately 4 years at
this location.
Well 06S07E23F01S and nearby Well 06S07E22B01S are located near Lake Cahuilla and completed in the
lower aquifer. The model closely reproduces the trends and approximates the values in measured
groundwater levels very well in this area over the 1997-2008 simulation period.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-13 TODD / W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-14 TODD / W&C
Well 06S08E36M01S is located between Thermal and Mecca and completed in the lower aquifer. The
simulated groundwater elevation trends match groundwater levels very well in this area over the 1997 -
2008 simulation period.
The example hydrographs shown on Figure 5-2 indicate good overall calibration in most portions of the
Indio subbasin. However, certain subareas and depth intervals exhibit lower quality calibration results for
the 2010 CVWMP model update. For example, simulated water levels in the Garnet Hill subarea are not
well-calibrated with observed levels in some wells. This may be due to offsets in simulated initial
conditions, as compared with observed levels in 1997, and to inaccuracies in the simulated amounts of
inflow from the Mission Creek subbasin. This will be further evaluated after completion of the 2009-2019
model update and changes made to certain input parameters to improve calibration in this subarea.
5.4.2 Head Calibration Statistics
Figure 5-3 shows a scatter plot of model-computed heads vs. measured water level data for
measurements in the simulation from 1997-2009. The comparison of the match between measured data
and simulated values for this subperiod is representative of model performance, since actual data on
pumping and recharge are included in the model versus estimated rates used in the 2009-2019 portion of
the simulation. In this period there are 27,890 groundwater elevation observations covering an elevation
range of 1,086.05 ft. As shown on the chart, there is a very good correlation between observed and
simulated data throughout the subbasin. The average residual (difference between observed and
simulated elevations) of this data set 2.18 ft, and residual standard deviation of 22.93 ft. These calibration
results indicate the model accurately reproduces groundwater elevations and trends in the subbasin.
5.4.3 Water Budget Calibration
Figure 5-4 shows a summary of the transient simulated flow water budget components in the model from
1997-2009. Similar results were provided for the historical model period from 1936-96 in documentation
provided by GFA (Fogg, 2000).
The water budget components include specified recharge, pumping, and subsurface inflows from the San
Gorgonio Pass and the Mission Creek Subbasins, along with model computed flows to native vegetation
ET, net flow to the Salton Sea, and net flow to drains. A QC check of model simulated recharge and
discharge amounts with the original data used to develop the model inputs confirms the input data were
processed and loaded correctly.
Model computed drain flow provides a calibration check for the model, since CVWD has measured or
estimated flows to the agricultural drains for many years. Todd and Ringel Engineering provided GFA with
measured data on these flows.
Model computed drain flows are compared with measured agricultural drain flows in Figure 5-5. The very
good agreement from the 1950s through the early 2000s shows that the model is capable of simulating
real trends in both water levels and flow rates. Apparent divergence of model-computed flows from
measured after 2005 will be re-checked after completion of the model update.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-15 TODD / W&C
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-16 TODD / W&C
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-17 TODD / W&C
5.5 MODEL UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
The most recent version of the model, prepared for the 2010 CVWMP (and containing measured and best-
estimates of recharge and discharge through 2008), will be used as the basis for the calibration update
and future management simulations as a part of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan five‐year update (Plan
Update) for submission to DWR. We recommend that most of the recharge and discharge input data for
the period 1997-2008 be retained in the updated model, but better estimates developed for the period
2009-2019 and synthesized for predictive simulations of future conditions.
Updated measurements and improved estimates for the period 2009-2019 will be developed using new
data sources and a database/GIS pre-processing data management system, for model update efficiency
and use in future updates. The key recharge and discharge components that will be updated include:
•Initial Conditions in Garnet Hill subarea
•Subsurface Inflow Boundary Conditions
•Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge
•Artificial Recharge
•Wastewater Discharges
•Return Flows
•Groundwater Pumping
•Salton Sea Elevations
After completion of the update through 2019, it is recommended that model performance and calibration
results be re-assessed, prior to conducting the predictive model future management scenario simulations.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 6-1 TODD / W&C
6.REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1979) Coachella Valley area well standards
investigation: Los Angeles, California Department of Water Resources, Southern District.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) (2002a) Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan,
September 2002, prepared by MWH and WaterConsult.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) (2012) Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update,
January 2012, prepared by MWH.
Fogg, G.E., G.T. O’Neill, E.M. LaBolle, and D.J. Ringel (2000). Groundwater flow model of Coachella Valley,
California: an overview.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (2016). SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan – Bridge Document for
the Indio Subbasin, prepared by MWH.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-B
2022 INDIO SUBBASIN ALTERNATIVE PLAN COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
9655 Chesapeake Drive | Suite 320
San Diego, California 92123
www.woodardcurran.com
T 858.875.7400
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan
Communication Plan
TO: Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
FROM: Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
Jen Sajor, Woodard & Curran
Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
DATE: April 14, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. GSA DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS ........................................................................................... 2
3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................ 2
4. SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC INPUT ................................................................................................. 3
5. INPUT FROM DIVERSE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES .................... 4
6. TRIBAL OUTREACH AND COORDINATION ................................................................................ 6
7. OUTREACH METHODS ................................................................................................................ 7
8. PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA.......................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX A: INDIO SUBBASIN STAKEHOLDER LIST ....................................................................... 10
Please note, this Communication Plan is a living document that may change as additional stakeholders
are identified or feedback is received. Additional schedule changes may occur due to COVID-19, along
with changes in our approach to communicating with and engaging stakeholders remotely. An updated
Communication Plan will be uploaded to the website as needed.
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2014, California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to provide a
framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. SGMA requires that all
California basins designated high or medium priority shall be managed under a GSP or Alternative Plan
to a GSP (Alternative Plan). The Indio Subbasin (Subbasin) was designated by DWR as a medium priority
basin. As such, SGMA requires formation of locally-controlled groundwater sustainability agency(ies)
(GSAs) as the entity(ies) responsible for developing and implementing a GSP or Alternative Plan. The
primary goal of the GSP or Alternative Plan is to develop sustainable groundwater management practices
for managing the groundwater basin or subbasin without causing undesirable results.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency
(DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) collectively represent the Indio Subbasin GSAs. In January 2017,
the GSAs submitted to DWR the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2010 CVWMP),
accompanied by an Indio Subbasin Bridge Document, as a SGMA-compliant Alternative Plan. On July
17, 2019, DWR approved the Alternative Plan with a requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update
by January 1, 2022.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
This Communication Plan contains outreach strategies and methods to address effective communication
with stakeholders during development of the Alternative Plan Update, including: building trust between
and among the GSAs and property owners/residents, disadvantaged communities, tribes, agricultural
interests, and environmental interests; language barriers and the need for translation;; and the need for
strong and transparent facilitation.
2. GSA DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS
The GSAs are the designated decision-making entities for the Alternative Plan Update process. On
October 5, 2016, the GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to establish an agreement for collaboration and cost-share for management of the Indio Subbasin
under SGMA. Each GSA is responsible for the portion of the Indio Subbasin within their respective service
area. The MOU establishes that its intent is to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication
among the GSAs regarding management of the Indio Subbasin.
The 2016 MOU established the GSAs’ intent to develop and submit the Alternative Plan to DWR. On April
3, 2018, the GSAs approved a Supplement to the MOU that outlined the GSAs intent to prepare an
Annual Report for Water Year 2017. On October 29, 2018, the GSAs approved a Second Supplement
to the MOU that allowed for ongoing preparation of Annual Reports by April 1 of each water year, along
with preparation of a 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (which is the subject of this
Communication Plan). The Second Supplement directs CVWD to serve as the managing entity for
selected consultants, but allows for input and review of all SGMA-related deliverables and transmittal of
all data and files to each of the four GSAs.
The GSAs will participate in all community workshops and directed outreach meetings. Public input, no
matter the method received (e.g., phone, email, public meeting), will be shared with all of the GSAs for
consideration throughout the planning process.
3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
3.1 Purpose
Public engagement includes both stakeholder coordination and general public involvement. The goal of
this public engagement effort is to understand the needs of stakeholders, increase awareness and
understanding of the Alternative Plan Update, and promote active involvement in the process.
Stakeholders with interest in water management – including agency representatives, municipalities,
tribes, agricultural representatives, large irrigators, and non-profit organizations – are the target audience
for this Alternative Plan Update Communication Plan. The general public will be engaged throughout the
planning process to share information about the Indio Subbasin and water management decisions, and
solicit input to the Alternative Plan Update.
Coordination with various entities with interests and/or authority over water management will ensure their
active involvement in the Alternative Plan Update. These entities have a vested interest in local water
resources and can provide invaluable input to the Alternative Plan Update process, as well as
implementing projects/management actions during Plan implementation phases. Through public
involvement, the Alternative Plan Update process aims to increase awareness and understanding from
the general public including residents, community members, tribes and disadvantaged communities that
are ultimately served by the GSAs. The Plan Update will take into account community needs, while
demonstrating the importance and interrelation of water management strategies, increasing regional and
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
local support for implementation projects/management actions (and associated investments), and
generating broad-based support for continued regional coordination.
3.2 Participants
All interested stakeholders and members of the general public are invited to participate in this process
and collaborate with the GSAs. Individuals representing the following groups have been identified as
potential stakeholders:
• State, county and municipal
governments
• Wastewater and water agencies
• Land use planning and economic
development agencies
• Community councils
• School districts
• Environmental conservation and
natural resources organizations
• Private pumpers and large irrigators
• Resource agencies and special
interest groups
• Flood control districts
• Disadvantaged and environmental
justice communities
• Elected officials
• Farm Bureau and agricultural interest
• Tribal governments
• Academic institutions
• Recreational interests
• Regional planning organization
• Regulatory agencies
• Stormwater management agencies
• Development community
• Chambers of Commerce
Interested members of the general public may include:
• Private homeowners or landowners
• Homeowners associations
• Landscape architects and contractors
• Garden clubs and organizations
• Rotary clubs and other service clubs
• Commercial, industrial, and residential
developers
• Community-based organizations
• Schools and parent groups
• Churches
The Alternative Plan Update process will leverage stakeholder connections made through the Coachella
IRWM Program. Appendix A (located at the end of this Plan) lists all regional stakeholders identified in
collaboration with the Coachella Valley IRWM Program, as well as additional participants identified by the
GSAs. These stakeholders will be contacted and invited to participate in the Alternative Plan Update
process. This Communication Plan is a living document and the stakeholder list may continue to expand
if additional stakeholders are identified.
4. SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC INPUT
The Alternative Plan Update planning process will include outreach and education activities that involve
stakeholders affected by water management in the Indio Subbasin. The outreach and education process
will inform and educate them about SGMA, groundwater management, the Alternative Plan Update
planning process, and solicit and address issues and opportunities to improve groundwater management
for the Subbasin. The following activities will be undertaken by the GSAs:
• Develop and provide information regarding SGMA, Alternative Plan Update planning, and
groundwater management for public dissemination.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
• Present groundwater analysis and modeling, and solicit stakeholder and public input on
sustainability goals, management actions, and implementation plans.
• Provide and summarize stakeholder and public input for the GSAs to consider throughout the
GSP process.
• Identify and provide opportunities for public input at key project milestones as shown in the
Project Schedule (see Figure 1).
4.1 Project Schedule
The final Alternative Plan Update must be submitted to the DWR by January 1, 2022. The 2022
Alternative Plan Update is scheduled for completion by November 2021, providing time for adoption and
approval by the GSAs. The project schedule is designed to solicit, consider, and address public and
stakeholder input regarding the important planning elements, including Subbasin conditions, groundwater
modeling, sustainability goals, management actions, implementation plan, and the draft and final
Alternative Plan Update. Figure 1 shows a depiction of the generalized schedule for these planning
elements and public and stakeholder engagement. This Communication Plan is a living document and
the schedule may change as the need arises. All schedule updates will be posted to the website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org).
Alternative Plan review and evaluation will begin in Summer 2021. During this phase, the draft Alternative
Plan will be published for public review at the website (www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org). The GSAs will
open a 45-day public comment period. The GSAs will hold a community workshop to provide an overview
of the Alternative Plan content, while giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback and
comments about the Alternative Plan. Once the public review period is completed, public comments will
be taken into consideration and incorporated into a final version of the Alternative Plan before submitting
to DWR by January 1, 2022. Following submittal, DWR will post the Alternative Plan Update for a 60-day
comment period through the DWR’s SGMA portal at http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/. Public comments
will be posted to the DWR’s website prior to the State agency’s evaluation, assessment, and approval.
5. INPUT FROM DIVERSE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC
COMMUNITIES
5.1 Purpose
The goal of diverse outreach is to identify and obtain input from groups that may be otherwise limited
from participating in the Alternative Plan Update process and implementation. Various reasons exist
which limit participation in regional water planning efforts, such as financial or language constraints.
Previous outreach efforts through the Coachella IRWM Program have identified water-related concerns
facing groups with limited voice in water management efforts. Diverse outreach for input to the Indio
Subbasin Alternative Plan Update will build on previous efforts from the Coachella Valley IRWM program
and CVWD’s Disadvantaged Community Infrastructure Task Force.
Targeted outreach to diverse populations within the Indio Subbasin will be conducted to ensure that the
technical assumptions and approach used in the planning effort are understood. This outreach includes
directed email communications inviting these groups to attend up to eight quarterly public workshops
(described in Section 7 Outreach Methods below).
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
Figure 1: 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Schedule
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
5.2 Participants
Communities targeted for diverse outreach include disadvantaged communities (DACs) and
environmental justice (EJ) organizations. DACs are defined by DWR as census geographies with an
annual Median Household Income (MHI) of less than 80% of the statewide MHI. EJ is defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
environmental of environmental laws.” Outreach to organizations also involved with EJ issues ensures
that water management activities implemented under the Alternative Plan implementation do not unduly
burden DACs.
Numerous local and State-wide DACs and EJ organizations will be targeted during outreach for the
Alternative Plan, including but not limited to:
• Clean Water Action
• Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment
• Desert Edge Community Council
• El Sol Neighborhood Educational Center
• Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW)
• Inland Congregation United for Change (ICUC)
• Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
• Representative from Assemblyman Garcia
• Pueblo Unido Community Development Corporation
• Rural Community Assistance Corporation
5.3 Coachella Valley EJ Enforcement Task Force (regional Water Quality Control
Board)Public Comments
Public comments will be accepted both verbally and in writing, and will be considered in development of
the Alternative Plan Update. A comment matrix will be maintained by the GSAs throughout the planning
process to track and incorporate, as appropriate, comments received on the Alternative Plan Update.
5.4 Community Meetings
GSA members are available to speak at existing community meetings regarding SGMA and the
Alternative Plan Update, as requested by and based on the interest of stakeholders. If a GSA member is
present at a community meeting, they can provide a SGMA Update as available.
6. TRIBAL OUTREACH AND COORDINATION
6.1 Purpose
The goal of engaging the Coachella Valley’s tribal governments is to better understand their critical water
resources issues and needs. An Indio Subbasin Tribe and Groundwater Sustainability Agency Workgroup
(Tribal Workgroup) was established in 2017 and has existed for several years through submittal and DWR
approval of the Alternative Plan. During the Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs seek to continue to discuss
major water-related concerns facing the tribes and ensure regional water management efforts, such as
the long-term implementation of the Alternative Plan Update, are responsive to those needs.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
Targeted outreach to the tribes within the Indio Subbasin will be conducted to ensure that the technical
assumptions and approach used in the planning effort are understood. This outreach includes up to five
semi‐annual meetings with tribal representatives through the existing Tribal Workgroup and will occur on
the same day as the public workshops (described in Section 7 Outreach Methods below).
6.2 Participants
Tribal participants will be contacted based on input from Tribal Workgroup members and the GSA
partners. The following six Native American tribes in the region will be targeted during outreach for the
Alternative Plan Update process:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Additionally, meetings will include the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, a current member of the Tribal
Workgroup, and may include representatives from other tribal coordinating agencies or groups.
7. OUTREACH METHODS
The GSAs believe that public access is critical to the success of the Alternative Plan Update process.
The GSAs have taken a strategic approach to public outreach. The following tactics have been
implemented to achieve successful outreach:
• Developed an initial Communication Plan that can be executed by any combination of agency
staff or consultants.
• Refined the timeline for the Alternative Plan Update process in such a way that appropriate
dates for notification of public meetings, workshops, etc. can be documented and addressed in
a logical and orderly manner.
• Determined methods for the dissemination of information for public review and for public input
(e.g. email and website).
The following tactics will be used moving forward, during the planning process, to achieve greater
community participation where possible:
• Provide outreach documents in both English and Spanish to accommodate the primary
languages of community members.
• During planning/preparation for public workshops, make suggestions for schedule or format that
allow for greater public participation.
• Apprise the members at each meeting, and sooner if necessary, as to the issues and needs for
supporting public outreach.
The public will be notified of public workshops via email and website, given specific contact information
for questions or comments, and given sufficient time to review materials prior to or after workshops.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
7.1 Public Workshops
Eight public workshops will be held on a quarterly basis. The public workshops are intended to inform
stakeholders and the general public of the Alternative Plan Update progress, solicit data and information
to support planning and analysis for the Subbasin, and seek input on key decisions made throughout the
planning process. Public workshops to address the Plan Update will include outreach to the participants
listed above. The GSAs recognize the need and importance of public participation and will work diligently
to make sure that not only are stakeholders and participants listened to, but that their valuable advice
helps create an effective groundwater management plan update for the region.
Public workshops will generally be held within the Indio Subbasin during regular business hours; however,
select workshops and meetings may be held outside of normal business hours to accommodate the
participation of stakeholders and the general public. Select after-hours workshops may focus on
educating community members about the Indio Subbasin, its groundwater conditions, and the
effectiveness of historical management strategies. As appropriate, meeting locations will rotate
throughout the valley to ensure broad and fair participation by members of the local public, including
areas of the valley that are predominantly DACs and EJs. Any changes to the location and time of public
workshops will be considered to allow for meeting flexibility, as needed. Translation headsets for all public
workshops will be provided by CVWD. In addition, GSAs can be available to present about SGMA at
community meetings, at the request of community organizations.
7.2 Website
Establishing a bilingual (English and Spanish) Alternative Plan website will be a key component of the
regional outreach. The website will house information about SGMA, the Alternative Plan Update process,
GSA partners (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA), public meetings, project reports and studies, and
groundwater data and information. It will also provide options for contacting the GSAs – via email, writing,
or in person.
The website (www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) will be developed with landing pages including a general
overview of SGMA, ways to get involved, information about the Alternative Plan Update (including links
to completed deliverables and workshop materials), and the GSAs’ contact information. Each page of the
website will include an opportunity to sign-up for project emails. Landing pages will be also be available
in Spanish at http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/espanol/.
7.3 Fact Sheets & Flyers
A bilingual (English and Spanish) Fact Sheet will be developed to explain the purpose and regulatory
requirements for Alternative Plans, as well as how the 2010 CVWMP serves as the basis for the
Alternative Plan Update. Additional handouts or flyers for the Alternative Plan Update will be created and
distributed to stakeholders as the need presents itself. These flyers may summarize work underway for
the Plan Update or to document key decisions made during the planning process. All outreach documents
will be produced in English and Spanish. The Alternative Plan Update will be made available in both print
and electronic format in English.
7.4 Correspondence
An electronic mailing list of stakeholders and interested parties, and any special subgroups, will be
maintained and updated throughout the Alternative Plan Update. E-mail notices, the primary method of
communication, will be sent to announce the availability of new materials on Alternative Plan Update on
the website, project milestones, and workshop dates. Press releases will also be used as a method of
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
correspondence. Announcements will be distributed in English with Spanish translation in the same
message.
7.5 Social Media
GSA partners will utilize existing social media channels (CVWD, DWA, and IWA Facebook and Twitter
accounts) to spread updates on the Alternative Plan Update to the general public. CWA may post through
the City of Coachella Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. This may include announcements prior to public
workshops or the availability of new materials on the Alternative Plan Update on the website.
8. PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA
Existing and future data associated with the planning process, as included in the Alternative Plan Update,
will be made available to the public through the public workshop series. Project maps and data tables will
be presented and reviewed with stakeholders in order to garner input and feedback. Groundwater
modeling assumptions and results will be presented to stakeholders during the workshop series.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-C
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO
SUB-BASIN UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This page intentionally left blank.
80237.00802\24604519.1 1
SUPPLEMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO SUB‐BASIN
UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This SUPPLEMENT dated April 3, 2018 is entered into among the City of Coachella, a municipal
corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Coachella Water Authority (CWA), the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD), the Desert Water Agency (DWA), and the City of Indio, a municipal corporation
acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA) for the purpose of developing a
common understanding among the Partners regarding the governance structures applicable to
implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code, Part 2.74, Section
10720 et seq.) (SGMA) in the Indio Sub‐Basin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The Partners
to this MOU shall be collectively referred to herein as “Partners” and individually as “Partner”.
WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding governance of
the Indio Sub‐basin under SGMA; and
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU for the purpose of retaining consultants to assist
in the preparation of Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) annual reports by water year for the
Indio Sub‐basin for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by April 1 of
each year to satisfy SGMA requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:
SECTION 1:
RETENTION OF CONSULTANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1.1 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR has required that all GSAs who have submitted
an Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative GSP) prepare and submit an Annual
Report for Water Year 2017 (October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017) to DWR by April 1, 2018 in
accordance with SGMA. The Partners agree to the following:
1.1.1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec, formerly MWH America’s Inc.), the consultant
who completed work needed to submit the Indio Sub‐basin Alternative GSP, has provided the
scope of work and fee schedule included in Exhibit 1 for the preparation of the GSAs Annual
Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017.
1.1.2 The Partners have agreed to have CVWD retain Stantec to prepare the GSAs Annual
Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017 for an amount not to exceed $63,260,
without prior authorization of the Partners.
80237.00802\24604519.1 2
1.1.3 CVWD shall invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one‐fourth (1/4) of the cost of
the preparation of the Annual Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017 which is an
amount equal to $15,815.
SECTION 2:
INVOICING AND PAYMENT
2.1. CVWD shall administer Agreements and pay consultants per the terms of the Agreements as
approved by the Partners, and then invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one‐fourth (1/4)
of the payment that has been made to the consultants.
2. 2 Each Partner shall pay the invoice within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
SECTION 3:
MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Abbreviations, capitalized words, and phrases used in this supplement shall have the same
meaning as in the MOU.
3.2 All terms of the MOU remain unchanged, except, as supplemented herein.
3.3 This Supplement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Supplement as of the day and year indicated on
the first page of this MOU.
80237.00802\24604519.1 1
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO SUB-BASIN
UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This SECOND SUPPLEMENT dated October 29, 2018 is entered into among the City of Coachella, a
municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Coachella Water Authority (CWA), the
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Desert Water Agency (DWA), and the City of Indio, a
municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA) for the purpose
of developing a common understanding among the Partners regarding the governance structures
applicable to implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code, Part 2.74,
Section 10720 et seq.) (SGMA) in the Indio Sub-Basin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The
Partners to this MOU shall be collectively referred to herein as “Partners” and individually as “Partner”.
WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 5, 2016
regarding governance of the Indio Sub-basin under SGMA; and
WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Supplement to MOU dated April 3, 2018 for the purpose of
retaining a consultant to assist in preparing the Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSA’s) Indio Sub-
basin Annual Report for Water Year 2016-2017 in accordance with SGMA; and
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU a second time for the purpose of retaining
consultants to assist in the preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Reports by Water Year for
submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by April 1 of each year to satisfy
SGMA requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU a second time for the purpose of retaining
consultants to assist in updates and revisions identified and required by the DWR of the Alternative
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative GSP) for the Indio Sub-basin to satisfy SGMA requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:
SECTION 1:
RETENTION OF CONSULTANTS AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS
1.1 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR has required that the GSAs prepare and submit
an annual report by April 1 of each year for the previous Water Year (October 1 through
September 30) to DWR in accordance with SGMA. The Partners therefore agree to the following:
1.1.1 The Partners agree to have CVWD develop a scope of work by the end of each Water
Year for the preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Report for the previous
Water Year.
80237.00802\24604519.1 2
1.1.1.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review the scope of work and
provide comments for inclusion prior to release in a Request for Proposals (RFP)
or Bid Package.
1.1.2 The Partners agree to have CVWD release an RFP or Bid Package in accordance with all
Procurement Policies of the CVWD to solicit proposals from qualified consultants for the
preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Report for the previous Water Year.
For the purposes of this Second Supplement to the MOU, qualified consultants consist
of firms competitively selected and contracted by CVWD for on-call hydrogeological
services.
1.1.2.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and score the proposals
received from each respondent to the RFP or Bid Package for the selection of
the consultant.
1.1.3 The Partners agree to have CVWD enter into Agreements with selected consultants in
accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to prepare the GSA’s Indio Sub-
basin Annual Report for each Water Year.
1.1.3.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft
Annual Report and the Draft Final Annual Report.
1.1.3.2 Each Partner shall be provided one electronic and one hard copy of the Final
Annual Report.
1.1.3.3 Each Partner shall be provided electronic copies of all data and files used to
create report graphics and tables.
1.2 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR may periodically notify the GSAs to perform
updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP in accordance with SGMA. The
Partners therefore agree to the following:
1.2.1 The Partners agree to have the CVWD develop a scope of work to perform required
updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP.
1.2.1.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review the scope of work and
provide comments for inclusion prior to release in a Request for Proposals (RFP)
or Bid Package.
1.2.2 The Partners agree to have CVWD release an RFP or Bid Package in accordance with all
Procurement Policies of the CVWD to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to
perform updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP. For the purposes of
80237.00802\24604519.1 3
this Second Supplement to the MOU, qualified consultants consist of firms competitively
selected and contracted by CVWD for on-call hydrogeological services.
1.2.2.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and score the proposals
received from each respondent to the RFP or Bid Package for the selection of the
consultant.
1.2.3 The Partners agree to have CVWD enter into Agreements with selected consultants in
accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to perform updates and revisions
to the Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft
Alternative GSP and Draft Final Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.2 Each Partner shall be provided one electronic and one hard copy of the Final
Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.3 Each Partner shall be provided electronic copies of all data and files used to
create report graphics and tables.
SECTION 2:
INVOICING AND PAYMENT
2.1 CVWD shall administer the Agreements with the consultants and pay the consultants per the
terms of the Agreement.
2.2 CVWD shall invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one-fourth (1/4) of the payment that has
been made to the consultants.
2.3 Each Partner shall pay invoices within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
SECTION 3:
MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Abbreviations, capitalized words, and phrases used in this Second Supplement shall have the
same meaning as in the MOU.
3.2 All terms of the MOU remain unchanged, except, as supplemented herein.
3.3 This Second Supplement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
80237.00802\24604519.1 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Second Supplement to the MOU as of the day
and year indicated on the first page of this Second Supplement to the MOU.
J. M. Barrett William B. Pattison, Jr.
Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Water Authority
Mark Krause Brian Macy
Desert Water Agency Indio Water Authority
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-D
SGMA TRIBAL WORKGROUP AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDAS AND
SUMMARIES
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroups
p
Example Email Notification
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Vanessa De Anda
From:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent:Monday, August 23, 2021 5:17 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:REMINDER: You're Invited! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Tribal Workgroup:
August 26
Attachments:Indio Go To Meeting Instructions_26Aug21.pdf; Indio_Tribal Workgroup 6_Agenda.pdf
Coachella Valley Tribal Workgroup –
Reminder, our next Tribal Workgroup for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is this Thursday,
August 26. This meeting is only open to Tribal Workgroup members and will be held virtually due to COVID-19
concerns. The agenda is attached. Our meeting materials, including the PowerPoint presentation, will be available
on our website (www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org).
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Tribal Workgroup
Thursday August 26, 2021, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/991180029
You can also dial in using your phone: (571) 317-3122, Access Code: 991-180-029
Please let us know if you did not receive the calendar appointment by responding to this email
Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Groundwater Model
· Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
· Simulation Results
It is important that we hear your voice, as this Alternative Plan Update will be used to reliably meet current and
future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner in the Indio Subbasin. Your participation is
greatly appreciated.
Please note, the public workshop scheduled to follow the Tribal Workgroup meeting will begin at 2:00 PM.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us by phone at 213-223-9463 or email
indiosubbasinsgma@woodardcurran.com.
Thank You,
Indio Subbasin GSAs
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroups
Agendas and Meeting Minutes
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshops
Example Email Notification
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Vanessa De Anda
From:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent:Monday, August 23, 2021 5:14 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:REMINDER: You're Invited/Estas Invitado! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Public
Workshop #6: August 26
Attachments:Indio_Public Workshop 6_Agenda.pdf; Indio Go To Meeting Instructions_26Aug21.pdf
Indio Subbasin Stakeholders –
Reminder, our sixth public workshop for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is this Thursday,
August 26.
The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update serves as a comprehensive update of the 2010 Coachella Valley
Water Management Plan Update. We are inviting local community members, municipal agency staffers, non-
profit organizations, farmers, landowners, business owners, tribes, and any other interested local stakeholders to
attend. This is a great opportunity to get involved, learn about the planning process, and provide input on the
future of groundwater management in the Indio Subbasin. This meeting will be held virtually due to COVID-19
concerns. Our meeting materials, including the PowerPoint presentation, will be available on our website
(www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org). The agenda is attached.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Public Workshop #6
Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/262772877
You can also dial in using your phone: +1 (646) 749-3122, Access Code: 262-772-3122
Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Groundwater Model
· Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
· Simulation Results
To accommodate stakeholders who wish to participate in the meeting and need interpreter services, please
email Arthella at indiosubbasinsgma@woodardcurran.com at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting.
It is important that we hear your voice, as this Alternative Plan Update will be used to reliably meet current and
future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner within your area. Your participation is greatly
appreciated.
2
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us by phone at 213-223-9463 or email
indiosubbasinsgma@woodardcurran.com.
Thank You,
Indio Subbasin GSAs
Learn more at www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org
Partes Interesadas de la Subcuenca de Indio –
Invitamos a miembros de la comunidad, personal de agencias municipales, organizaciones no lucrativas,
agricultores, terratenientes (persona que posee tierras), propietarios de negocios, tribus, y cualquier otro grupo
local interesado para que asistan al tercer taller público para la actualización del plan de alternativa de la
Subcuenca de Indio del 2022 (por 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update), una actualización completa del
Plan de Gestión del Agua del Valle de Coachella de 2010 (por 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
Update), el cual fue aprobado como plan de alternativa para cumplir con la Ley de Gestión Sostenible del Agua
Subterránea (por Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA). Esta es una gran oportunidad para
involucrarse, conocer del proceso de planificación, y contribuir en el futuro de la gestión del agua subterránea
de la Subcuenca de Indio. La reunión se celebrará virtualmente debido a las preocupaciones causadas por
COVID-19. Visite nuestra página web (www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) para tener acceso a los materiales de la
reunión.
Actualización del plan alternativa de la Subcuenca de Indio – Taller Público #6
Jueves, 26 de agosto de 2021 de 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
(207) 558-4270, 119-495-611#
Partes interesadas que deseen participar en la reunión y necesiten servicios de interpretación, por favor
de enviar un correo electrónico a Arthella a indiosubbasinsgma@woodardcurran.com con el mínimo de 24
horas antes del inicio de la junta.
Los temas de discusión incluirán:
· Estatus del plan de alternativa
· Modelo de agua subterránea
· Escenarios del plan y accciones de proyectos y gestión
· Resultados de la simulación
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshops
Agendas and Meeting Minutes
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-E
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
October 29, 2021
Via Electronic Mail
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey
Coachella Valley Water District
Water Resources Manager
zrodriguezdelrey@cvwd.org.
IndioSubbasinSGMA@woodardcurran.com
Subject: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments to the draft Water
Management Plan Update to the Alternative Plan
Dear Zoe Rodriguez del Rey:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments on the draft Water Management Plan Update to the Alternative Plan (Indio Subbasin
Alternative Plan) prepared pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
On December 29, 2016, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority
(CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA), collectively referred to as
the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), submitted to the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan, or CVWMP Update
(CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016), as an
Alternative Plan to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Indio Subbasin (as per Water
Code Section 10733.6 (b)). On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the 2010 CVWMP Update as an
Alternative Plan (referred herein as ‘Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan). In compliance with SGMA,
the Plan must be updated every 5 years.
As trustee agency for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the
conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species (Fish & Game Code §§ 711.7
and 1802). Development and implementation of GSPs under SGMA represents a new era of
California groundwater management. CDFW has an interest in the sustainable management of
groundwater, as many sensitive ecosystems, species, and public trust resources depend on
groundwater and interconnected surface waters (ISWs), including ecosystems on CDFW -owned
and managed lands within SGMA-regulated basins.
SGMA and its implementing regulations afford ecosystems and species specific statutory and
regulatory consideration, including the following:
GSPs must consider impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) (Water
Code § 10727.4(l); see also 23 CCR § 354.16(g));
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 2 of 37
GSPs must consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater,
including environmental users of groundwater (Water Code § 10723.2) and GSPs must
identify and consider potential effects on all beneficial uses and users
of groundwater (23 CCR §§ 354.10(a), 354.26(b)(3), 354.28(b)(4), 354.34(b)(2), and
354.34(f)(3));
GSPs must establish sustainable management criteria that avoid undesirable
results within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline, including depletions of
interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse
impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water (23 CCR § 354.22 et seq. and Water
Code §§ 10721(x)(6) and 10727.2(b)) and describe monitoring networks that can identify
adverse impacts to beneficial uses of interconnected surface waters (23 CCR §
354.34(c)(6)(D)); and
GSPs must account for groundwater extraction for all water use sectors, including
managed wetlands, managed recharge, and native vegetation (23 CCR §§ 351(al) and
354.18(b)(3)).
Furthermore, the Public Trust Doctrine imposes a related but distinct obligation to consider how
groundwater management affects public trust resources, including navigable surface waters and
fisheries. Groundwater hydrologically connected to surface waters is also subject to the Public
Trust Doctrine to the extent that groundwater extractions or diversions affect or may affect public
trust uses. (Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018), 26
Cal. App. 5th 844; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983), 33 Cal. 3d 419.) The GSA
has “an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water
resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.” (National Audubon Society, supra,
33 Cal. 3d at 446.) Accordingly, groundwater plans should consider potential impacts to and
appropriate protections for ISWs and their tributaries, and ISWs that support fisheries, including
the level of groundwater contribution to those waters.
In the context of SGMA statutes and regulations, and Public Trust Doctrine considerations,
groundwater planning should carefully consider and protect environmental beneficial uses and
users of groundwater, including fish and wildlife and their habitats, GDEs, and ISWs.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW is writing to support ecosystem preservation and enhancement in compliance with SGMA
and its implementing regulations based on CDFW expertise and best available information and
science. CDFW is providing the comments and recommendations below.
1. Sampling
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the Indio Subbasin, along with lands beyond the
Subbasin that are, or in the future may be, reliant on groundwater pumped from the Subbasin are
included (Plan Area). The Plan Area is geographically divided into West Valley and East Valley
(refer to Attachment A). It is indicated that DWR recommended that an update be provided that
identifies GDEs in the Indio Subbasin, with this being accomplished “using best available
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 3 of 37
information (including data available from DWR) and by applying the expertise of a
professional wetland scientist (emphasis added)”. DWR provides the Natural Communities
Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset through the online SGMA data portal.
This NCCAG dataset was used for initial identification of potential GDEs in the Subbasin”. The
NCCAG dataset locations were assessed by a licensed wetlands biologist that included a review
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ecoregions and a preliminary review of special-
status (threatened and endangered) species. The desktop assessment used publicly available
statewide and regional data layers and involved visual review of 1,045 individual locations to
determine potential GDE status. The biologist then selected 15 locations for GDE field
assessment with 13 sites being accessible. Upon completion of the in-person field verification,
the preliminary desktop GDE assessment was refined into three categories: Probable GDEs,
Probable non-GDEs, and Playa Wetland Communities (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section
4.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems).
Probable GDEs were defined as areas with apparent dense riparian and wetland vegetative
communities along mapped drainage systems with potential for deep-rooted phreatophytes
and/or visible, natural surface water flow. Fifty (50) of the 1,045 sites (5%) were determined to be
Probable GDEs. Probable Non-GDEs were classified as “areas that appeared incorrectly mapped
based on current land development and land-use or that otherwise appeared to be dry upland
areas, cultivated and/or flooded agricultural land, obvious humanmade ponds, lakes, and other
features, channelized drains, and areas with no other indicators of groundwater presence near
the surface. It should be noted that dry washes, arroyos, bajadas, and other ephemeral
conveyances where water only flows in response to heavy precipitation events were classified as
Probable Non-GDEs”. Of the 1,045 sites, 932 sites (89%) were determined to be Probable non-
GDEs. A Playa Wetland Community included “areas of wetland habitat along the Salton Sea
exposed seabed (playa) generally downstream of stream, agricultural drain, or stormwater
channel outlets. The receding of the Salton Sea is exposing thousands of acres of playa each
year and water from irrigation ditches and other drainages that previously flowed directly into
waters of the Sea now spreads out on the exposed playa of the Sea where new vegetation and
wetlands currently exist as a result”. Of the 1045 sites, 63 (6%) were determined to be Playa
Wetland Communities.
A Technical Memorandum, Indio Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study
(Woodard & Curran, 2021) was provided in Appendix 4-B and reviewed by CDFW . While DWR
may encourage “best available information”, CDFW tries to rely on credible science in all resource
management decisions. [FGC § 703.3.] Accordingly, CDFW expects groundwater/alternative
plans and supporting documentation to follow ‘best available science’ practices. For more
information on the application of scientific concepts that can improve the likelihood that a
groundwater plan will avoid impacts to fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater,
GDEs, and ISW, please visit: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Groundwater.
While the use of a large sample size that is well distributed may be adequate, CDFW is not clear
on what publicly available statewide and regional layers were visual reviewed to determine the
1,045 reference GDE sites used for the baseline data. CDFW downloaded the NCCAG dataset
(Klausmeyer et al., 2018) from ESRI ArcGIS online (See Attachments B and C). Eleven (11)
types of wetland habitat were identified within the Indio Subbasin Area, including:
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 4 of 37
Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded
Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Hyperhaline
Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Seasonally Flooded
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Semipermanently Flooded
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded
Palustrine, Forested, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Saturated
Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded
Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded
Warm Semi-Desert/Mediterranean Alkali–Saline Wetland
There were also several vegetation communities identified as NCCAG within the Indio Subbasin
(Alkaline Mixed Scrub, Alkaline Mixed Grasses, Alkali Desert Scrub, Blue Palo Verde, Desert
Riparian, Desert Willow, Desert Mixed Wash Shrub, California Sycamore, Catclaw Acacia,
Common Elderberry, Fremont Cottonwood, Honey Mesquite, Riparian Mixed Hardwood,
Riversidean Alluvial Scrub, Scalebroom, and Tamarisk). After comparing and reviewing the
information provided on the NCCAG, CDFW is concerned that the analysis within the Indio
Subbasin Alternative Plan is not scientifically robust and would like clarification regarding why
areas mapped as NCCAG are not part of the 1,045 GDE reference sites in the Plan Area, as well
as why only field visits were performed for 13, or 1%, of the possible GDE locations.
It should be noted that DWR cautions that because the NCCAG dataset was not verified, a more
thorough evaluation of NCCAG-identified locations should occur. The NCCAG dataset is also
limited due to “a comprehensive understanding of geology, hydrology, and biology not being
available at the statewide scale; thus…. further investigation and verification of the connection
and dependence between groundwater and mapped vegetation and wetlands at a local scale
may be needed for water managers in sustainable groundwater management planning.”
(Klausmeyer et al., 2018). Finally, Figure 4-36 GDE Assessment (refer to Attachment D) illustrates
that a disproportionate number of GDEs occur in the southern half of the Indio Subbasin, yet most
of the probable GDEs were determined to be within the canyons in the northern portion of the
subbasin. For even the few that were classified as ‘Probable GDEs’, it is suggested that these
may not be groundwater dependent, but rather, “may be associated with surface runoff, snowmelt,
or springs and seeps from up-gradient sources”. Conversely, it does disclaim that “due to their
location in upper canyons where groundwater extraction is generally not occurring, the specific
areas in the Indio Subbasin where Probable GDEs were identified do not have existing
groundwater data available for review”. Again, CDFW would like a more scientific, detailed
analysis and discussion on GDEs given the importance of these state resources.
Representative Wells
Fifty-three (53) key wells were chosen (Attachment E) to monitor groundwater levels with respect
to a Minimum Threshold (MT), or an established threshold that when crossed, an undesirable
result occurs. For the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the MT was defined by the GSA as “five
consecutive low season monitoring events in 25% of wells across the subbasin (Section 10.1.1.1
Spatial and Vertical Coverage).
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 5 of 37
The inclusion of key wells in the groundwater level monitoring program included the following
factors:
Spatial distribution and density of wells, accounting for variable geographic conditions
including topography, hydrology, geologic structures, aquifer characteristics, confined and
unconfined conditions, pumping patterns, management activities (including
replenishment), and potential impacts to beneficial uses/users.
Length, completeness, and reliability of historical groundwater level record.
Well depth and information on well construction.
Regular access to the well for measurements.
CDFW would like to understand how the GSA determined 25% of wells over five consecutive
low seasons as a MT, whether this will this be further analyzed, and if there is adaptive
management that is proposed. CDFW also encourages that when choosing reference wells,
GSEs, ISWs, and/or areas of biological concern/interest be considered, including whether
the MT is sufficient to detect deleterious impacts to these areas.
2. State Sensitive Species
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), a joint powers authority of elected
representatives, completed a Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; United States Fish
and Wildlife 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit # R8-AES) and Natural Community Conservation
Plan (NCCP; Permit No. 2835-2008-001-06) in 2008 (termed herein as ‘CVMSHCP/NCCP’). The
CVWD, as a Permittee of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, has incidental take for its operations and
maintenance covered activities for twenty-seven (27) species within the CVMSHCP/NCCP Plan
Area. Any other activities/actions that are not a covered activity of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, or is
performed by a non-participant, that may take a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listed
species is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, §§ 2080 & 2085).
CDFW recommends that the GSA, or an individual water agency, seek appropriate authorization
prior to implementation. This may include an incidental take permit (ITP) or a consistency
determination (Fish & Game Code, §§ 2080.1 & 2081). Also, Fish and Game Code section 3503
makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as
otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and
Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders
Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any
such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any
migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary
of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C.
§ 703 et seq.).
3. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Impact Analysis
Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, wells that had long-term water level data were
selected to analyze groundwater conditions (elevations, flows, trends over time, vertical
groundwater gradients and depth to groundwater, and regional groundwater level changes). Since
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 6 of 37
groundwater elevations of the principal aquifer are averaged over the water year; the most current
representative, or the 2018-2019 water year, was selected “as local groundwater levels do not
exhibit strong seasonal trends” (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.1 Groundwater
Elevations, Flow, and Trends). Thirty (30) of these monitoring and production wells were used to
calibrate the Indio Subbasin model by looking at the water level residual (differences between
observed and simulated levels) trends (Section 7.3.3.2 Observed vs. Simulated Hydrographs).
CDFW examined potential suitable habitat for state sensitive riparian birds (least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra) , southern willow flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii extimus), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)) and wetland (California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensil)),
amphibians (arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus)), and fish (desert pupfish (Cyprinodon
macularius)) using GIS shapefiles available from the CVMSHCP/NCCP. Given that the simulated
water levels are “generally very well matched with the observed groundwater trends for all shallow
and deep wells across the Indio Subbasin” (Section 7.3.3.1 Simulated Groundwater Elevation
Contour Maps), as well as there are not strong seasonality water fluctuations, CDFW also chose
a representative calibration well from each subarea that was closest to each of the biological
resource of interest. The calibrated well groundwater elevation hydrographs and the
CVMSHCP/NCCP biological resources are shown in Attachment F.
A brief description of each subarea is summarized below.
(A) West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea - This subarea showed dynamic fluctuations (i.e., over
300 feet in response to very large recharge years associated with recharge events), with
large water level mounding and recovery cycles. Model-simulated levels were very closely
matched with observed levels, both with respect to peak and valley magnitudes and timing.
(B) and (C) Mid-Valley/Thousand Palms to Indian Wells Area - Observed levels at this location
exhibited declines from 1997 through 2010, then were characterized by relatively stabilized
levels through 2019. The model simulates these trends generally well, although the
simulated levels were lower than observed in two of the wells near the City of Indio. This
was speculated to be due to sources of error in the numerical simulation, underestimation
of return flow recharge in local areas, or inaccuracies in other model parameters.
Regardless, the model “generally captures the measured levels in this area showing
declines through 2010 followed by stable trends”.
(D) East Valley/ Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility Area - Observed levels
exhibited declines from 1997 through 2009, then rapidly increased through 2019 in response
to initiation of the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF)
operations. The model simulated trends well, with it responding to recharge operations and
simulated levels and observed being well-matched.
(E) East Valley/Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Areas - The observed levels were relatively
stable between 1997 through around 2010, then increased through 2019, likely in response
to source substitution and in response to initiation of TEL-GRF operations. The model
simulates these trends well.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 7 of 37
For areas that have been mapped as a GDE, spectral characteristics of satellite imagery,
including the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), can be used to illustrate how plant
canopy absorbs and reflects light using the accompanying online mapping tool, GDE Pulse (The
Nature Conservancy, Version 2.0: https://gde.codefornature.org/#/home). CDFW reviewed the
NDVI for the Indio Subbasin from 1985 through 2018 along with the reference well hydrograph
findings (Attachments G and H). Most notably, the TEL-GRF (D) and Mecca, Oasis, and Salton
Sea Areas (E) in the East Valley showed a water decline (D) or stable (E) period from 1997
through 2009, with both regions having a rapid increase in water from 2009 to 2019. Conversely,
the NDVI from these areas illustrated small areas where the NDVI decreased (Attachment I and
J), with the primary decline being between the latter five (5) years, or from 2014-2018
(Attachments K and L). CDFW believes that analyzing the NDVI in relation to water gain/loss
could be useful within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan and advocates for further investigation
to the causes of this decrease in vegetation canopy (e.g., water stress).
4. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems/Interconnected Surface Waters Biological
Importance Considerations
Numerous sensitive plant communities are known to occur in southern California. While all these
unique plant communities are important, other habitats that are often not traditionally considered
“riparian” or “wetlands” need to be considered. Because Southern California GDE habitats vary
widely regarding species composition, geomorphology, and hydrologic regimes, three habitat
types/water features have been focused on in the Indo Subbasin: springs (with or without
associated vegetation), artificial drainages, and ephemeral desert washes/aeolian desert dunes.
Springs and Associated Habitat
There are different types of springs – artesian, gravity, perennial, intermittent and seepage.
Artesian springs usually occur along faults, or in areas of great topographic relief (i.e., cliffs or
valleys). Groundwater pumping that causes aquifer levels to drop may result in different types of
springs drying out, even if the amount of groundwater stored in the aquifer is still very large
(Danielopol et al. 2003; Strayer 2006). There are also various natural and anthropogenic
mechanisms that can cause groundwater declines that stress GDEs, but little quantitative information
exists on the nature of plant responses to different magnitudes, rates, and durations of groundwater
decline. In places where unsustainable groundwater extraction has depleted aquifers and caused
springs to dry up, spring dwelling and groundwater-dependent species have gone extinct
(Danielopol et al. 2003; Strayer 2006). Many water dependent state listed species rely on
mountain spring fed water for their existence including, but not limited to desert pupfish,
mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), and arroyo toad. Further, many terrestrial species
also depend on spring water for their survival. For example, Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis nelson), a state endangered species, are thought to migrate seasonally during the
hot season, where they center their activity near standing water (5-year Review for Peninsular
bighorn sheep, 2011). Refer to Attachment M for more details.
Because these GDEs can include both precipitation and groundwater-dominated systems and
may include the presence of state sensitive resources, CDFW would like to understand more
regarding what was selected as a threshold for identifying springs as a ‘probable GDE’. Springs
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 8 of 37
may be without vegetation but still provide a valuable water source, while others may have
vegetation that is atypical (i.e., Honey Mesquite) of those that are traditionally classified as ‘riparian’
(i.e., Cottonwood Forest). Further, although using a depth to water of less than 30 feet near stream
channels is a standard threshold used as a screening tool for identifying possible phreatophyte areas,
plant reactions can be highly variable, with other factors, such as soil texture and stratigraphy,
availability of precipitation-derived soil moisture, physiological and morphological adaptations to water
stress, and tree age; all, or in part, contributing to a plants’ response to its hydrologic environment.
Because springs and their associated GDEs sustain a number of important landscape functions
(Cohen et al. 2016), and are globally-recognized biodiversity hotspots (Murphy et al. 2015) that
support locally endemic species, focus on sustaining these areas is vital. Data regarding
springs/seeps is often lacking, with smaller ones frequently being undetected or overlooked
because their discharges are inconsequential to the overall water budget of the area. Hydrologic
connectivity between surface water and groundwater, as well as groundwater accessibility to
terrestrial vegetation, is complex and any conclusions reached should be well-supported. This
complexity is especially evident if the surface water is in between, or transitional, the surface
waters are hydraulically connected to the underlying aquifer by a capillary fringe. Due to the
capillary fringe connection, water table elevation changes can still affect the exchange rate of
surface waters. Because lowering the groundwater elevation under a streambed without a
continuous saturated connection to the underlying aquifer may in some cases increase the rate
of loss from the surface water body into the underlying aquifer, the potential for increased loss
rates during transitional states can ultimately increase the area or flow-duration of stream reaches
that may be perceived as ‘disconnected.’
Certain species may be more adept at taking advantage of groundwater and soil water at different
times of the year (Busch and Smith 1995). Therefore, CDFW believes that more focus in
identifying the water sources used by phreatophytic plants is also critical to understanding their
link to, and degree of dependency upon, groundwater. For example, a study that observed
groundwater dynamics and the response of Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), Gooding’s
willows (Salix gooddingii), and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) saplings, all of which can occur within
the Basin, showed that where the lowest groundwater level was observed (-1.97 meters in 1996 vs. -
0.86 meters in 1995), 92 to 100% of the native tree saplings died, whereas only 0 to 13% of the
nonnative salt cedar stems were compromised. Alternatively, where the absolute water table depths
were greater, but experienced less change from the previous year conditions (-2.55 meters in 1996
compared to 0.55 meters in 1995), cottonwoods and willows experienced less mortality and increased
basal area. Excavations of the sapling roots suggested that root distribution was related to the
groundwater history, with a decline in the water table relative to the condition under which roots
developed causing plant roots to be stranded where they could not obtain sufficient moisture (Shafroth
et al. 2000). CDFW stresses that focused, scientifically driven studies, should be part of the
groundwater monitoring to establish sustainable management criteria that avoid undesirable
results to GDEs and ISWs. Some recommendations include, but are not limited to:
Studying the fitness and various water sources to plants (relationships between
incremental growth, branch growth, productivity, and canopy condition and hydrologic
variables) to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 9 of 37
Understanding the relationship between plant age or developmental stage, root
morphology, and water acquisition since vulnerability to water stress may decline as a
function of age or developmental stage for many species.
Using stable isotopes that can trace the water source to understand how many years it
takes for woody plant seedlings or saplings to develop roots deep enough to acquire
groundwater, or to determine the proportion of rain-recharged soil water that typical
phreatophytes utilize (Stromberg and Patten 1991).
CDFW also contends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan should include field measurements
to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation (Stromberg and Patten 1991,
1996; Lite and Stromberg 2005). Good plant morphological measurements can be useful in
assessing riparian and wetland health and tracking changes in condition through time. For
example, it is also expected that variation in the sources of water used by different tree species
has important ramifications for riparian forest water balances. A study of tree transpiration water
derived from the unsaturated soil zone and groundwater in a riparian forest was quantified for
Fremont cottonwoods, Gooding’s willows, and velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) across a
gradient of groundwater depth and streamflow regime (San Pedro River, AZ). The proportion of
tree transpiration derived from different potential sources was determined using oxygen and
hydrogen stable isotope analysis in conjunction with two- and three-compartment linear mixing
models. Comparisons of tree xylem water with that of potential water sources indicated that
Gooding’s willows did not take up water in the upper soil layers during the summer rainy period,
but instead used only groundwater, even at an ephemeral stream site where depth to groundwater
exceeded 4 meters. Conversely, Fremont cottonwoods, a dominant ‘phreatophyte’ in semi-arid
riparian ecosystems, also used mainly groundwater, but at the ephemeral stream site during the
summer rainy season, measurements of transpiration flux combined with stable isotope data
revealed that a greater quantity of water was taken from upper soil layers compared to the
perennial stream site.
Many vegetation attributes are supported by, and respond directly to, water availability. Both plant
characteristics, as well as population and community attributes can assist in assessing the health
and sensitivity to altered water availability so that informed decisions on proposed water
extraction, groundwater pumping, and prescriptive and managed hydrologic regimes can be
made.
Some recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Study specific parameters at certain locations, including vegetation volume, canopy
height, woody plant stem and root density and woody plant basal area/ analysis of
stomatal conductance and/or xylem pressure.
Monitor wetted depth (e.g., piezometers with data loggers) within riparian corridors at
various points from the main channel (e.g., furthest edge from main flowline).
Perform aerial photographic analysis (e.g., small-unmanned aircraft systems) of canopy,
vegetation diversity, distribution, and general riparian conditions including overall health
at set locations of interest and control locations in spring and fall.
Document lateral/spatial extent of GDEs over time.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 10 of 37
Perform field monitoring at established permanent grids and control sites that includes
plant characteristics (water status, transpiration, rooting depth, and incremental growth)
and population and community attributes (fitness, vulnerability to pathogens and
herbivores, fecundity, competitive ability and productivity, population structure, and
community composition and richness).
Artificial Drainages - Irrigation Canals
CDFW recognizes that groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin East Valley have recovered as
irrigation from the Colorado River water has been relied upon for farming rather than groundwater.
Conversely, it stands to reason that as future urbanization and drought conditions increase,
groundwater may be needed.
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan (Section 4.1.2 Vertical Groundwater Gradients (Artesian
Conditions)) identifies artesian conditions in the Eastern Valley as:
“Historically, eastern portions of the Indio Subbasin experienced artesian conditions with
sufficient pressure to cause groundwater levels in wells to rise above the ground surface;
such artesian-flowing wells attracted early settlers to farm in this area. Artesian conditions
declined in the late 1930s as a result of increased local groundwater pumping. The
completion of the Coachella Canal by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in
1949 brought Colorado River water to the eastern Coachella Valley for agricultural irrigation
purposes. Artesian conditions returned in the early 1960s through the 1980s, as imported
Colorado River water was substituted for groundwater production. Beginning in the late
1980s, groundwater use increased again, resulting in declining water levels and loss of
artesian conditions. Groundwater water management programs (including groundwater
replenishment, source substitution, and water conservation) are restoring local groundwater
levels, and artesian conditions have recurred in the eastern Indio Subbasin. Benefits
associated with artesian conditions include reduced groundwater pumping costs and water
quality protection of the deeper, confined production zone aquifers”.
Because the depth to groundwater provides a general indication of locations where gaining
streams and/or GDEs may be present, if the wells are near larger tributaries/ water bodies (i.e.,
Whitewater River, Salton Sea), water supply wells, which typically screen deep in the aquifer,
should be noted and the groundwater elevation (potentiometric head) difference at the depth of
the well screen and the water table (upper surface of the saturated zone) be recorded and tracked.
Also, because recharge occurs at the land surface and pumping occurs at depth, the water level
information can potentially underestimate the locations where the water table is shallow enough
to support phreatophytic vegetation. Further, water extraction from wells could extend into a
nearby water source (stream, canal, pond, or lake), causing it to become dry.
Desert pupfish are the only native fish species in the Salton Sea, and they can be found not only
in natural creeks, but in shoreline pools, a few artificial refuge ponds, and agricultural drains in
the Eastern Valley. CDFW would like clarification on what measures are proposed within the Indio
Subbasin to identify, address, and manage (avoid and/or monitor any wells within 0 .25 miles of
known desert pupfish occupied or suitable areas) any well extraction effects (induced recharge,
cone of depression/influence) on irrigation or sensitive areas that have, or could contain, the
desert pupfish.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 11 of 37
Ephemeral Desert Washes/Aeolian Desert Dunes
CDFW is uncertain that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan is relying on the common assumption
that in ephemeral streams where an unsaturated zone exists beneath a stream, that the
interaction between surface water and groundwater is unidirectional and therefore, does not
contribute significantly to transmission losses. However, a recent study (Quichimbo 2020) has
illustrated that bi‐directional stream–aquifer hydraulic interactions in arid ephemeral streams may
be greater than previously assumed and “groundwater and surface water should be considered
as connected systems for water resource management unless there is clear evidence to the
contrary”.
Aeolian processes support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e., Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma
inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are
specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert environments. The sediment-delivery
system that creates these active sand dunes consists of fluvial depositional areas, with sediment
being delivered during infrequent large winter storm events within larger drainages (e.g.,
Whitewater – San Gorgonio Rivers and Mission Creek – Morongo Wash) originating in the local
surrounding mountains, or in smaller ephemeral drainages during intense summer
thunderstorms. The particle-size distribution of sediments transported by these ephemeral
streams varies depending on the transport process, with most sediment transported by
streamflow ranging in size from sand to small gravel. Previous studies of sediment supply have
evaluated the long-term sand budget in the northern Coachella Valley and how it might change
given modifications to the major watercourses that provide sand to the aeolian system (USGS,
2002). While quantifying sand transport rates has been attempted with various results, CDFW is
concerned that water management practices that impact not only large washes/rivers (e.g.,
retention basins, levees), but also smaller tributaries, could reduce the sand supply, potentially
stabilizing the dunes and degrading habitat. Therefore, CDFW strongly recommends that the Indio
Subbasin Alternative Plan include an analysis of the sediment aeolian processes (e.g.,
entrainment, sediment yield, sediment-transport modeling, etc.) where sand dunes could be
impacted (Attachment N).
5. Conserved Lands
According to the CVMSHCP/NCCP (Section 1.4.4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan):
“The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV MSHCP) (CVAG,
2016) is a multiagency conservation plan for the entire Coachella Valley and surrounding
mountains to address State and Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance in the
region. The CVMSHCP, last amended in 2016, defines a shared regional vision for balanced
growth to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while also
fostering economic growth. The CVMSHCP protects 240,000 acres of open space and 27
species; enhances infrastructure without environmental conflicts; offers opportunities for
recreation, tourism, and job creation; and ensures the survival of endangered species (CVAG,
2016). The CVMSHCP was considered in the development of this Alternative Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 12 of 37
Update, with emphasis in the groundwater dependent ecosystem analysis (emphasis
added)”.
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, restoration, enhancement and
management of fish, wildlife, native plants and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable
populations of those species under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.),
the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900 et seq.), the
California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP Act") (California Fish and Game
Code §§ 2800 et seq.) and other relevant state laws.
CDFW has worked with the Permittees of the CVMSHCP/NCCP to apply principles of
conservation biology that capture the reserve design tenets described in the NCCP General
Process Guidelines and NCCP Act (CDFG 1998). These reserve design tenets provided a
framework for the conservation planning process and include:
conserve focus species and their Habitats throughout the Plan Area;
conserve large habitat blocks;
conserve habitat diversity;
keep reserves contiguous and connected; and
protect reserves from encroachment and invasion by non-native species.
Although the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does consider the CVMSHCP/NCCP, CDFW
advises that the various land use management plans governing state and federal lands, s pecies
management plans approved by state and/or federal agencies, and habitat conservation plans in
adjoining or overlapping areas also be considered. More specifically, CDFW manages
approximately 27,700 acres of land within the Indio Subbasin and CVMSHCP/NCCP Reserve
System for the conservation of state sensitive resources. Using the CV MSHCP/NCCP GIS
mapping tool, the conserved lands in relation to the Indio Subbasin are included in Attachment O.
The Santa Rosa Wildlife Area is approximately 101,500 acres with very steep terrain habitat for
the largest herd of peninsular bighorn sheep. The Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve, an
approximately 3,800-acre property, and the Carrizo Canyon Ecological Reserve, approximately
1,000-acre, also have similar terrain that includes several narrow canyons. Both properties were
acquired and designated an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to preserve a
historic water supply and to maintain and improve habitat for this species. Similarly, the 485-acre
Oasis Spring Ecological Reserve, which is located along the Salton Sea below the historical high-
water mark, was designated as an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to
provide habitat for the desert pupfish. CDFW also manages lands in the Coachella Valley Fringe
Toed Lizard Preserve to protect aeolian processes that support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e.,
Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert
environments.
CDFW recommends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan focus on impacts to conserved lands
to ensure that they function and provide benefits as intended in perpetuity.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 13 of 37
6. Data Gaps
Geological
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan includes a numerical groundwater flow model and associated
water budget with updated inflow and outflow data through 2019 that were used to assess
groundwater conditions and future sustainability within the Plan Area. Other improvements
include: (1) updated Salton Sea elevations; (2) more accurate land surface elevations and Salton
Sea bathymetry; (3) more details regarding the Garnet Hill subarea; and (4) updated subsurface
inflow boundary conditions from adjacent subbasins.
The improved model was applied to simulate transient three-dimensional groundwater flow within
and between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, with a contiguous 50-mile cross section
oriented along the central longitudinal axis of the Indio Subbasin ( labeled A-A’, A’-A’’, and A’’-
A’’’) starting in the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin in the northwest and ending at the northern shore
of the Salton Sea in the southeast. Cross sections B-B’, C-C’, D-D’, and E-E’ (Indio Subbasin
Alternative Plan Figures 3-10 through 3-13) were constructed perpendicular to the main axis of
the Indio Subbasin. Collectively, these cross sections incorporate hydrogeologic information from
the five main subareas of the Indio Subbasin, with cross section B-B’ crossing the Palm Springs
Subarea in the south and the Garnet Hill Subarea and the Mission Creek Subbasin in the north,
and cross section E-E’ intersecting the Oasis and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio
Subbasin in the southwest and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasins in the northeast (Indio Subbasin
Alternative Plan Section 3.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections). Refer to Attachment P for more
details.
CDFW found this technique useful in providing information for the entire Subbasin (e.g., greatest
depths to water were observed in the northwestern portion of the subbasin that was generally
greater than 200 feet, depths to groundwater generally decreased to about 100 to 250 feet in the
mid-subbasin area and then to zero or above the ground surface in artesian wells near the Salton
Sea), but is unclear whether more specific details can be gained regarding the Salton Sea. Cross
sections A’’ – A’’’ and E-E’ just north of the Salton Sea show the boundary between the upper and
lower aquifers with shallow depths to water (Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections). In
addition to relatively shallow or artesian conditions, this subarea (Thermal) is characterized by a
shallow semi-perched aquifer (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.3 Groundwater
Occurrence (Depth to Water)), as shown in Attachment Q. The Indio Subbasin Alternate Plan
(Figure 3-2 Groundwater Subareas of the Indio Subbasin and Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross
Sections) concludes that the Barton Canyon subareas, which is located west of the northern shore
of the Salton Sea, are “semi-water bearing and generally lack subsurface information”. CDFW
concurs with this observation given the lack of well information in this region. For example, with
over 345 monitoring wells (52 CASGEM and 293 other) in the Plan Area, roughly only 12 appear
to be within close proximity to this area (Please see Attachment R: Figure 2-11 Groundwater
Elevation Monitoring Well Locations).
CVWD is a founding member of the Salton Sea Authority, with two members currently serving on
its board. CDFW strongly recommends the GSA continue to address the concerns of the Salton
Sea and its ecological value by closely monitoring and evaluating the elevational sea level
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 14 of 37
changes, as well as the receding/increasing shoreline vegetation/water and the effects to the
adjacent habitat along the northwestern shore of the Salton Sea.
Finally, major changes to the modeling included correcting the initial 1997 conditions in the Garnet
Hill Subarea. In doing this, the effect of the Garnet Hill Fault was seen in the abrupt change in
groundwater levels across the fault. Subsurface inflow across the Banning and San Andreas faults
were also discussed from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins into the Indio
Subbasin (Section 7.2.5.1 Subsurface Inflows). The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan did express
the need to conduct future analyses of the San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Subbasin boundaries
to better estimate subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. To update and improve the
numerical model, the study will consider subsurface flow at faults and to the Garnet Hill Subarea,
as well as adjacent groundwater Subbasins and their numerical models through coordination with
other GSAs (Section 12.2.8.3 Subsurface Flow Study). CDFW suggests that if the available
groundwater monitoring wells are not already appropriately located or constructed for the purpose
of performing detailed high-quality evaluations of the effects of faults throughout the Subbasin
faults (e.g., San Gorgonio Pass, San Jacinto Fault) under a variety of groundwater conditions,
that this occurs and is incorporated into the updated analysis.
Sub/Surface Water
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan acknowledges that uncertainty exists in the actual amounts
of inflow at the Indio Subbasin eastern boundary, with the subsurface outflow at the San Gorgonio
Pass (SGP) Subbasin representing one of the largest unknowns in the water budget and
groundwater modeling. CDFW appreciates that the Indio Subbasin GSA plans to reconcile the
differences and refine outflow/inflow as a part of the next 5-Year Alternative Plan update to
include: (1) a Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis using the SGP Subbasin MODFLOW model;
(2) review upcoming data from three nested monitoring well clusters near the Subbasin boundary,
followed by evaluation and model calibration to recent (and future) water level trends; and (3)
include sensitivity simulations in the model using a range of subsurface inflows. CDFW also
recommends that the monitoring network for groundwater-surface water interaction be enhanced
to not only incorporate the use of existing stream gaging and groundwater level monitoring
networks, but also include monitoring along ephemeral and intermittent water bodies (e.g.,
streams/washes, springs, seeps). Particularly, monitoring should entail a rigorous assessment
that encompasses baseline data, control area(s), and/or similar reference watersheds (e.g.,
elevation, faulting, geomorphology, size, etc.) of water bodies and/or GDEs/ISWs that have high
biological value. Some suggestions include, but are not limited to, the following:
Determining the safe yield (water balance) in the sub-watershed containing the extraction
points with inputs (precipitation gaging, groundwater inflow, and infiltration) and outputs
(evapotranspiration gaging, overland flow, surface water outflow, and groundwater outflow
including extraction), as well as a gridded surface water-groundwater model. Note:
Building and calibrating a fractured mountain-front hydrogeologic model is a longer-term
goal given the lack of baseline data and the multiple parameters needed.
Performing stable isotope analysis through water sampling to measure travel time through
the system to assess potential differences in recharge elevation and groundwater flow
paths.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 15 of 37
Also, the Indio Subbasin GSA should be aware that Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires
an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the
following: (1) Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; (2)
Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or
lake; or (3) Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake.
This includes "any river, stream or lake" that are intermitt ent (i.e., those that are dry for periods
of time) or perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round) with surface, or subsurface, flow.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, though the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does address certain species and their
habitat as identified in the CVMSHCP/NCCP, it does not comply with all aspects of SGMA statutes
and regulations, and CDFW deems it insufficient in its consideration of fish and wildlife beneficial
uses and users of groundwater and interconnected surface waters. CDFW recommends that the
GSA address the above comments for the following reasons derived from regulatory criteria for
GSP/Alternative Plan evaluation:
1. The assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability goal,
undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones
are not reasonable and/or not supported by the best available information and best
available science (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1)). (See Comments in Sections #1 – 6)
2. It does not identify reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data gaps. (23 CCR
§ 355.4(b)(2)) (See Comments in Section #6)
3. The sustainable management criteria and projects and management actions are not
commensurate with the level of understanding of the basin setting, based on the level of
uncertainty. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(3)) (See Comments in Sections #1-6)
4. The interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and the land
uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin,
have not been considered. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(4)) (See Comments in Section # 5)
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan.
Please contact Kim Romich at (760) 937-1380 or at kimberly.romich@wildlife.ca.gov) with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Leslie MacNair
Regional Manager
Enclosures (Literature Cited; Attachments A-R)
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 16 of 37
ec: California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife
Kim Freeburn, Supervisor
Habitat Conservation - Inland Deserts Region
Kim.Freeburn@wildlife.ca.gov
Joshua Grover, Branch Chief
Water Branch
Joshua.Grover@wildlife.ca.gov
Robert Holmes, Environmental Program Manager
Statewide Water Planning Program
Robert.Holmes@wildlife.ca.gov
Angela Murvine, Statewide SGMA Coordinator
Groundwater Program
Angela.Murvine@wildlife.ca.gov
Scott Wilson, Environmental Program Manager
Habitat Conservation - Inland Deserts Region
Scott.Wilson@wildlife.ca.gov
California Water Resources
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program
Craig.Altare@water.ca.gov
Vic Nguyen, Region Manager
Southern Region
Thang.Nguyen@water.ca.gov
Brian Moniz, Regional Coordinator
Southern Region
Brian.Moniz@water.ca.gov
State Water Resources Control Board
Natalie Stork, Chief
Groundwater Management Program
Natalie.Stork@waterboards.ca.gov
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021
Page 17 of 37
Literature Cited
Busch, David & Smith, Sd. (1995). Mechanisms Associated with Decline of Woody Species in
Riparian Ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs. 65. 10.2307/2937064.
Cohen MJ, Creed IF, Alexander L, Basu NB, Calhoun AJ, Craft C, D’Amico E, DeKeyser E, Fowler
L, Golden HE, Jawitz JW, Kalla P, Kirkman LK, Lane CR, Lang M, Leibowitz SG, Lewis DB,
Marton J, McLaughlin DL, Mushet DM, Raanan-Kiperwas H, Rains MC, Smith L, Walls SC
(2016) Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 113:1978–1986.
Danielopol, D., Griebler, C., Gunatilaka, A., & Notenboom, J. (2003). Present state and future
prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 30(2), 104-130.
doi:10.1017/S0376892903000109.
Murphy NP, Guzik MT, Cooper SJ, Austin AD (2015) Desert spring refugia: museums of diversity
or evolutionary cradles? Zool Scr 44:693–701.
Quichimbo, A., MB Singer, MO Cuthbert. Characterising groundwater–surface water
interactions in idealised ephemeral stream systems. Hydrological Processes. 2020;34:3792–
3806.
Strayer, D. (2006). Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J N Am Benthol Soc
25:271–287.
Shafroth, P. B., Stromberg, J. C., & Patten, D. T. 2000. Woody Riparian Vegetation Response to
Different Alluvial Water Table Regimes. Western North American Naturalist, 60(1), 66–76.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41717015
The Nature Conservancy, California. 2021. GDE Pulse v2.0.0. San Francisco, California.
https://gde.codefornature.org. (Date Accessed).
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment A:
Indio Subbasin Plan Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment B:
Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) within the East Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment C
Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) within the West Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment D:
Assessment for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment E:
Key Wells Chosen to Monitor Long-term Groundwater within the Indio Subbasin.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment F:
Representative calibration well hydrographs from each subarea along with CVMSHCP/NCCP biological resources. Observed
levels are shown as black points on the graphs, while simulated levels are shown as the orange lines.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment G(1):
Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the West Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment G(2):
Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the West Valley.
Attachment H:
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the East Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment I:
Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at
TEL-GRF Area (D) from 2009-2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment J:
Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at Mecca, Oasis, and Salton
Sea Area (E) from 2009-2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment K:
Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at TEL-GRF
Area (D) from 2014 -2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment L:
Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley
at Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Area (E) from 2014-2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment M:
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Suitable Habitat Along with Riparian Areas as Identified in the
Coachella Valley HCP/NCCP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment N:
Sand Source and Transport areas identified in the Coachella Valley HCP/NCCP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment P:
Transient Three-Dimensional Groundwater Flow Cross Sections
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment Q:
Location of Artesian Water within the East Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
Attachment R:
The Location of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells in the Indio Subbasin.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C
October 29, 2021
Board Member John Aguilar - Division One
Board Member Anthony Bianco - Division Two
Board President John Powell Jr. - Division Three
Board Member Peter Nelson - Division Four
Board Vice President Cástulo R. Estrada - Division Five
Sent via email
Re: Comments on Coachella Valley Water District GSA Indio Subbasin Water
Management Plan Update
Dear Coachella Valley Water District GSA Board of Directors,
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability works alongside low income communities of
color in the Eastern Coachella Valley and San Joaquin Valley. As is most relevant here, we work
in partnership with community leaders in the communities of Oasis, Thermal, Mecca and North
Shore to to address community priorities including safe and affordable drinking water and
wastewater, affordable housing, land use, effective and safe transportation, clean renewable and
affordable energy, green spaces, and clean air.
The mission of Coachella Valley Waterkeeper (“CVWK” or “Waterkeeper”) is to protect and
enhance the water quality of Coachella Valley watersheds, ensuring that our desert communities
have access to clean and sustainable water resources. Waterkeeper, together with Orange County
Coastkeeper and Inland Empire Waterkeeper (our associated programs), represents over 1,355
members who support this mission. CVWK is also an affiliate of the Waterkeeper Alliance, a
worldwide association of Waterkeeper organizations that advocate for clean water throughout the
world, and the California Coastkeeper Alliance, a statewide association of Waterkeepers that
advances policies and programs for healthy and clean waters throughout the state.
We have been engaged in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
implementation process because most of the communities we work with are wholly dependent on
groundwater for their drinking water supplies, and many have already experienced groundwater
quality issues. Communities we work have not been included in decision-making about their
precious water resources, and their needs are not at the forefront of such decisions. In 2012,
California recognized the Human Right to Water for domestic purposes, and required that state
agencies consider this human right in their activities. State law also requires that GSAs avoid
disparate impacts on protected classes. SGMA’s requirements for a transparent and inclusive
process presents an opportunity in the context of groundwater management to meaningfully
1
include disadvantaged communities in decision-making, and to create groundwater management
plans that understand their unique vulnerabilities, are sensitive to their drinking water needs, and
avoid causing disparate negative impacts on low-income communities of color.
We submit these comments to elevate our concerns that the draft Indio Subbasin Water
Management Plan Update (Draft Plan Update) is incomplete and does not adequately consider
drinking water impacts in its policy decisions about groundwater management. Our review
shows that the Draft Plan Update neither adequately analyzes nor incorporates input from
disadvantaged communities and domestic well users, and will create a disparate impact on
protected classes unless modified to protect drinking water resources for disadvantaged
communities unless significant changes are made. We include herein our comments with respect
to deficiencies in the Draft Plan Update as well as recommendations for improvements.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A. Transparency and Brown Act in the Indio Subbasin and Coachella Valley Water
District GSA
Transparency is a critical function of public agencies, particularly those engaged in managing
such a critical resource as water. Unfortunately, the Indio subbasin agencies have consistently
failed to hold meetings or make decisions in a transparent and accessible way. Furthermore, we
are alarmed to note ongoing violations of the Brown Act. We have expressed these concerns to
agency staff and have noted no change. Some of the agencies’ barriers to accessibility and
transparency occurred before the COVID-19 epidemic, and some have arisen during the
epidemic. We urge you to make the suggested changes below so that ongoing decisions about
critical water resources are made in a transparent and accessible way.
i. All SGMA-related decisions must be made at public meetings of the GSA
The Brown Act requires that legislative agencies such as the Indio Subbasin Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) discuss and decide upon subject matter within their jurisdiction
at public meetings only.
1 The Indio Subbasin GSAs have begun to conduct workshops around the
Alternative Plan Update to be submitted next year. However, during this process, to the best of
our knowledge, CVWD GSA has not held any board meetings in which it has publicly discussed
or taken action related to the Draft Plan Update. We know that the individual GSAs within the
Indio subbasin are each making decisions about the Alternative Plan Update, yet no GSA board
meetings have been held where such decisions are discussed and available for public comment.
ii. Public meetings of the GSA must be noticed effectively
As we have previously expressed, the CVWD GSA does not publicly notice and agendize its
GSA meetings. The Brown Act states that "[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the
legislative body of the local agency...shall post an agenda containing a brief general description
of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be
1 Gov Code Sec. 54952.2(b)(1).
2
discussed in closed session."
2 For this reason, we do not believe that current meeting structures
are in compliance with the Brown Act.
Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, Coachella Water Authority, and Indio
Water Authority may be making SGMA-related decisions at their separately noticed board
meetings. However, it is important that decisions regarding SGMA implementation be separately
noticed as GSA board meetings. We saw this issue arise for several GSAs in the San Joaquin
Valley where existing agencies assumed the responsibilities of GSAs and began to make
SGMA-related decisions at their regular board meetings. GSAs in the San Joaquin Valley
resolved this issue in several different ways. For example, the Westlands GSA continues to
include SGMA as an item on its regular Westlands Water District board meeting agenda, but
maintains a list of interested parties for SGMA purposes and sends a separate notice to that email
list, informing them about the SGMA agenda item at the upcoming Westlands board meeting.
The Madera County GSA follows a similar method, separately noticing their list of SGMA
interested parties before any Madera County Board of Supervisors meetings at which decisions
related to SGMA are to be made. The Central Kings GSA, also the board of Consolidated
Irrigation District, separated its GSA meetings from its Consolidated Irrigation District meetings,
separately noticing and agendizing both and holding them back to back. We encourage the
CVWD GSA to hold separate GSA and CVWD meetings, or state a specific time for the SGMA
items at their regular board meetings, and separately agendize and notice the SGMA items, so
that stakeholders are able to plan their time and participate in the relevant moment. Many
residents are only able to take specific hours off of work, and need to be able to plan their days
accordingly. Additionally, GSAs must provide a complete description of the items to be
discussed, for example “Discussion/Decision Regarding Minimum Thresholds for Groundwater
Levels,” rather than a general “SGMA update,” so that stakeholders may come prepared
knowing what topic will be discussed.
Furthermore, on the Indio Subbasin website it is stated that there is a Management Committee
composed of its four member GSAs that is leading the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan update.
Because this is a meeting of agency members deciding on matters within their SGMA
jurisdiction, any meetings this committee holds must be made public according to the Brown
Act. It is important for the public to be able to give feedback and engage at every point of the
plan update process. To the point in the above section, public meetings are critical to agency
transparency and therefore agency decisions must be made in a public meeting only..
Based on this information, our recommendations on ways to ensure accessible and transparent
public GSA meetings are as follows:
●Notify the public of all hearing/meeting times, topics, and detailed information regarding
participation. All translated preparatory materials and documents should be made
available at the time meeting notices are posted as well. Notices should be easy to find on
state or local jurisdiction websites, and disseminated at least 72 hours in advance.
Notices must clearly show how public comments will be received.
2 Gov Code Sec. 54954.22(a)(1)
3
●Give ample time for the public to submit comments prior to the meeting’s start time, such
as via a dedicated phone number. Comments should be accepted starting from the time
the notices are disseminated. Written or voice message comments should be allowed up
until the start of the meeting, as well as live comments throughout the meeting.
○Do not limit opportunities to comment only to email and avoid implementing
arbitrary word limits on email comments. Limiting comments only to email leaves
room for them to remain unheard and ignored. Allow email comments to be read
aloud on the record by staff during the live meeting, for transparency and
consideration by the full board/commission.
○Allow the public to leave voice message comments, which can be limited to 3
minutes, and played during the comment period of the meeting. Ensure that these
messages, as well as the emails, can be received in multiple languages and
interpreted as needed.
●During the meeting, provide multiple options for teleconferencing, with two-way
communication options that allows either computer-users or phone-users to engage and
provide public comment. Webcasting does not constitute a public meeting, as it does not
provide the opportunity for public comment and dialogue between the agency and
constituents.
○Each teleconferencing medium will offer benefits and limitations, ranging from
professional options such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and WebEx, as well as
wide-reaching mediums for video streaming like YouTube and Facebook Live.
For live-streamed meetings, the public should be allowed to comment in real time,
through a combination of phone and video, chat boxes, and/or email.
○Ensure that there is time for public comment after each agenda item during the
meeting, and allow sufficient time for live comments to be submitted either
electronically or via telephone.
●For members of the public that may not have access to the internet or a computer, or who
are unable to use video applications, consistently provide an adequate telephone
option–available in multiple languages–and ensure that comments can be made via
phone.
B. Insufficient Community Engagement and Outreach
SGMA requires that a GSA “shall consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of
groundwater,” which expressly includes “[h]olders of overlying rights” and “[d]isadvantaged
communities, including, but not limited to, those served by private domestic wells or small
community water systems.”
3 The emergency regulations similarly require that a Draft GSP
summarize and identify “opportunities for public engagement and a discussion of how public
3 Water Code § 10723.2.
4
input and response will be used.”
4 The GSA thus must engage “diverse social, cultural, and
economic elements of the population within the basin.”5
We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted everyone’s ability to engage in person
with communities and we appreciate the virtual workshops that were held by the CVWD GSA
in-lue of in-person meetings. However, these workshops were all held during business hours,
which are not accessible to many of the communities we work with. Additionally, CVWD GSA
actively points to their Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Committee Meetings as a
space for community engagement. These meetings are not open to the public and are held at
hours inaccessible to many of the residents we work with, and were not held for an entire year,
between February 2020 until January 2021.
To address concerns over public engagement, transparency, and inclusivity, the GSAs must
meaningfully consult with all beneficial user groups to shape policies that reflect the priorities of
all beneficial user groups in the GSA area. Then recirculate a new Draft GSP for the public to
review.
C. The Water Budget is Inadequate
Under SGMA, the “[c]urrent water budget information shall quantify current inflows and
outflows for the basin using the most recent hydrology, water supply, water demand, and land
use information.”
6 Based on our review, the Draft Plan Update’s Water Budget is incomplete, as
it has failed to include the consolidation of unpermitted parks to their water budget.
We are pleased to see that the ECV Water Supply Master Plan was incorporated into the water
budget. However, this plan only included permitted mobile home parks. The ECV has very few
permitted parks in comparison to the nearly 500 unpermitted parks.
7 Excluding these parks from
consolidation planning, massively under-estimates the amount of water needed to address
drinking water needs in the ECV. The water budget is central to establishing effective policies for
sustainable groundwater management in the GSA area, as such the drinking water needs of these
groups must be incorporated into the water budget.
8 Before it can submit an adequateAlternative
Plan, the CVWD GSA must integrate data on groundwater use in unincorporated parks into
water budget calculations in order to include drinking water needs of unpermitted parks in the
ECV.
D. The Monitoring Network Is Inadequate With Respect to Groundwater Quality
GSAs must monitor impacts to groundwater for drinking water beneficial users,
9 including
disadvantaged communities on domestic wells,
10 and must avoid disparate impacts on protected
groups pursuant to state law.
11 The GSA’s monitoring network does not comply with SGMA
regulations, and fails to capture drinking water impacts to disadvantaged communities and
11 Gov. Code § 11135; Gov. Code § 65008; Government Code §§ 12955, subd. (l).
10 Water Code § 10723.2.
9 23 CCR § 354.34
8 23 CCR § 354.18
7 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-26-me-trailerpark26-story.html
6 23 CCR § 354.18(c)(1).
5 Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan; Stakeholder Communication and Engagement, p. 1.
4 23 CCR 354.10(d).
5
domestic wells. The GSA has therefore not considered the interests of this beneficial user group
and is likely to cause a disparate impact on protected groups who are dependent on domestic
wells in the GSA area.
SGMA regulations require that Alternative Plans create a groundwater quality monitoring
network that will “collect sufficient spatial and temporal data from each applicable principal
aquifer to determine groundwater quality trends for water quality indicators, as determined by
the Agency, to address known water quality issues.”12
Despite having identified many known water quality issues in the Groundwater Conditions
chapter,13 the Draft Plan Update fails to comprehensively analyze whether the sites being
monitored by existing programs will adequately “address known water quality issues” and their
impacts on all beneficial users in the GSA area.
14 As proposed, the monitoring does not
sufficiently monitor groundwater quality in the Eastern Coachella Valley, where as noted in the
Draft Plan Update, there are high levels of groundwater contaminants.
Therefore the monitoring network as written violates the GSA’s responsibility to collect
sufficient data to determine trends and address known water quality issues affecting beneficial
users in the GSA area. As written, the monitoring network would allow severe drinking water
impacts to occur on domestic well users and in unincorporated communities.
To ensure that the representative wells within the monitoring network accurately monitor impacts
to groundwater management for drinking water beneficial users, the following revisions are
required:
●The GSA must analyze whether the groundwater quality monitoring network adequately
captures increases in the extent and concentration of all known contaminants in the GSA
area that are harmful to human health, and ensure that it does so.
●The GSA must ensure that the groundwater quality monitoring network will detect
impacts from groundwater quality on all types of beneficial users, most importantly
drinking water users who have limited financial ability to treat their drinking water
sources. To this end, the GSA must ensure that existing representative wells are in or near
such communities or domestic wells, or that it has a concrete plan for installing new
monitoring wells that will detect these impacts or working with domestic well users to
regularly test their wells and incorporate that data into its monitoring network.
Monitoring wells must detect groundwater quality issues in shallow groundwater near
disadvantaged communities. A particular focus must be small mobile home parks in the
Eastern Coachella Valley that rely on small water systems.
●The GSA must prioritize constructing new monitoring wells in the Eastern Coachella
Valley in order to ensure the region is being properly monitored for all primary drinking
water contaminants, and in particular arsenic, chrom-6, and uranium.
14Water Code § 10723.2.(b)(2)
13 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pgs. 4-1;4-51
12 23 CCR § 354.34(c)(4)
6
E. The Alternative Plan Update Must Address Groundwater Quality Impacts Caused By
Recharge Or Overpumping
SGMA charged GSAs with the responsibility to protect water quality from further degradation
due to groundwater management practices, and requires GSAs to establish sustainable
management criteria to prevent degraded groundwater quality.
15 The proposed SMCs are
inadequate in protecting communities in the ECV from further groundwater quality degradation.
This is particularly concerning for contaminants such as arsenic and chrom-6, which are a
widespread issue in the ECV, as noted in the Draft Plan Update.
16 Further, it is not adequate to
simply defer to infrastructure programs that include consolidating water systems or treating
drinking water — the Alternative must protect sources of drinking water from contamination
caused by groundwater management activities. In order to comply with SGMA and its
regulations, which require the GSA to set sustainable management criteria that will avoid
undesirable results resulting from degraded water quality for all beneficial users in the basin, and
avoid disparate impacts on protected groups, the Draft Plan Update must include the following:
●Set a protective minimum threshold, measurable objective, and interim milestones for all
constituents with primary drinking water standards that may be impacted by groundwater
management activities, or failure to manage groundwater in a way that does not
negatively impact groundwater quality.
●A detailed explanation as to how the groundwater quality minimum threshold,
measurable objectives, and interim milestones will result in the protection of groundwater
for disadvantaged communities and other drinking water users in the subbasin.
F. The Alternative Plan Update Should Ensure No Further Land Subsidence
As currently written, the sustainable management criteria for land subsidence are vague and do
not protect for impacts on disadvantaged communities or domestic well users. The GSA must set
sustainable management criteria that reflect the needs of all the stakeholders in the subbasin and
protect all types of beneficial users from impacts from further land subsidence in the area.
The GSA must define the undesirable results for subsidence in a way that avoids subsidence that
substantially interferes with surface land uses.17 The GSA must consider the interests of all
beneficial user groups, including domestic well users and disadvantaged communities, in
determining its undesirable result for land subsidence.
The CVWD GSA has decided to use groundwater levels as a proxy for land subsidence and
accordingly apply the same sustainable management criteria.
18 While we are not disputing using
groundwater levels as proxy, we want to ensure the SMCs for land subsidence also includes
impacts to critical infrastructure. The SMC for land subsidence does not show whether they will
protect critical infrastructure such as roads, drinking water wells, distribution lines, housing,
septic systems,. These surface land uses must also be taken into account in establishing the SMC
for land subsidence.
18 Indio Subbasin Alternative Management Plan, pg.9-14
17 Water code §10721.(x)(5)
16 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pg 4-47
15 Water Code § 10721(w)(4); 23 CCR § 354.28(c)(4).
7
To comply with its obligations under state law, CVWD GSA must:
●Analyze the impact of land subsidence on all beneficial user groups, including potential
impacts on drinking water wells, homes, distribution lines, roads, etc.
●Define a local undesirable result for subsidence that takes into account the critical
infrastructure needs of all beneficial user groups, including domestic well owners, and
specifically impacts to homes, piping, and wells.
G. Projects and Management Actions Must Benefit All Beneficial Users and Avoid
Disparate Impacts
The GSA must consider the interests of all beneficial users including domestic well owners and
disadvantaged communities
19 and avoid disparate impacts on protected groups. We commend
CVWD GSA for including small water system consolidation as planned management actions
20.
However, we are concerned these management actions exclude important groups, specifically
unpermitted mobile home parks, from planned actions. Additionally, no timeline was put forward
for implementing this management action and as currently written, it appears implementation is
dependent on state funding, which can be an extremely drawn out process.
Given the groundwater quality issues in the ECV and aging infrastructure, CVWD GSA needs to
set a proactive timeline for consolidating small water systems in the ECV and must modify their
water budget to reflect consolidation of unpermitted parks. Furthermore, we would like to
reiterate that waiting for state funding to move forward on consolidation in the ECV will lead to
an extremely drawn out process. CVWD GSA must strengthen proposed management actions to
include direct investment from its annual budget to support water system consolidation.
G. The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Reasonable And Beneficial Use Doctrine
The “reasonable and beneficial use” doctrine is codified in the California Constitution. It
requires that “the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of
which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of
water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the
reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.”
21
The doctrine applies to all water users, regardless of the basis of the water right, and all water
rights and methods of diversion.
22 A determination of reasonableness of a use “cannot be
resolved in vacuo isolated from statewide considerations of transcendent importance.”23
The reliance on imported water to support sustainable groundwater aquifers cannot be avoided
when addressing issues around beneficial use. As is made clear by the Draft Plan Update, the
primary source of water for the GSA area is the Colorado River, accounting for approximately
23 Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 132, 140.
22 Peabody v. Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 367, 372; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board, (2014) 226 Cal.
App. 4th 1463, 1479.
21 Cal Const, Art. X § 2; see also Water Code § 100; United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1986) 182
Cal.App.3d 82, 105 [“…superimposed on those basic principles defining water rights is the overriding constitutional
limitation that the water be used as reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served.”].
20 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pg. 11-21
19 Water Code § 10723.2.
8
62% of the total water supply.
24 We are deeply concerned that each Plan Scenario assumes that
the GSA will receive its full allocation of Colorado River water, and that the total delivery will
actually increase from 402,800 AFY to 436,050 AFY through 2045.
25 This assumption appears
to be based on CVWD’s high-priority position regarding Colorado River Allocations and
CVWD’s success in legal challenges to the QSA.
26 Reliance on priority positioning and past
legal successes ignores the reality of the Colorado River.
Supply reliability of the Colorado River is addressed in two sentences, where it is acknowledged
that “Colorado River supplies face a number of challenges to long-term reliability including the
extended Colorado River Basin drought and shortage sharing agreements, endangered species
and habitat protection, and climate change.”
27 Yet, there is no acknowledgement that even under
long term historical natural flow (which does not account for climate change), the Basin is
over-apportioned.28
The Colorado River becomes increasingly imperiled every single year due to drought and
overdraft as over 40 million people rely upon it for drinking water, agriculture, and power.
29
There is no acknowledgement that the Colorado River is already at or near critically low
elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead. The current level of Lake Mead is 1,067.15 feet MSL.
30
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has declared a water shortage for the first time in the
Basin’s history. Lake Powell could fall below the minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet as
early as July 2022, while Lake Mead is projected to be less than one foot above 1,050 feet by the
end of 2022.
31 USBR further projects that there is a 62% probability that Lake Mead’s elevation
falls below 1,025 feet by 2026 – approximately the same time the Draft Plan Update assumes
that water transfers from the Colorado River will increase from 424,000 AFY to 459,000 AFY.32
Water levels dropping below these critical thresholds means that millions of people will be
without the electricity generated by hydropower on the Colorado River. Under these extreme
emergency situations, which are becoming more of a statistical certainty, the GSAs cannot
continue to rely on its status as a senior water rights holder without a contingency plan for a
decrease in delivery from the Colorado River. The over allocation of water from the Colorado is
a mathematical certainty that needs to be accounted for in at least some of the plan scenarios.
Moreover, the Draft Plan Updates’ forecasts of water supply for its 5-year plans with climate
change scenarios all rely on the timely completion of numerous water supply projects in order to
meet forecasted demand.
33 These projects are in various stages of permitting, design, and
33 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, Sections 7.5.4-7.5.6
32 Five Year Probabilistic Projections, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, October 2021.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/crss-5year-projections.html
31 Reclamation Releases Updated Projections of Colorado River System Conditions, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
October 2021. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/#/news-release/4013
30 http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp
29 See, Id. at Fn 1
28 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Executive Summary, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, December
2012.
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/ColoradoRiver/CRBS_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf
27 See, Draft Plan Update Section 6.4.3
26 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Sections 6.4.3, 6.4.3.1
25 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Table 6-3
24 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Table 12-2, 5-Year Plan with Climate Change.
9
construction, with many currently existing only on paper. The Draft Plan Update acknowledges
that failure to implement these projects is unsustainable with climate change.
34 To account for
loss of Colorado River deliveries, we encourage the GSAs to look for conservation opportunities
in the categories of water use with the least overall importance – namely new development of
water-intense recreational developments such as surf parks, beach clubs, and new golf courses.
There is a new wave of recreation coming to a crest in the Indio Subbasin that requires
significant amounts of clean water: surf lagoons. There are currently three proposed projects to
build man-made pools that generate surfable waves hundreds of miles from any coastline: DSRT
Surf Resort, Thermal Beach Club, and Coral Mountain in La Quinta, CA. Surf lagoons rely on
water from Colorado River allocations. Unlike golf courses, which are also not a priority over
the generation of electricity and food, surf lagoons require the use of potable water and cannot
rely on recycled water supplies. Each new non-essential water use in the desert has the potential
to negatively impact groundwater recharge. While courts wield an extraordinary amount of
power, they have yet to cause precipitation events to reverse the course of climate change, and
there is no reliable indication that CVWD’s use of imported water for surf parks, fake beaches,
and new golf courses will continue to take priority over the generation of power and food for
millions of people.
The GSAs must ensure that Alternative Plan Update’s water allocations are consistent with the
reasonable and beneficial use doctrine.
35 In doing so, the GSAs must prioritize domestic use of
water resources over irrigated agriculture
36 and ensure that SGMA implementation furthers the
human right to safe and affordable drinking water
37 — both statewide considerations of
transcendent importance. In other words, a plan that allows use of water for non-essential water
use at the expense of use of water for domestic purposes is not consistent with the reasonable and
beneficial use doctrine. It is also inconsistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine to
allow agricultural uses at the expense of the domestic uses of water for drinking, cooking, and
basic sanitation.
The reasonable and beneficial use doctrine applies here given the potential negative impacts of
the Plan on groundwater sustainability which are likely to unreasonably interfere with the use of
groundwater for drinking water and other domestic uses. As the Draft Plan Update authorizes
waste and unreasonable use, and indeed does not even analyze the reasonable and beneficial use
doctrine at all, it conflicts with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine and the California
Constitution.
In order to ensure the Draft Update is not in conflict with the Reasonable and Beneficial Use
Doctrine, we make the following suggestions:
37 Water Code § 106.3.
36 Water Code § 106 [“It is hereby declared to be the established policy of this State that the use of water for
domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation”]; United States v. State
Water Resources Control Board (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 103 .
35 Water Code § 275 [“The department and board shall take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive,
legislative, or judicial agencies to prevent waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable
method of diversion of water in this state”]; Light, 226 Cal.App.4th at 1482-83 [same].
34 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, Section 7.8
10
●The GSAs must commit to disapproval of projects that involve waste and unreasonable
use.
●The GSAs must revise the Draft Plan Update to include scenarios where the full
allotment of Colorado River water cannot be delivered.
●The GSAs must account for scenarios where some or all of the planned projects fail to
meet their supply goals on time.
●The GSAs must commit to ensuring that access to drinking water is protected as the
highest and best use of water.
H. The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Public Trust Doctrine
The Public Trust doctrine applies to the waters of the State, and establishes that “the state, as
trustee, has a duty to preserve this trust property from harmful diversions by water rights
holders” and that thus “no one has a vested right to use water in a manner harmful to the state's
waters.”38
The Public Trust doctrine has recently been applied to groundwater where there is a hydrological
connection between the groundwater and a navigable surface water body.
39 In Environmental
Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (“ELF”), the court held that the public
trust doctrine applies to “the extraction of groundwater that adversely impacts a navigable
waterway” and that the government has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account
in the planning and allocation of water resources.
40 Under ELF, the Public Trust doctrine imposes
an affirmative and independent obligation to consider the public trust that applies to DWR’s
decisions regarding submitted GSPs, imposing a legal duty on DWR to not only consider the
potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions on navigable waterways but also “to protect
public trust uses whenever feasible.”
41 The court also specifically held that SGMA does not
supplant the requirements of the common law public trust doctrine.42
Notably, the public trust doctrine applies to both currently navigable surface water bodies and
surface water bodies that were historically navigable at the time of statehood.
43 Further, certain
rivers like the San Joaquin River have been declared navigable in statute.44
44 Harb. & Nav. Code s. 105 [affirmatively declaring the San Joaquin River to be navigable “between its mouth and
Sycamore Point.”]..
43 See San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 232 citing Western Oil &
Gas Asso. v. State Lands Com. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 554, 562 [“When California became a state in 1850 it
succeeded to sovereign ownership of various tidelands and submerged lands under the terms of common law trust
doctrine… .”]; PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana (2012) 565 U.S. 576, 592 [“For state title under the equal-footing
doctrine, navigability is determined at the time of statehood...and based on the ‘natural and ordinary condition’ of
the water.”] [internal citation omitted].
42 Id. at 862-870.
41 Id. at 865.
40 Id. at 856-62.
39 Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 844, 844.
38 United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 106; see also Nat'l Audubon Soc'y
v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 426 [“before state courts and agencies approve water diversions they should
consider the effect of such diversions upon interests protected by the public trust, and attempt, so far as feasible, to
avoid or minimize any harm to those interests.”].
11
In contrast to these requirements, the GSP does not consider impacts on public trust resources, or
attempt to avoid, insofar as feasible, harm to the public’s interest in those resources. The GSAs
must (1) identify any public trust resources within the basin; (2) identify any public trust uses
within the basin; (3) identify and analyzing potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions
on public trust resources and uses; and (4) determine the feasibility of protecting public trust uses
and protect such uses whenever feasible.
I. The Draft Alternative Plan Update Lacks A Coordination Agreement.
Pursuant to Water Code, § 10733.6, “[i]f groundwater sustainability agencies develop multiple
groundwater sustainability plans for a basin,” there must be a joint submittal to DWR of several
items, including “[a] copy of the coordination agreement between the groundwater sustainability
agencies to ensure the coordinated implementation of the groundwater sustainability plans for the
entire basin.” This requirement applies to Alternative Plans as well, which must satisfy “the
objectives” of SGMA, including coordinated groundwater management for entire groundwater
basins.
Here, though the draft Alternative Plan does not itself cover the entire basin, no coordination
agreement is provided. To comply with SGMA, a coordination agreement must be submitted to
DWR with the Alternative Plan Update.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update must protect the most vulnerable drinking water
users in the GSA area. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our recommendations with the
CVWD GSA board, staff and consultants to ensure compliance with state law. We are also in
communication with the Department of Water Resources about current Alternative Plan update
activities in the Eastern Coachella Valley, and hope to successfully work with GSAs,
communities and DWR to ensure that groundwater management is equitable and sufficiently
protective of vital drinking water resources.
Sincerely,
/s/
Nataly Escobedo Garcia
Policy Coordinator
Leadership Counsel for Justice and
Accountability
Sarah Spinuzzi
Senior Staff Attorney
Coachella Valley Waterkeeper
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Orange County Coastkeeper
12
P a g e | 2
Tribal Workgroup and Stakeholder Outreach
The GSAs hosted numerous public meetings during the development of the Alt Plan
Update. They also hosted tribal meetings during the Work Group. The GSAs provided
information that they deemed appropriate and relevant for the public. Unfortunately, they
did not provide any meaningful backup data or other technical information prior to or
during any meeting that would enable the Authority to evaluate the methodology or
assumptions of the Alt Plan. This is the first time the Authority has seen this new Plan
and yet we are only allowed 30 days to provide substantive comments on this highly
technical document consisting of a 476-page Plan and a 422-page Appendix.
Treating the Indio Subbasin as a Uniform Source
The Alt Plan Update presents most water information at a basin-wide level. Generalizing
this information as if the Basin operates uniformly can be misleading. The Plan
acknowledges that the Numerical Model uses many data inputs, assumptions and
identification of hydrologic subsets to inform the numerical m odel but it doesn’t present
the information most relevant to the public in a way that informs public decision -making.
In the spirit of transparency and clarity, please amend the Alt Plan to include a detailed
map that overlays and shows the boundaries of these areas:
1. West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area
2. West Whitewater River Area of Benefit
3. DWA West Area of Benefit
4. CVWD West Area of Benefit
5. West Valley Management Area
6. Palm Springs Subbasin
7. Thermal Subbasin
These terms are used throughout the document but for different purposes and within
varying contexts. It would be helpful to the Authority to understand where the Reservation
is located relative to these areas. It is impossible to understand the impacts of water
management actions such as raw water replenishment and salt loading on the
Reservation without more granular information.
The Authority also requests that the Alt Plan be amended to include the following
information broken down in four ways: a) by W est Whitewater River Subbasin
Management Area, b) by West Whitewater River Area of Benefit, c) by DWA West Area
of Benefit, d) by CVWD West Area of Benefit:
1. A table showing return flows
2. The quantity of groundwater that constitutes the historical depletion of the aquifer
3. Model Inflows and Outflows
4. Water Balance
5. Combined Return Flows
P a g e | 3
6. Salt Loading by source: natural sources, return flows from agricultural and
landscape irrigation, recharge of imported Colorado River water, wastewater
discharge and subsurface inflows from other basins.
7. Table 5-27 (Municipal Demand Forecast for the Plan Area)
8. Table 5-28 (Municipal Demand Forecast for GSA Areas)
9. Table 5-35 (Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area)
10. Table 6-1 (Indio Subbasin Groundwater Balance):
Projects and Management Actions
The Alt Plan includes a final list of 29 possible PMAs by 4 GSAs. It is disappointing to see
that very few projects are led by DWA in support of its customers. Please explain why
DWA has not implemented tiered rates as most other water district do despite this being
an effective way to reduce water usage.
On page 8-5, Section 8.1.3 the Plan notes: “In the Plan Area, recycled water is a
significant and reliable local resource used to help offset groundwater pumping.” Yet
recycled water accounts for only 2% of the Subbasin’s water supply (Section 6.9.4). The
Plan discusses the water recycling gains that are planned for the basin but the focus of
recycling efforts seems to be the East Valley. By 2045, the GSAs plan to generate 20,213
AFY of recycled water to offset other water sources which will be only 3% of the
Subbasin’s water supply.
Table 6-13 shows the recycled water supply (2018-19) based on wastewater flows. DWA
shows that of the 6,613 AFY it receives from the City of Palm S prings WWTP, recycled
water use is at 3,413 AFY. In Section 6.6.2, the Plan notes that DWA could produce 2,014
AFY of additional supply. With the 3,200 AFY of unused capacity + 2,014 of additional
supply, DWA has unused capacity of 5,214 AFY. Further, in Section 11.5.2.6 the Plan
notes: “The DWA WRP project will increase deliveries of recycled water in DWA’s service
area as new customers are identified and consistent with wastewater flow growth up to
the 11,200 AFY of existing tertiary capacity.” How will DWA identify new customers and
reach its goal of maximum use of recycled water? Has DWA prepared a Plan of Service
or similar document that can be included as an appendix to this Alt Plan?
The Alt Plan notes that an Adaptive Management process will be used for project
implementation. Will there be a public process associated with this Process? [ES -18]
“CVWD also currently replenishes a portion of its Colorado River supply at WWR -GRF
(ranging from 35,000 to 50,000 AFY), based on its 2019 Exchange Agreement with MWD,
until that water is needed in the East Valley.” Is this water used in the DWA service area?
How is this water transferred from the WWR-GRF to the CVWD Service Area? Does it
flow under the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation? [11-19 11.5.3.3]
P a g e | 4
SGMA Tools
The Authority strongly encourages the GSAs to use all tools available to them under
SGMA to comprehensively and completely manage and track all groundwater pumping
in the basin. The Authority acknowledges the work of the GSAs but as a native sovereign
nation with rights to groundwater, the Tribe needs to have more transparency and
information to ensure its federally reserved water right is not being infringed upon.
Comprehensive use of all SGMA powers gives the Authority confidence that its water
rights will be respected and its water secured. [1.1.5 (1-6)]
Please provide groundwater production numbers and detailed maps of locations of all
wells by AOB so that the Authority can determine the impact of pumping on the
Reservation. The Authority strongly encourages the Districts to meter all wells producing
2 AF-Yr as is allowed by SGMA. It is difficult to have confidence that water is properly
managed in the basin when the Districts have incomplete data on minimal pumpers.
[(12.2.7.2) (10-7 10.1.2)]
Water Quality and Salt & Nutrient Management Planning
3-12 3.5.1 & Fig 4-3, 4-7 4.1.4: Please add a discussion of the impacts of groundwater
level fluctuations on Agua Caliente Indian Reservation water resources.
8-5 8.1.2 Antidegradation Policy – Please see the letter to the Districts from the Regional
Board dated February 19, 2020. The Authority is concerned that recharge with untreated
Colorado River water is not for maximum benefit of the people and results in water quality
lower than standards.
9-22 9.8.1 “…salt migration through the groundwater system (both vertical and horizontal)
is driven by dynamics of groundwater recharge and discharge and thus influenced not
only by recharge/percolation, but also by groundwater pumping…” And this is why the
Authority needs to see analysis for the West Valley Management Area to determine the
impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.
9-23 9.8.3 “The analysis also will include characterization of current groundwater quality
in all Subbasin areas/Subareas (with delineation of Management Zones…” The Authority
asks that this work be prioritized based on its impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian
Reservation as the closest community downstream of the WWR-GRF.
Chapter 3 – Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)
This section of the Alt Plan does not provide the foundation required to support the use
and application of the numerical model described in Section 7. For example, the Alt Plan’s
description of surface water bodies and the interaction of surface water and groundwater
lacks the required detail to support the model’s numerical analysis. The HCM states “The
Whitewater River is the major stream channel contributing recharge with additional
infiltration along other channels such as Snow and Falls Creek in the upper valley and
P a g e | 5
several smaller streams in the lower portion of the valley that only flow during wet years ”.
However, the numerical model states that there are 24 watersheds and stream channels
that contribute recharge to the groundwa ter basin. Detailed calculations by sub-
watershed and by year, of how the authors link the surface water in the HCM (Chapter 3)
to water supply (Chapter 6) and the model input (Chapter 7) is required to validate the
available 52,500 AFY (Figure 7-22) of surface water. Additionally, the Alt Plan should
contain a map(s) that identify the locations of all named perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral surface water bodies (i.e., Andreas, Chino, Deep, Murray, Palm, Tahquitz, and
Unnamed Watershed #2) described in the text.
The HCM also lacks a qualitative discussion regarding the interaction between surface
water and groundwater throughout the different subareas of the Indio Subbasin. Does
mountain front recharge impact the shallow and deep portions of the aquif er? At what
depth does groundwater occur and is it found in confined or unconfined conditions?
Section 3.2.2 of the HCM’s recital from the 1964 DWR Bulletin 108 leaves the reader
confused regarding recent fanglomerate and the Ocotillo Conglomerate formations since
these geologic units have not yet been introduced. These fundamental descriptions of
groundwater occurrence and movement are required to support the use of four layers
simulated in the model (Chapter 7).
The HCM should address the relationship between groundwater pumping and the various
aquifers that are identified in the hydrogeologic cross sections (Section 3.4.2.3). Although
there are water supply and quality data provided in Chapters 4 and 6, the HCM does not
provide the reader with a conceptual description of how natural and imported water
sources move from areas of recharge to various portions (i.e., vertical distribution) of the
aquifer. For example, do return flows from septic systems, wastewater percolation, and
outdoor domestic applications impact (quality and quantity) the portions of the aquifer that
are used for drinking water sources? Which portions of the aquifer are relied on for
drinking water, agricultural, and other sources? While the HCM introduces vertical
barriers to groundwater flow in the Thermal subarea, how do these geologic impediments
impact the available resources from both a water quantity and water quality perspective?
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 of the Alt Plan addresses salt loading and TDS in the Indio Subbasin. It
acknowledges that, “Elevated TDS and nitrate concentrations are linked to current and
historic water and wastewater management, agricultural activity, urban land use, septic
systems, and natural conditions” (p. 4-16). The Alt Plan describes the general sources of
salts in the Subbasin but does not quantify the amount of salt loading by source or even
as a total. Because the CV-SNMP is still in development, an estimate of the salt loading
may not be available at this time, but sources of salt may still be explored in more detail.
While it is stated that, “Irrigation results in evaporative concentration of TDS in shallow
groundwater,” and “Water use for domestic purposes results in salt loading to
wastewater,” (p. 4-44), notably absent from the Plan is acknowledgement or quantification
of how the increased salt may affect water demands in the Subbasin. Increasing salt in
the Subbasin would impact future water demands, especially in the agricultural secto r.
P a g e | 6
Increased salts may increase demands due to higher leaching requirements but may also
affect crop selection and distribution. As stated in the Alt Plan, “Agricultural demand varies
by farmed parcel, depending on crop type and sequencing ” (p. 5-36). The agricultural
demand forecast does not include a consideration of the potential impacts of increased
salt in the Basin.
Chapter 6
Chapter 6 of the Alt Plan details water supply but does not specify quantities of supply
broken down by source or location. For example, the Alt Plan lists sources of groundwater
inflow as watershed runoff, subsurface inflows, return flow of applied water, treated
wastewater, and septic, and imported water recharge. However, it does not go on to detail
the quantities of these inflows by source. The average amount of natural infiltration for
2010-2019 is 28,800 AFY, “as measured or simulated in the numerical model” but it is
unclear how much of that infiltration comes from each watershed, or how it is distributed
throughout the basin. Similarly, the average return flow is estimated to be 162,000 AFY
but the Alt Plan does not specify how much of that may be due to wastewater percolati on,
irrigation return flows, etc. even though “irrigation return flows and imported water
recharge are now the major source of inflows to the Indio Subbasin.” Documentation of
these major sources of inflow and outflow is essential to transparent and effect ive
planning for the Subbasin.
Chapter 7
The use of the 2000 and 2010 models to establish the Alt Plan’s management actions
and goals is questionable since the Alt Plan Model has not been peer reviewed. Updates
to boundary conditions and the availability of new hydrogeologic data suggest the need
for the development of a steady-state model, possible application of parameter estimation
techniques, and the need for an updated calibrated model. The authors should not only
address the need for a new calibrated model, but also add a section to the Alt Plan
regarding the use and limitation of the existing model. While the Alt Plan clearly identifies
the uncertainty of the inflow from San Gorgonio Pass, there are hydrogeologic
uncertainties associated with the model’s previous parameter estimation. Although the
Alt Plan model is described as an update to the previous models, it does not excuse it
from the need to undergo rigorous scientific peer review since it is the basis for a State
approved Alt Plan. The authors should describe which parameters have the biggest effect
on the model accuracy and discuss the certainty of the values used for these parameters.
For example, which parameters were determined from calibration and which were
determined from physical measurements. A section of the report describing model
uncertainty and application of sensitivity analysis to determine how the uncertainty could
impact the model results would be informative. Until scientific peer review can be
performed, we recommend that the model and Alt Plan be characterized as interim or
provisional.
The Alt Plan does not clearly show the impact of each future model scenario on a spatial
or temporal basis. For example, Figures 7-32 shows the change in groundwater levels
P a g e | 7
for the 2009 to 2045 Baseline Scenario that includes 12 years of historical data and 25
years of model simulated data. As shown in the water level hydrographs (Figure 7 -30),
model simulated groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea are declining durin g
the 2020-2069 period. The 2009 through 2020 actual data reflect MWD advanced
deliveries to the WWR-WRF and account for much of the groundwater storage increase
in the Palm Springs Subarea. Without the inclusion of these 12 years of actual data, the
color flood maps would only reflect the impact of the management scenarios and show
different results. Similarly, Figures 7-33 and Figure 7-39 show a pattern of declining
groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea during the simulation period for the
Baseline with Climate Change option.
The Alt Plan states that the 2009 period was “selected as the period for comparison
because it generally reflects historically low groundwater elevations in most of the
Subbasin, and these values are used as sustainabilit y criteria for groundwater levels.”
Although Chapter 9 discusses the use of 2005 vs 2009 as a minimum threshold, it is not
clear why historical and accumulated advanced MWD deliveries are used to show
recovery from minimum water levels when comparing resu lts from simulated future
management scenarios. Although the model recognizes that MWD advanced deliveries
are depleted by 2035, it is difficult to assess the impact of each scenario over the initial
25-year period. It would be more appropriate to spatially view the impact of each model
scenario consistent with the water budget shown in the table on Page 7 -12.
Disappointingly, the updated SGMA Alternative Plan continues a long history by the water
agencies of obfuscation and a stubborn unwillingness to provide the public a clear and
comprehensive record that verifies their hollow claims of responsible management of the
aquifer in the Coachella Valley. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
Alternative Plan.
Regards,
Margaret Park, AICP
Chief Planning Officer
AGUA CALIENTE
WATER AUTHORITY
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Vanessa De Anda
From:Alena Callimanis <acallimanis@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 29, 2021 1:14 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:Comments on Indio Subbasin Water Management 2022 Alternative Plan Update
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Indio Subbasin Water Management 2022 Alternative Plan Update.
The first thing I would like to address is the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine and that three surfing parks, 6.7 acres, 16.7
acres and 20 acres, plus a 34 acre swimming lagoon are not reasonable and beneficial use. I know it is not up to CVWD to
approve a project, but rather say if there is enough water. Given the reality of the drought and climate change, I think it is
important to give guidance to the cities that are bringing this forward. The two largest surf parks are private. That only
gives “benefit” to wealthy people and not to the Coachella Community at large. You talk about your leadership in conserving
water. Your estimates for these four water features for water use for the year is 431.5 acre feet. We have done calculations
using the EPA evaporation estimates which take into consideration wind, humidity, surface temperature, and heat and we
have determined that the yearly water use would be 6 times as much or 2,589 acre-feet per year. I request that CVWD
recalculate yearly water usage for Thermal Surf Park, Grand Oasis Crystal Lagoon, Coral Mountain Surf Resort and DSRT SRF
and use these recalculated figures into the “Other” water use component.
Second, I would like to address your percentage of 45% used to calculate water supply from SWP Exchange. The last two years
you have only received 5% of your allocation. It is invalid to use the 14 year average, 45% figure, given the current state of
the Colorado River. The charts should be recalculated using the 5% number.
Third, I would like to address the Colorado River entitlement. It should be lowered starting in 2022 at least at the level of the
first allocation decrease when we hit the California trigger number. All indications are that will happen next year. So these
charts which show continuing increase or leveling of Colorado River allocations must be adjusted to show a decrease in the
Colorado River allocations.
Fourth, many of the assumptions in this document are based on future water projects coming on line. For example, the
amount of recycled water available is less than the first cut to our Colorado River allocations. You must accelerate grant
requests and get appropriate timings of these new supplies so you can accurately project how future projects will help
supply. With the Governor’s 15% cuts, that will further impact revenue generation which may cause more of these projects to
not come on-line.
Fifth, the future modeling scenarios should not be based on past drought and resupply conditions over the past 25
years. What has been happening these past two years must be the basis for the future modeling of our conditions, not relying
on past numbers.
Sixth, climate change impacts are minimized. When you discuss up to 40,000 AFY impact, that is an underestimation based on
the hotter summers and hotter years we are experiencing. This amount cannot even be covered by recycled water. With this
increasing heat, higher evapotranspiration rates, etc., projections must show this higher impact starting in 2022; golf course
usage can be curtailed. Surf park and swimming lagoon usage cannot be curtailed or these features must close. We and the
country rely on agriculture. With growing heat, agriculture must be protected as our nation’s food supplier.
Seven, subbasin storage has only recovered up to 45% of its decline. This was due mostly to Colorado River allocations. You
cannot rely on future Colorado River allocations even though CVWD has senior rights to the water. We will start seeing very
quickly outflow greater than inflow as this drought persists. The modeling in this document must be revised to reflect the true
water situation in our valley.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
2
Respectfully,
Alena Callimanis
La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development
Bachelor in Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Masters Physics, State University of NY StonyBrook
81469 Rustic Canyon Dr
La Quinta, CA 92253
919 606-6164
acallimanis@gmail.com
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Southern California Agency
1451 Research Park Drive, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92507
IndioSubbasinSGMA@woodardcurran.com
Attn: Project Manager:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern California Agency (Agency) appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan for the tribes under the agencies jurisdiction,
and additionally in the interest of self-governance tribes and tribes under the Palm Springs
Agency. The Agency recognizes tribal sovereignty and holds all government entities to the same
standard as identified within Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Comments made by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs reflect the Bureau’s fiduciary duty as a trustee for tribal lands held by
the Federal Government, and attempt to ensure recognition of the tribal sovereign status and
additionally ensure maximum protection of trust assets. The following comments should be
evaluated from the above context:
A) Comments on Alternative Plan:
1) Tribal entities are referred to as stakeholders, rather than sovereign nations with Federally
Reserved Water Rights. These rights should be explicitly identified.
2) The Bureau of Indian Affairs is concerned that the Basin Salt Nutrient Management Plan has
not been released for public comments, and an Agency and Regional request to receive copy
has not been acknowledged. As the first year of the SNMP is currently being monitored, will
the plan be provided for input prior to it’s initial first year report?
3) On figures, differentiate between model projections and calculated, current, and measured
values. Lack of data segregation results in inaccuracies and is subject to interpretative bias.
B) Goals of 2002 water management plan were not included within the current Alternative Plan,
however are still relevant. The 2002 Water Management Plan explicitly identified 2015 as a
marker for salt loading in terms of aquifer degradation.
In order to evaluate the potential for water quality degradation, the projected salt balance in
2015 and 2035 is compared to current conditions. The current net salt addition in the
Coachella Valley is 265,000 tons per year. By 2035, Alternative 1 would result in the highest
rate of salt addition to the Coachella Valley of 504,000 tons per year—a dramatic increase
compared to 1999 conditions. The net salt addition in 2035 would decrease compared to
current conditions under Alternative 2 (68,000 tons per year) and Alternative 4 (155,000 tons
per year) with Alternative 2 best minimizing the water quality degradation. Table 6-6
showed a net decrease by 2035.
What is current salt loading and how does the salt loading from 2015 compare to model
projections?
C) Comments on Errata:
Cumulative Baseline measurements should be determined from date of minimum storage, 2009
according to the report, to indicate potential crossing of minimal levels.
If there are any questions, please contact Patrick Taber, Agency Hydrologist, at (951) 276-6624 ext. 256.
Sincerely,
Javin Moore
Superintendent
APPENDIX 1-F
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND SUPPORT LETTERS
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero | Cathedral City | California | 92234 www.cathedralcity.gov
December 6, 2021
Coachella Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, CA 92236
Subject: Comments for Indio Subbasin & Mission Creek Subbasin SGMA Alternative Plans
Dear Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors:
The City of Cathedral City is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the Coachella
Valley Water Management Plan Updates for the Indio Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plans. SGMA passed the
legislature in 2014 to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping
and recharge.
The stakeholder process was one of engagement and Cathedral City appreciated the invitation to
provide comment and feedback throughout this multi-year process.
The Alternative Plan Update will build on the work that has already been accomplished to
sustainably manage the Indio Subbasin.
We are supportive of the process and data collected coming to the sound conclusion that the basins
are being effectively managed. Groundwater management programs have replenished 4 million
acre-feet of imported water into the Coachella Valley Basin. Over the past 10 years, groundwater
levels have increased or stabilized over most of the Indio Subbasin - a sign that the plan is working.
The Indio Subbasin is under the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm
Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of
Thousand Palms, Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis and Mecca. The Mission Creek Subbasin is
under Desert Hot Springs and the unincorporated area of Indio Hills. Cathedral City looks to
support the GSAs in meeting current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable
manner.
In closing, the City of Cathedral City commends Coachella Valley Water District and its partners
in their sustainable water management over the years to ensure that our residents and community
members have an adequate supply of water for current and future generations.
Cordially,
John A. Corella, P.E.
Director of Engineering/Public Works
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-G
ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
RESOLUTION NO. WA-2021-10
COACHELLA WATER AUTHORITY GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY ADOPTION OF THE 2022 INDIO
SUBBASIN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE: SGMA
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted a statewide framework for sustainable
groundwater management, known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (California
Water Code section 10720 et seq.), pursuant to Senate Bill 1168, Senate Bill 1319, and Assembly
Bill 1739, which was approved by the Governor and Chaptered by the Secretary of St ate on
September 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) went into effect on
January 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, SGMA requires all medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as
designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, to be managed
by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) or multiple GSAs; and
WHEREAS, the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been
designated by DWR as a medium-priority basin (DWR Bulletin 118 No. 7-021.01); and
WHEREAS, Coachella Water Authority elected on March 9, 2016 to become a GSA for
the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin; and
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 5, 2016 was entered
into among the Partners to this MOU, namely, the City of Coachella, a municipal corporation
acting through, and on behalf of, the Coachella Water Authority (CWA), the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD), the Desert Water Agency (DWA), and the City of Indio, a municipal
corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA) for the purpose of
developing a common understanding among the Partners regarding the governance structures
applicable to implementation of the SGMA (Water Code, Part 2.74, Section 10720 et s eq.) in the
Indio Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, each of the Partners has become a GSA for its service area overlying the
Indio Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2016, the Partners collaboratively submitted an Alternative
to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the Indio Subbasin to DWR in
accordance with Water Code section 10733.6; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Indio
Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Indio Subbasin GSAs that the
Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and
update of the Alternative Plan by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter; and
Resolution No. WA-2021-10
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Indio Subbasin GSAs have jointly developed an Indio Subbasin Water
Management Plan Update: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plan
(Alternative Plan Update) for the Indio Subbasin and on September 27, 2021, released the
Alternative Plan Update for public comment; and
WHEREAS, Coachella Water Authority GSA conducted a public hearing on December 8,
2021 for the purpose of receiving comments and considering adoption of the Alternative Plan
Update for the Indio Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, Water Code section 10733.6 requires that Alternative Plan Updates be
submitted to DWR for review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Coachella Water
Authority GSA as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made an operative part of this
Resolution.
2. The Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin is hereby approved and adopted, subject to such minor, non-substantive
modifications to the text agreed upon by the four Indio Subbasin GSAs prior to submittal to DWR
on or before December 31, 2021. A copy of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Board of Directors hereby designates Dr. Gabriel Martin, or his designee, to
be the Plan Manager who is authorized and directed to timely provide notification of this approval
and adoption to DWR, including a copy of this Resolution, the approved Alternative Plan Update,
and any additional information/documentation required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of December 2021.
___________________________________
Steven A Hernandez
President
ATTEST:
_________ _________________________
Angela M. Zepeda
Secretary
Resolution No. WA-2021-10
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Carlos Campos
Authority Attorney
Resolution No 1267
RESOLUTION NO. 1267
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
DESERT WATER AGENCY ADOPTING THE 2022 INDIO SUBBASIN
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA)
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted a statewide framework for sustainable
groundwater management, known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (California Water
Code section 10720 et seq.), pursuant to Senate Bill 1168, Senate Bill 1319, and Assembly Bill 1739, which
was approved by the Governor and Chaptered by the Secretary of State on September 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) went into effect on
January 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, SGMA requires all medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as
designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, to be managed by a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) or multiple GSAs; and
WHEREAS, the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been
designated by DWR as a medium-priority basin (DWR Bulletin 118 No. 7-021.01); and
WHEREAS, Desert Water Agency elected on November 17, 2015 to become a GSA for the
Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin; and
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 5, 2016 was entered
into among the following entities (Partners): the City of Coachella, acting through, and on behalf of, the
Coachella Water Authority (CWA); the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD); the Desert Water
Agency (DWA); and the City of Indio, acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA).
The purpose of the MOU is to develop a common understanding among the Partners regarding the
governance structures applicable to implementation of SGMA in the Indio Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, each of the Partners has become a GSA for its service area overlying the Indio
Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2016, the Partners collaboratively submitted an Alternative
to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the Indio Subbasin to DWR in accordance with
Water Code section 10733.6; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Indio
Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Indio Subbasin GSAs that the Alternative Plan
was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan
by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Indio Subbasin GSAs have jointly developed an Indio Subbasin Water
Management Plan Update: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plan
Reso. 1267
Page 2
Resolution No 1267
(Alternative Plan Update) for the Indio Subbasin and on September 27, 2021, released the Alternative Plan
Update for public comment; and
WHEREAS, Desert Water Agency conducted a public hearing on December 7, 2021 for the
purpose of receiving public comments and considering adoption of the Alternative Plan Update for the Indio
Subbasin; and
WHEREAS, Water Code section 10733.6 requires that Alternative Plan Updates be
submitted to DWR for review; and
WHEREAS, this resolution and approval of the Alternative Plan Update are not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR)
15262 and SGMA 10728.6 because CEQA does not apply to planning studies for possible future actions
not yet approved, adopted, or funded by this Agency (CCR 15262) or to the preparation and adoption of
plans pursuant to SGMA (SGMA 10728.6), and because projects to implement actions taken pursuant to
the Alternative Plan will be analyzed in accordance CEQA based on the nature of the project, environmental
setting and potential environmental impacts before those projects are approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Desert Water
Agency as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made an operative part of this Resolution.
2. The Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin is hereby approved and adopted, subject to minor, non-substantive modifications to the text agreed
upon by the four Indio Subbasin GSAs prior to submittal to DWR on or before December 31, 2021. A copy
of the 2022 Alternative Plan Update is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Board of Directors hereby designates CVWD to provide notification of this approval
and adoption to DWR, including a copy of this Resolution, the approved Alternative Plan Update, and any
additional information/documentation required by law.
ADOPTED this 7th day of December 2021.
_______________________________
Kristin Bloomer, President
ATTEST:
______________________________
Joseph K. Stuart, Secretary-Treasurer
X:\Sylvia\Ordinances & Resolutions\Resolutions\Res 1267 - Indio SGMA Alt Plan attach links.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 1267
LINK TO INDIO SUBBASIN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE SGMA
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Indio-SGMA-
AlternativePlan-vol1-Alternative-Plan-FINAL-to-be-
Adopted-Nov-2021v3.pdf
AND
http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/Indio-SGMA-
AlternativePlan-vol2-Appendices-FINAL-to-be-
Adopted-Nov-2021v2.pdf
This page intentionally left blank.
Proof of Publication
In Newspaper
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
1. I am a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the City of La Quinta, County of
Riverside, State of California, and over the
age of 18 years.
2. I am the Administrator of Production
of The Public Record, a newspaper of
general circulation printed and published in
the City of Palm Springs, County of River-
side, State of California. Said The Public Re-
cord is a newspaper of general circulation
as that term is defined in Government Code
section 6000, its status as such having been
established by judicial decree of the Supe-
rior Court of the State of California in and for
the County of Riverside in Proceeding No.
Indio 49271, dated March 31, 1987, entered
in Judgment Book No. 129, page 355, on
March 31, 1987.
3. The Public Record is a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation ascertained and established
in the City of Palm Springs in the County of
Riverside, State of California.
4. The notice, of which the annexed is a true
printed copy was published in the news-
paper on the following publication dates to
with:
November 30, 2021
I Certify under penalty of perjury that the
above is true and correct.
30th Day of November 2021.
The Public Record
Administration
Admin@desertpublicrecord.com
indio SubbaSin
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (the “GSAs”) will conduct individual public hearings to consider adoption of the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the “SGMA”) Alternative Plan (the “2022 Alternative Plan Update”). Oral or written comments may be provided in-person at the public hearings. Individuals may also submit written comments to the GSA Contact in advance of the meeting. The agenda is posted at least 72 hours in advance of the public hearing and can be found on the GSA website. You may also email the GSA Contact for additional information regarding public hearing participation.
GSA
Desert Water Agency(www.dwa.org)
Coachella Valley Water District (cvwd.org)
Coachella Water Authority
Indio Water Authority (www.indio.org)
Location of Public HearingVirtual
In-person: Steve Robbins Administration Building75515 Hovley Ln E, Palm Desert, CA 92211Virtual – check agenda for Zoom details In-Person Meeting Location:Coachella City HallCouncil Chamber1515 Sixth StreetCoachella, CA
Virtual – check agenda for Zoom details
In-person:City of Indio Council Chamber, 150 Civic Center Mall, Indio, CA 92201
Virtual – check agenda for Zoom details
Date and Time
December 7, 2021, starting at 8:00 AM
December 7, 2021, starting at 8:30 AM or as soon thereafter
December 8, 2021 starting at 6:00 PM at
December 15, 2021, starting at 5:00 PM
ContactSylvia Baca, Board Secretary, PO Box 1710, Palm Springs, CA 92263 SBaca@dwa.org(760) 323-4971 ext. 114
Sylvia Bermudez, Clerk of the BoardPO Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 SBermudez@cvwd.org 760.398.2651
Elected City ClerkCoachella Civic Center – 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, CA 92236 or via email at: cityclerk@coachella.org 760) 398-3502
Sabdi Sanchez, CMC, City Clerk Administrator, 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio, CA 92201 or via email at SSanchez@indio.org
The SGMA law requires the GSAs to update the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan every five years with the current update due to the California Department of Water Resources by January 1, 2022. The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update describes the region’s water supplies and anticipated demands through 2045, and presents the GSAs plan for maintaining groundwater sustainability as required by the SGMA. The draft 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is available for inspection at IndioSubbasinSGMA.org. November 30, 2021 TPR21-2001
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 2-A
WORKPLAN TO DEVELOP THE COACHELLA VALLEY SALT AND NUTRIENT
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING WORKPLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
PREPARED BY
Workplan to Develop the
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
PREPARED FOR
The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
FINAL WORKPLAN | SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
FINAL WORKPLAN | SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
Workplan to Develop the
Coachella Valley
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
Prepared for
The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Project No. 943-80-20-01
Sept 2, 2021
Project Manager: Andy Malone, PG Date
Sept 2, 2021
QA/QC Review: Samantha Adams Date
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
i CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives of the CV-SNMP ................................................................................. 1
1.1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 2009 Recycled Water Policy .................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 2018 Recycled Water Policy .................................................................................................... 2
1.2 2015 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ............................................................ 4
1.2.1 Overview of the 2015 SNMP ................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Regional Board Response to the 2015 SNMP ......................................................................... 5
1.3 Update of the CV-SNMP ................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.1 Process to Prepare the CV-SNMP Development Workplan .................................................... 7
1.3.2 Workplan Organization ........................................................................................................... 9
Study Area Setting ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Basin Setting ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater ....................................................................... 12
2.3 Origin and Fate and Transport of N/TDS ........................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Loading of N/TDS .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Transport and Discharge of N/TDS in the Saturated Zone ................................................... 14
CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan .............................................................. 19
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network ................................................................................................ 19
3.1.1 Methods for Selection of the Groundwater Monitoring Network ....................................... 20
3.1.2 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System ................................................... 20
3.1.3 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Deep Aquifer System ....................................................... 21
3.1.4 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System ................................................... 21
3.2 Chemical Analytes and Sampling Frequency .................................................................................. 21
3.3 Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 21
3.3.1 Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analysis ................................................................. 21
3.3.2 Reporting of Laboratory Results ........................................................................................... 22
3.4 Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network ..................................................................................... 22
CV-SNMP Development Workplan .............................................................................................. 37
4.1 Select Consultants for CV-SNMP Facilitation and Technical Services ............................................ 38
4.2 Establish CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Committee ................................. 39
4.2.1 Convene the CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group .......................................................................... 39
4.2.2 Convene the CV-SNMP Technical Advisory Committee........................................................ 40
4.3 Characterize N/TDS Loading to the Groundwater Basin ................................................................ 41
4.3.1 Collect Data and Information ................................................................................................ 41
4.3.2 Characterize Historical and Current N/TDS Loading ............................................................. 42
4.3.3 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 42
4.4 Characterize Current Groundwater Quality ................................................................................... 43
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
ii CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Table of Contents
4.4.1 Collect Data and Information ................................................................................................ 44
4.4.2 Prepare Tables, Maps, and Data Graphics ............................................................................ 44
4.4.3 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 46
4.5 Delineate Draft Management Zones and Describe Metrics to Characterize Beneficial Use
Protection ............................................................................................................................................. 47
4.5.1 Delineate Draft Groundwater Management Zones .............................................................. 48
4.5.2 Describe Beneficial Uses for Management Zones and Beneficial-Use Thresholds ............... 48
4.5.3 Define AWQ Metrics and Determine Current Protection of Beneficial Uses ....................... 48
4.5.4 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 49
4.6 Develop Technical Approach for Forecasting N/TDS Concentrations in Groundwater ................. 49
4.6.1 Evaluate Existing MODFLOW Models ................................................................................... 50
4.6.2 Develop Procedures for Simulating Vadose Zone Processes ................................................ 51
4.6.3 Define the Appropriate Planning Period ............................................................................... 51
4.6.4 Develop Procedures for Simulating Feedback Processes ..................................................... 51
4.6.5 Define Assumptions for Future N/TDS Concentration of Colorado River Water ................. 51
4.6.6 Develop Procedures for Verifying the N/TDS Forecasting Tools .......................................... 52
4.6.7 Develop Procedures for Post-Processing Model Results ...................................................... 52
4.6.8 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 52
4.7 Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and Evaluate the Baseline Scenario ....................................... 53
4.7.1 Develop a Baseline Scenario based on the SGMA Alternative Plans .................................... 53
4.7.2 Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and Run the Baseline Scenario ..................................... 53
4.7.3 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 54
4.8 Forecast N/TDS Concentrations for CV-SNMP Scenarios ............................................................... 55
4.8.1 Evaluate Baseline Scenario Results and Recommend Implementation Measures ............... 56
4.8.2 Evaluate CV-SNMP Scenarios ................................................................................................ 56
4.8.3 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 57
4.9 Characterize and Compare the Cost of Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios .................................... 57
4.9.1 Develop Cost-Estimating Planning Criteria and a Cost Model .............................................. 57
4.9.2 Develop Cost Estimates for the Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios ...................................... 58
4.9.3 Prepare Task Memorandum ................................................................................................. 58
4.10 Select the Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario, Finalize Management Zones and Beneficial Uses, and
Recommend TDS Objectives ................................................................................................................ 58
4.10.1 Evaluate All Forecasted Information and Select a Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario .............. 59
4.10.2 Recommend TDS Objectives based on CWC 13241 ............................................................ 59
4.10.3 Document Antidegradation Demonstration Pursuant to State Board Policy 68-16 ........... 60
4.10.4 Prepare Task Memorandum ............................................................................................... 60
4.11 Prepare Final CV-SNMP ................................................................................................................ 61
CV-SNMP Development Workplan Implementation ..................................................................... 69
5.1 Schedule ......................................................................................................................................... 69
5.2 Progress Reporting to the Regional Board ..................................................................................... 70
5.3 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 70
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
iii CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Shallow Aquifer System ................................ 24
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Deep Aquifer System ..................................... 26
Table 3-3. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Perched Aquifer System ................................ 28
Table 3-4. Gaps in SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network ............................................................. 29
Table 3-5. Analyte List for the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program ........................................... 30
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses ............................... 31
Table 4-1. CV-SNMP Development Workplan Compliance with the 2018 Recycled Water Policy ...... 63
Table 5-1. CV-SNMP Development Workplan Implementation Schedule ........................................... 69
Table 5-2. Cost Estimates to Implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan ............................... 71
Table 5-3. Cost Estimates to Implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program ............... 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Area Subject to the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ...................... 10
Figure 2-1. Basin Setting ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-2. Hydrogeologic Map ............................................................................................................ 16
Figure 2-3. Generalized Stratigraphic Column in Lower Coachella Valley ........................................... 17
Figure 2-4. Salt and Nutrient Loading, Transport, and Discharge ........................................................ 18
Figure 3-1. Groundwater Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System .......................... 34
Figure 3-2. Groundwater Monitoring Network – Deep Aquifer System ............................................... 35
Figure 3-3. Groundwater Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System .......................... 36
Figure 4-1. Conceptual Chart to Characterize Beneficial Use Protection in a Management Zone ...... 64
Figure 4-2. Conceptual Evaluation of a Hypothetical Baseline Scenario in a Management Zone ....... 65
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Evaluation of Hypothetical SNMP Scenario #1 in a Management Zone ......... 66
Figure 4-4. Conceptual Evaluation of Hypothetical SNMP Scenario #2 in a Management Zone ......... 67
Figure 4-5. Selection of a Hypothetical SNMP Scenario and TDS Objective in a Management Zone .. 68
Figure 5-1. Implementation of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan ............................................... 70
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan – Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan Update (December 23, 2020)
Appendix B. Example Maps and Data Graphics to Characterize Groundwater Quality
Appendix C. Responses to Comments on the Draft CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
iv CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Table of Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AWQ Ambient Water Quality
CPS City of Palm Springs
CV-SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA/CSD Coachella Water Authority and Coachella Sanitary District
CWC California Water Code
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ft-bgs Feet below ground surface
IWA Indio Water Authority
GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring & Assessment
GIS Geographic Information System
MC-GRF Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment System
MDMWC Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
N/TDS Nitrate and TDS
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PD-GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RFP Request for Proposals
RFQ Request for Qualifications
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TEL-GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility
USGS United States Geological Survey
VSD Valley Sanitary District
WRP Water Reclamation Plant
WW-GRF White Water Groundwater Replenishment Facility
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
1 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2,2021
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CV-SNMP
The Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Colorado River Basin (Regional Board) is requiring the
development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CV-
SNMP). The objective of the CV-SNMP is to sustainably manage salt and nutrient loading in the Coachella
Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) in a manner that protects its beneficial uses.
In 2015, a CV-SNMP was submitted to the Regional Board (2015 SNMP); however, the Regional Board
found the 2015 SNMP insufficient (see Section 1.2 below). This document is a workplan to update the
2015 SNMP (CV-SNMP Development Workplan). It was prepared on behalf the City of Coachella Sanitary
District (CSD), City of Palm Springs (Palm Springs), Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella
Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), Indio Water Authority (IWA), Mission Springs Water
District (MSWD), Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC), and Valley Sanitary District (VSD),
collectively the CV-SNMP Agencies.
This CV-SNMP Development Workplan defines the scope of work that the CV-SNMP Agencies will follow
to update the 2015 SNMP and implement a supporting monitoring and reporting program. The intent is
to develop the CV-SNMP in a collaborative approach with the Regional Board, including stakeholder and
public outreach and involvement.
Figure 1-1 is a map that defines spatial extent of the Basin that is subject to the CV-SNMP. The Basin is
located within the northwest portion of the Salton Sea Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 18100200) and
is the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin as delineated by the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR Groundwater Basin No. 7-021), but excludes the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 7-
021.04). Hence, the Basin, as defined for the CV-SNMP, is comprised of three of the four DWR Subbasins:
the Indio Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 7-021.01), the Mission Creek Subbasin (7-021.02), and the Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin (7-021.03).
The remainder of this section includes a description of the regulatory framework behind the requirements
for the CV-SNMP, the results of past efforts to develop the CV-SNMP, an overview of the process to
prepare this CV-SNMP Development Workplan, and the organization of this report.
1.1 Regulatory Framework
1.1.1 2009 Recycled Water Policy
The statewide requirement to develop SNMPs for groundwater basins in California was first promulgated
in 2009 when the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted the Recycled Water Policy1
(2009 Policy). The purpose of the 2009 Policy was to encourage increased use of recycled water in a
manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. To accomplish this, the 2009 Policy
included, among other provisions, a requirement to prepare SNMPs such that "salts and nutrients from
all sources be managed on a basin-wide or watershed-wide basis in a manner that ensures attainment of
water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses." The 2009 Policy recognized that all
groundwater basins are different in size, hydrogeologic complexity, and loading factors, which
1 State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2009-0011. Adoption of a Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled
Water. February 3, 2009.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
2 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
necessitates locally-driven stakeholder efforts to define an appropriate SNMP that addresses the region-
specific conditions.
The 2009 Policy defined general guidelines for preparing SNMPs, including the following required
components:
• A basin/sub-basin-wide monitoring plan that includes an appropriate network of wells for
assessing water quality and determining whether the concentrations of salts and nutrients
are consistent with applicable water quality objectives.
• Description of water recycling goals and objectives.
• Identification of salt and nutrient sources, and estimation of salt and nutrient loading, basin
assimilative capacity, and the fate and transport of salt and nutrients.
• Description of implementation measures to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin on
a sustainable basis.
• An antidegradation analysis to demonstrate that the implementation measures included
within the plan will collectively satisfy the requirements of State Board Resolution 68-16
(the Antidegradation Policy).
The 2009 Policy acknowledged that not all Regional Board Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans)
included adequate implementation measures for achieving or ensuring compliance with the water quality
objectives for salts or nutrients. In addition, the 2009 Policy did not specify the methods or approaches
for performing the above listed SNMP analyses. In this way, it implicitly left it to the SNMP stakeholders
to define, and the Regional Boards to approve, the SNMP methods and approaches that are appropriate
for the local area and the Basin Plan.
The initial deadline for completing SNMPs pursuant to the 2009 Policy was April 2014, with the option to
apply for an extension through April 2016.
1.1.2 2018 Recycled Water Policy
In December 2016, the State Board adopted Resolution No. 2016-00612, which directed staff to propose
amendments to the 2009 Policy, in part, to improve the SNMP guidelines based on lessons learned over
the first seven years of implementation. Among the requested amendments was the inclusion of revised
goals and mandates for statewide use of recycled water, clarification of recycled water monitoring and
reporting requirements, recommendations for the development of representative, basin-wide
groundwater monitoring networks, and an evaluation of the frequency of priority pollutant monitoring in
recycled water (2018 Policy).
The State Board Staff Report supporting the 2018 Policy amendments identified the administrative and
technical challenges in the development of SNMPs since 2009.3 Some of the administrative challenges
identified included:
2 State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2061-0061. To Reaffirm Support for the Development of Salt and Nutrient
Management Plans and Direct Staff to Initiate a Stakeholder Process to Update the Recycled Water Policy. December 6, 2016.
3 State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. Final Staff Report with Substitute Environmental Documentation, Amendment to
the Recycled Water Policy. December 11, 2018.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
3 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• The incentives for participation in the SNMPs were tied to recycled water projects, which
resulted in:
o Lack of involvement from key stakeholders representing major contributions to salt and
nutrient loading.
o SNMPs not being developed in areas with limited or no recycled water reuse.
• Management plans with implementation measures for which the stakeholders lack the
regulatory authority to enforce or implement the measures.
Technical challenges included:
• A lack of readily available, representative groundwater monitoring data to assess water
quality conditions. For example, monitoring programs that relied solely on deep municipal
production wells for data would exclude shallow portions of the aquifer system.
• Most SNMPs relied upon overly simplistic mass-balance approaches to assess current and
future assimilative capacity in the basin. These simplistic approaches assumed complete
mixing of salt and nutrient loads in the basin, which is not typically representative of what
occurs. Such approaches can under-estimate the assimilative capacity within deep aquifers
and over-estimate the assimilative capacity within shallow aquifers.
Despite the identification of these challenges, the 2018 amendments to the SNMP guidelines within the
Policy primarily focused on clarifying the roles of the Regional Boards in accepting SNMPs, performing
periodic SNMP reviews, and defining new compliance schedules for completing SNMPs in areas where
they had either not been prepared or approved by the Regional Boards. The 2018 Policy identified the
same basic components to be included in the SNMPs as were defined in the 2009 Policy and still does not
prescribe methods or approaches for SNMP analyses. As before, the SNMP methods and approaches that
are appropriate for the local area and Basin Plan must be defined by the stakeholders and approved by
the Regional Boards.
The State Board adopted the 2018 Policy in December 20184 and it went into effect in April 2019 following
adoption by the Office of Administrative Law. For groundwater basins without approved SNMPs, the 2018
Policy does not define a deadline for SNMPs to be completed and approved by the Regional Board; it only
requires that the Regional Boards identify which groundwater basins require an SNMP by Executive Order
or Resolution by April 2021.
In addition, with approval of the Indio Subbasin Alternative and the Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative
for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Plan requirement,
DWR staff recommended that an approved SNMP be incorporated into future iterations of the
Alternatives.
4 State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. 2018 Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water. December 18, 2018.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
4 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
1.2 2015 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
1.2.1 Overview of the 2015 SNMP
In a letter dated February 14, 2011, the Regional Board asked the Coachella Valley stakeholders “take the
necessary steps to initiate a collaborative process to prepare a salt and nutrient management plan”
pursuant to the 2009 Policy.5 In June 2015, the CVWD, DWA, and IWA submitted the final Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan6 (2015 SNMP) to the Regional Board.
The 2015 SNMP included the following:
• Definition of the planning area, regulatory setting, stakeholder participation process, and
the salt and nutrient constituents of concern: nitrate and total dissolved solids (N/TDS).
• A hydrogeologic characterization of the Coachella Valley groundwater subbasins, including
definition of seven groundwater management zones for the 2015 SNMP.
• Characterization of current N/TDS concentrations for each management zone, including
calculation of the volume-weighted estimates of ambient N/TDS concentrations within each
management zone that had sufficient data available over the 15-year period of 1999-2013.
• For the management zones with estimates of ambient water quality, the 2015 SNMP
included:
o Assessments of assimilative capacity for N/TDS. Given the absence of numeric
groundwater-quality objectives for TDS in the Basin Plan, the “upper level” for the
secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is 1,000 milligrams per liter (mgl),
was used to compute assimilative capacity and concluded that there is assimilative
capacity for loading of TDS. The 2015 SNMP also concluded that there is assimilative
capacity for loading of nitrate.
o Projections of N/TDS loading by source and the change in the volume-weighted ambient
N/TDS concentrations by management zone over a 30-year planning period through
2045. Based on the projections, the 2015 SNMP concluded that there will continue to be
assimilative capacity for N/TDS loading over the planning period.
o An antidegradation analysis to support recycled water use, which only occurs in two of
the management zones. The 2015 SNMP concluded that the recycled water projects will
use much less than 10 percent of the available assimilative capacity and therefore these
projects can continue to be permitted in accordance with the Policy.
• A listing of salt and nutrient management strategies that could help to minimize impacts of
salt and nutrient loading and protect beneficial uses. No management plan was defined to
implement these projects based on the findings that that there will continue to be
assimilative capacity for N/TDS loading over the planning period.
• A monitoring plan to guide the reasonable and adequate collection of data and information
to estimate ambient water quality for the management zones. The monitoring plan
5 Perdue, R. 2011. Letter to Coachella Valley stakeholders (February 14, 2011).
6 MWH. 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. June, 2015.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
5 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
identified existing and new monitoring locations and included recommendations regarding
the additional data to be collected and the frequency of monitoring.
1.2.2 Regional Board Response to the 2015 SNMP
Since the submittal of the final 2015 SNMP, Regional Board staff have issued three letters to the 2015
SNMP participants detailing their comments and finding that the 2015 SNMP does not satisfy the
requirements of the Policy.7 In the most recent letter issued in February 2020, the Regional Board staff
reiterated the specific findings regarding which components of the 2015 SNMP were insufficient and
provided specific recommendations to develop an acceptable SNMP that is consistent with the 2018
Policy.
The Regional Board concerns are related to the following five technical and/or policy issues:
• The insufficiency of the monitoring program to fill data gaps and adequately characterize
the spatial and vertical distribution of water quality conditions.
• The use of simple mass-balance approaches to compute current and future ambient N/TDS
concentrations for the management zones.
• The use of the secondary upper MCL of 1,000 mgl for TDS to assess assimilative capacity.
• The lack of an antidegradation analysis to support salt and nutrient loading from sources
other than recycled water, including the use and recharge of Colorado River water.
• The absence of an implementation plan for measures to manage salt and nutrient loading
from all sources on a sustainable basis.
The Regional Board comments and associated recommendations to resolve the technical and policy issues
are describe in more detail below.
SNMP Monitoring Program. The Policy requires a groundwater monitoring program that can determine
whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern in groundwater are
consistent with groundwater quality objectives and are thereby protective of beneficial uses. The Regional
Board perceived insufficiencies in the proposed monitoring plan in the 2015 SNMP. In particular, that the
monitoring plan did not address:
• The identified data gaps in the management zones with no ambient water quality findings.
• The need to improve the characterization of the vertical distribution of groundwater quality.
• The identification of critical areas for monitoring near water supply wells, large water
recycling projects, Colorado River water recharge projects, or other significant sources of
salt and nutrients identified in the 2015 SNMP.
The Regional Board required that the CV-SNMP Agencies prepare a new monitoring program workplan to
address these concerns by December 2020.
7 Stormo, J. 2015. Letter to Patti Reyes (August 7, 2015).
Sanford, C. 2016. Letter to Joan Stormo and Abdi Haile (March 22, 2016).
Rasmussen, P. 2020. Letter to Steve Bigley, Marc Krause, and Trish Rhay (February 19, 2020).
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
6 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Ambient Water Quality and the Capacity to Assimilate Salt and Nutrient Loading . The Regional Board
believes that the findings of assimilative capacity for salt and nutrient loading to the groundwater
management zones are potentially inaccurate and thereby may not be protective of beneficial uses. The
Regional Board concerns are related to:
• The lack of ambient groundwater quality estimates for four of the seven proposed
management zones and the ability of the monitoring program to supply sufficient data to
estimate ambient groundwater quality.
• The use of a 15-year period to define ambient groundwater quality conditions.
• The use of a simple mass-balance approach that:
o assumes complete and instantaneous mixing of salt and nutrient loads through the full
depth of the aquifer,
o simplifies the current and projected ambient groundwater quality into a single volume-
weighted concentration that represents an entire management zone, and
o does not account for the spatial and vertical distribution of constituents in groundwater.
• The use of the secondary upper MCL of 1,000 mgl for TDS to assess assimilative capacity.
To address these concerns, the Regional Board recommended: preparing the above noted monitoring
program workplan; identifying where shallow groundwater or isolated areas within the groundwater
basin may be influenced by salt and nutrient loading activities and thereby warrant additional monitoring
or management techniques; a more conservative use of the mass-balance models that is capable of
estimating depth-specific and site-specific ambient groundwater quality; and comparing the existing
groundwater quality to all the established TDS ranges referenced in Title 22, including the
"recommended" level of 500 mgl, citing that this approach will ensure that the most protective water
quality standards are implemented.
Antidegradation Analysis. The 2018 Policy recognizes that while some recycled water projects have
measurable salt and nutrient loading contributions to groundwater, it is other entities or activities such
as agriculture, industry, wastewater treatment plant operations, and the use of imported waters that can
result in significant salt and nutrient loading to groundwater. Section 6.2.4 of the 2018 Policy requires that
SNMPs contain an antidegradation analysis demonstrating that the existing projects, reasonably
foreseeable future projects, and other sources of loading to the basin described within SNMP will
cumulatively satisfy the antidegradation requirements of State Board Order 68-16 (the Antidegradation
Policy).
In the Coachella Valley, the Regional Board is specifically concerned with the TDS loading associated with
the recharge of Colorado River water, and that future updates to the CV-SNMP must include an
antidegradation analysis for the recharge of Colorado River water.
Implementation Measures to Manage Salt and Nutrient Loading. The 2015 SNMP discussed potential
implementation measures to manage or reduce the salt and nutrient loading to groundwater, but did not
include a plan to implement the measures, citing that corrective measures are not needed based on the
results of the assimilative capacity and antidegradation analyses. As noted above, the Regional Board is
concerned with the loading from the use and recharge of Colorado River water, which was identified as
the greatest single source of salt entering the groundwater basin. The Regional Board believes that there
is insufficient analytical data presented to evaluate the suspected impacts to the aquifer in the vicinity of
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
7 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
any of the four active groundwater recharge facilities to conclude that mitigation measures are not
needed. The Regional Board stated that the potential impacts to groundwater from the use and recharge
of Colorado River water must be evaluated, and mitigation measures be proposed as warranted by the
evaluations.
1.3 Update of the CV-SNMP
Following the February 19, 2020 letter, the CV-SNMP Agencies entered discussions with the Regional
Board to address their comments and concerns and develop a plan and schedule to update the 2015 CV-
SNMP for approval by the Regional Board. Per these discussions, and as documented in its April 27, 2020
letter,8 the Regional Board required the CV-SNMP Agencies to address its concerns by developing the CV-
SNMP Development Workplan by December 2020 (subsequently postponed to April 2021) that defines
the scope and schedule to prepare an updated CV-SNMP. The CV-SNMP Development Workplan is
required to include a monitoring program workplan.
The CV-SNMP Development Workplan will be the guide for updating the CV-SNMP to comply with the
2018 Policy and resolve the challenges identified by the Regional Board as discussed in Section 1.2.2
above.
1.3.1 Process to Prepare the CV-SNMP Development Workplan
The CV-SNMP Agencies prepared a Request for Proposals to solicit a technical consultant to assist in
preparing the CV-SNMP Development Workplan. The CV-SNMP Agencies selected and contracted with
Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (now West Yost Associates) as the technical consultant in July 2020.
In September 2020, the CV-SNMP Agencies provided a progress report to Regional Board staff on
preparing the CV-SNMP Development Workplan and requested a revision to the scope and schedule
defined in the April 27, 2020 letter. The requested revision was for a two-step process, whereby:
• The CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan was due by December 18, 2020.
The CV-SNMP Agencies completed the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
(final report dated December 23, 2020), and the Regional Board approved the CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan in a letter dated February 21, 2021.9 The approved
CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan is included as Appendix A and is
summarized in Sections 2 and 3 of this workplan.
• The remainder of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan is due to the Regional Board by April 30,
2021.10
Through discussions and advice from West Yost Associates, the CV-SNMP Agencies concluded that
numeric objectives for TDS and nitrate in groundwater are necessary to resolve the concerns of the
Regional Board (Section 1.2.2 above). Numeric objectives in the CV-SNMP will be necessary to:
• Demonstrate that beneficial uses are protected.
8 Rasmussen, P. 2020. Letter to Steve Bigley (April 27, 2020).
9 Rasmussen, P. 2021. Letter to Steve Bigley (February 21, 2021).
10 Rasmussen, P. 2021. Letter to Steve Bigley (March 23, 2021).
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
8 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Quantify the magnitude of available assimilative capacity for salt and nutrient loading.
• Provide a technical basis for the Regional Board to allocate the use of assimilative capacity.
• Set triggers for implementation measures at appropriate locations and times.
Currently, the Basin Plan includes a nitrate-nitrogen objective of 10 mgl for groundwater in the Coachella
Valley based on the primary drinking water MCL but lacks scientifically-derived numeric TDS objectives
that are consistent with the provisions of Title 22. The process to recommend numeric TDS objectives
needs to include technically-defensible methods and tools to answer the following questions:
• What are logical management areas within the Basin (management zones) and the beneficial uses
of groundwater within the management zones?
• What is current groundwater quality? And, is current groundwater quality protective of beneficial
uses?
• How is groundwater quality expected to change across the basin and within the depth-specific
aquifer systems?
• Will these changes in groundwater quality impact beneficial uses? If so, where and when?
• What are economically and technically feasible salt management strategies, that when
implemented, will achieve the objectives of both the CV-SNMP stakeholders and the Regional
Board? Economic feasibility will need to be defined and should consider the sources of revenue
and the factors that could restrict the sources of revenue.
In addition, the California Water Code section 13241 describes the factors to consider when establishing
the TDS objectives:
a) Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water.
b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality
of water available thereto.
c) Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all
factors which affect water quality in the area.
d) Economic considerations.
e) The need for developing housing within the region.
f) The need to develop and use recycled water.
The CV-SNMP Development Workplan must include a process to address these factors when
recommending numeric TDS objectives for groundwater management zones.
This final CV-SNMP Development Workplan was prepared in a collaborative process between the CV-
SNMP Agencies and Regional Board staff. A draft CV-SNMP Development Workplan dated April 30, 2021
was submitted to the Regional Board staff for review. The CVWD (representing the CV-SNMP Agencies)
received a letter from the Regional Board dated June 30, 2021 with comments and suggested revisions to
the draft CV-SNMP Development Workplan. The CV-SNMP Agencies prepared responses to the Regional
Board comments and revised the CV-SNMP Development Workplan to address the comments. The
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
9 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Regional Board’s comments and the CV-SNMP Agencies’ responses-to-comments are included in
Appendix C.
1.3.2 Workplan Organization
This CV-SNMP Development Workplan describes the detailed scope of work to update the CV-SNMP by
using technically-defensible methods and tools to recommend numeric TDS objectives for groundwater,
answer the questions listed above, comply with State law and Policy, and resolve the concerns of the
Regional Board.
The remainder of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan is organized as follows:
Section 2 – Study Area Setting. This section describes the study area that will be covered by the CV-SNMP
and is included herein to provide context to the components and methods of the CV-SNMP Development
Workplan.
Section 3 – CV-SNMP Monitoring Program Workplan. This section describes the detailed scope of work,
schedule and budget required to implement a revised monitoring and data collection program that will
support the development and implementation of the CV-SNMP. The Regional Board informed the CV-
SNMP Agencies of approval of the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program (described herein) in a
letter dated February 21, 2021.
Section 4 – CV-SNMP Development Workplan. This section describes the detailed scope of work to
prepare an updated CV-SNMP that complies with the State law and Policy and resolves the concerns of
the Regional Board with the 2015 CV-SNMP. The scope of work includes the technical methods and
approaches for applying State and Regional Board policies that will be relied upon in the development of
the CV-SNMP.
Section 5 – CV-SNMP Development Workplan Implementation. This section describes the schedule and
budget-level cost estimates to implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
11 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
STUDY AREA SETTING
This section summarizes the physical characteristics and dynamics of the Basin regarding surface water,
groundwater, and the origin and fate and transport of salts and nutrients. Understanding the physical
characteristics and dynamics of the Basin provides the foundation for defining SNMP methods and
approaches that are appropriate for the local area and Basin Plan and selecting a monitoring network that
will meet the objectives of the 2018 Policy.
This section was prepared from a review of past technical studies and reports; no original work or analyses
were performed for this section of the workplan.
2.1 Basin Setting
Figure 2-1 is a geologic map that shows the Basin as delineated by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR Groundwater Basin No. 7-021, excluding the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin), which
represents the area subject to the CV-SNMP. The Basin is located within the northwest portion of the
Salton Sea Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 18100200).
Figure 2-1 shows the surface geology as generalized into natural divisions with regard to groundwater:
Unconsolidated water-bearing sediments. These are the pervious formations that comprise
the Basin.
Bedrock formations. These are the semi-consolidated sediments and the consolidated
bedrock formations that come to the surface in the hills and mountains that surround and
bound the Basin. Groundwater can exist in pore spaces and fractures within the bedrock
formations; however, the permeability of the bedrock formations typically is much less than
the water-bearing sediments.
The upper 2,000 ft of the unconsolidated water-bearing sediments constitute the freshwater aquifer
system that is the main source of groundwater supply in the region. The sediments tend to be finer-
grained in the southeastern portions of the Basin due to the greater distance from the mountainous
source areas and the lower-energy depositional environments, such as historical Lake Cahuilla.
The Whitewater River is the major drainage course in the Basin. The Whitewater River is an unlined
channel, so surface water flows have the potential to infiltrate and recharge the Basin. In areas with
shallow groundwater, the groundwater has the potential to discharge to interconnected surface water.
2.2 Hydrogeology
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas
Figure 2-2 is a map of the general hydrogeology of the area. The Basin is cross-cut by several geologic
faults, which have created low-permeability zones within the water-bearing sediments that act as barriers
to groundwater flow. These barriers impede, but do not eliminate, groundwater flow between subbasins.
Groundwater flow can still occur across the barriers from areas of higher groundwater levels to areas of
lower groundwater levels. The map identifies the locations of faults, subbasins, and subareas that
comprise the Basin, and describes the general occurrence and movement of groundwater through
the Basin.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
12 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
The DWR has defined three main subbasins within the study area that are separated by geologic faults or
changes in formation permeability that limit and control the movement of groundwater: the Indio
Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 7-021.01), the Mission Creek Subbasin (7-021.02), and the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasin (7-021.03).11 These subbasins have been further subdivided into subareas based on one or more
of the following geologic or hydrogeologic characteristics: type(s) of water-bearing formations, water
quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, and groundwater or surface drainage divides.
Figure 2-2 shows groundwater-elevation contours for water-year 2019 (October 1, 2018 through
September 30, 2019). Lateral groundwater flow is generally perpendicular to the contours from higher to
lower elevation, as indicated by the arrows on the map. Generally, groundwater flows from areas of
natural recharge along the surrounding mountain-fronts toward the valley floor and then southeast
toward the distal portions of the Basin near the Salton Sea. Locally, the structural and compositional
features within the Basin result in groundwater conditions and flow directions that vary significantly
between subbasins. Anthropogenic activities such as artificial recharge and groundwater pumping also
influence groundwater-flow directions.
2.2.2 Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater
Described below is the general occurrence of groundwater, and how groundwater flows through and
discharges from each subbasin:
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin. In the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin, groundwater typically flows from the
Little San Bernardino Mountains to the south but is locally variable due to faulting. The aquifer system is
poorly understood due to relatively poor water quality, which has limited the development of
groundwater resources in the area. Faulting in the northern portion of the subbasin has resulted in
thermal mineral waters in the aquifer with temperatures up to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. These thermal
waters are used by several spas in the area. Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells
or subsurface outflow. Generally, groundwater elevations in the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin are higher
than in the Mission Creek and Indio Subbasins, and hence, the subsurface outflow from the Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin occurs across the Mission Creek Fault into these downgradient subbasins. These
subsurface flows are thought to be relatively minor based on the differences in groundwater quality on
either side of the fault barriers that separate the subbasins. However, any subsurface outflow from the
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin could be a source of poor-quality inflow to the Mission Creek and Indio
Subbasins.
Mission Creek Subbasin. In the Mission Creek Subbasin, groundwater typically flows from northwest to
southeast. The aquifer system is up to 2,000 feet thick and is predominantly unconfined. Portions of the
aquifer along the Banning Fault northwest of the Seven Palms Ridge area are semi-confined as evidenced
by historically flowing-artesian wells in the area. Depth to groundwater in the Mission Creek Subbasin in
2019 ranged from an estimated 600 feet-bgs (ft-bgs) upgradient of the Mission Creek Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (MC-GRF) to less than 5 feet-bgs in the southeast (west of the Indio Hills).
Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells or subsurface flow across the Banning Fault
into the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin is bordered on the west by the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin and the
crystalline bedrock of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. It is separated from the Mission Creek
11 The DWR defines the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (7-021.04) as part the Basin, but it is not subject to the CV-SNMP.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
13 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Subbasin by the Banning Fault, and from the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin by the San Andreas Fault. Both
faults are barriers to groundwater flow as evidenced by differences in groundwater levels across the
faults. For example, groundwater-level differences across the Banning Fault, between the Mission Creek
Subbasin and the Indio Subbasin, can be up to 250 feet. Subsurface flow between subbasins primarily
occurs from the Desert Hot Springs and Mission Creek Subbasins into the Indio Subbasin.
In the Indio Subbasin, the aquifer system is generally unconfined in the forebay areas and across the
northwestern portion of the subbasin. Generally, groundwater flows from the northwest toward the
southeastern portions of the subbasin near the Salton Sea. In the southeast portion of the Indio Subbasin,
the predominance of fine-grained sediments at depth has created three distinct aquifer systems, which
are shown graphically in Figure 2-3 and are described below:
Perched. A semi-perched aquifer up to 100 feet thick that is persistent across much of the
area southeast of the City of Indio. The fine-grain units that cause the perched conditions
are likely a barrier to deep percolation of surface water. The extent of the semi-perched
aquifer is shown on Figure 2-2. Shallow groundwater within the semi-perched aquifer is
conveyed away from the root zone by a network of privately-owned subsurface tile drainage
systems that are distributed across the agricultural land uses in the southeastern portion of
the Basin. CVWD maintains a regional network of surface and subsurface drains, shown on
Figure 2-4, that accumulate and convey the drainage waters from the agricultural lands to
the Salton Sea.
Shallow. An upper aquifer up to 300 feet thick that is present across most of the area. The
upper aquifer is unconfined except in the areas of the semi-perched aquifer where it is semi-
confined.
Deep. A lower aquifer that is 500-2,000 feet thick and is the most productive portion of the
Basin. In the southeast portion of the Basin, the lower aquifer is confined and is separated
from the upper aquifer by a fine-grained aquitard unit that is 100-200 feet thick. Figure 2-2
displays the extent of the aquitard unit.
Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells, shallow groundwater discharge to
subsurface tile drainage systems on agricultural lands that ultimately discharge to the Salton Sea, and
subsurface outflow to groundwater underlying the Salton Sea.
2.3 Origin and Fate and Transport of N/TDS
Figure 2-4 is a map that depicts the general areas and processes of salt and nutrient loading, transport,
and discharge throughout the Basin.
2.3.1 Loading of N/TDS
Salts, and in some cases nutrients, are loaded to the Basin via the following mechanisms:
• Subsurface inflow from: saturated sediments and bedrock fractures in the surrounding
mountains and hills; the upgradient the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin; and deep thermal
water sources.
• Recharge of precipitation runoff in unlined stream channels that cross the Basin.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
14 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Artificial recharge of imported Colorado River Water at the Groundwater Replenishment
Facilities (GRF).
• Percolation of treated wastewater discharge to unlined ponds.
• Seepage from septic systems.
• Deep infiltration of precipitation on the land surface.
• Return flows from irrigation waters applied to the overlying land uses, such as agriculture,
golf courses, and urban landscapes. Loading from return flows is a complex process that
involves the following mechanisms that ultimately influence the volume and associated
N/TDS concentrations of waters that migrate past the root zone to the saturated zone:
o The interaction of precipitation and irrigation waters.
o Evapotranspiration processes that concentrate salts in the root zone.
o Geochemical and microbial processes that occur during the downward migration
through the unsaturated (vadose) zone, such as absorption and chemical
transformations.
o Past N/TDS loading to the vadose zone by historical overlying land uses.
Figure 2-4 shows the spatial distribution and location of these sources of salt and nutrient loading across
the Basin.
2.3.2 Transport and Discharge of N/TDS in the Saturated Zone
Once within the saturated zone, the dissolved salts and nutrients are transported through the aquifer
system via the groundwater-flow systems shown on Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-4. Ultimately, salts and
nutrients are discharged from the Basin via the following mechanisms:
• Groundwater pumping.
• Discharge to agricultural drains. As described above, throughout the lower Basin, CVWD
maintains a network of surface and subsurface drains to convey shallow groundwater away
from the crop root zones. These drains convey water to the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel (CVSC) and 27 smaller open channel drains that discharge directly to the Salton Sea.
• Subsurface outflow to downgradient subbasins. In the Indio Subbasin, subsurface outflow
occurs to groundwater beneath the Salton Sea.
• Phreatophyte consumptive use.
Figure 2-3
From DWR (1964)
Generalized Stratigraphic Colu n in East rn Coache la Valley
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
19 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
CV-SNMP GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM WORKPLAN
The Groundwater Monitoring Program for the CV-SNMP consists of the following components, each
further described below:
• Groundwater monitoring network
• Chemical analytes and sampling frequency
• Monitoring and reporting
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network
Section 6.2.4.1 of the Policy requires the implementation of a monitoring program that can determine
whether the concentrations of salts and nutrients in groundwater are consistent with water quality
objectives and are thereby protective of beneficial uses. The Policy also recognizes the monitoring
program will be dependent upon basin-specific conditions and input from the Regional Board.
For the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program, the Regional Board is requiring that the
monitoring program:
• Cover all subbasins and subareas within the Basin. The updated CV-SNMP will require
periodic mapping of groundwater quality to estimate ambient water quality and assimilative
capacity. A monitoring network that is spatially distributed across all subbasins and subareas
of the Basin will provide the necessary data for technically defensible mapping of
groundwater quality.
• Include sampling from all three major aquifer systems: Deep, Shallow, and Perched. Section
2 of this Workplan described the hydrogeologic stratification of the aquifer system in the
Basin. Groundwater quality, and the physical processes that can alter groundwater quality
over time, can be significantly different between aquifer systems. This is because: (i)
anthropogenic loading of salts and nutrients occur primarily at the ground surface, and
hence, can influence the quality of shallower groundwaters first before influencing the
quality of deeper groundwaters; (ii) thick aquitards in the southeastern portion of the Basin
restrict the vertical movement of groundwater between aquifer systems; and (iii) upward
hydraulic gradients, as evidenced by flowing artesian conditions in the southeastern portion
of the Basin, limit the downward migration of salts and nutrients to the Deep aquifer system
in this region. For these reasons, monitoring of perched, shallow and deep groundwaters is
proposed herein across most of the Basin.
• Focus on critical areas near: (i) large water recycling projects, (ii) near large recharge
projects, particularly where Colorado River water is used to replenish the Basin for water-
supply and groundwater management purposes, and (iii) near other potential sources of salt
and nutrients. It is important that monitoring occurs hydraulically upgradient and
downgradient from these sources of salt and nutrient loading to characterize their influence
on groundwater quality.
• Focus on critical areas near water supply wells. The water-supply wells are the main points
of extraction for the ultimate beneficial uses of the Basin.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
20 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Identify critical gaps in the monitoring network and develop a plan and timeline to fill the
gaps. The current gaps in the monitoring network are described in this section. The plan and
timeline to fill the gaps are included in Section 4.
• Identify the stakeholders responsible for conducting, compiling, and reporting the
monitoring data.
3.1.1 Methods for Selection of the Groundwater Monitoring Network
The criteria used to select the groundwater monitoring network included the following:
Spatial Distribution. The monitoring network was designed to cover all subbasins and
subareas within the Basin.
Hydrogeology. The monitoring network was designed to monitor all three major aquifer
systems: Deep, Shallow, and Perched. Water-supply wells in the Basin typically pump
groundwater from the Deep aquifer system and were therefore more available for inclusion
in the monitoring network. Wells with screens across the Shallow and Perched aquifer
systems were less abundant. Hence, most “gaps” in the proposed monitoring network are
within the Shallow and Perched aquifer systems.
Areas of Salt or Nutrient Loading. The network was designed to monitor the influence of
known sources of salt or nutrient loading on groundwater quality within the Basin. These
sources included: the GRFs; wastewater percolation ponds; areas with septic systems;
overlying land uses with irrigation returns (e.g., golf, landscapes, agriculture); and areas
served non-potable waters for irrigation (e.g., recycled and/or imported waters). Monitoring
of non-point-source loading, such as returns from non-potable irrigation waters and septic
systems, is intended to be representative of the influence of non-point-sources of loading
on groundwater quality. It is not intended to be site-specific monitoring of every area of
non-point-source loading across the Basin, which would be infeasible.
Groundwater Flow. The network was designed to monitor all major groundwater-flow
systems, from areas of recharge to areas of discharge, and within and between the
groundwater subbasins. This is necessary in order to track the subsurface migration of salts
and nutrients through the Basin.
Use of Existing Wells. Wherever possible, active municipal production or monitoring wells
were preferentially selected if they currently participate in a similar monitoring program
(e.g., California Division of Drinking Water [DDW] or Regional Board orders). In some areas,
such wells were not available for selection. In those areas, inactive municipal production
wells or private wells were selected for inclusion in the monitoring network. The use of
inactive or private wells in this monitoring program will require significant coordination with
the private well owners and/or physical wellhead improvements to collect groundwater
samples. Lastly, if no wells were identified in an area/depth that should be monitored, a
“gap” was designated in the monitoring network.
3.1.2 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System
Figure 3-1 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Shallow aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. Because most production wells in the Basin have well screens across the Deep
aquifer system, there were several identified “gaps” in the monitoring network, particularly in the Thermal
Subarea of the Indio Subbasin. Table 3-1 is a list of wells shown on Figure 3-1 sorted by Map_ID. The table
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
21 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
includes a summary justification for why each well was included in the monitoring program. Table 3-4 is
a list of the “gaps” in the monitoring network with a summary explanation of why each gap should be
filled.
3.1.3 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Deep Aquifer System
Figure 3-2 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Deep aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. Most production wells in the Basin have well screens across the Deep aquifer system;
hence, there were no identified “gaps” in the Deep monitoring network. Table 3-2 is a list of wells shown
on Figure 3-2 sorted by Map_ID. The table includes a summary justification for why the well was included
in the monitoring program.
3.1.4 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System
Figure 3-3 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Perched aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. The map shows the extent of the Perched aquifer system which is confined to the
Thermal Subarea of the Indio Subbasin. The network of CVWD’s agricultural drains that convey perched
groundwater to the CVSC and the Salton Sea is also shown. The only existing wells with well screens across
the Perched aquifer system are five monitoring wells owned by the CVWD; hence, there were several
identified “gaps” in the Perched monitoring network. Table 3-3 is a list of wells shown on Figure 3-3 sorted
by Map_ID. The table includes a summary justification for why each well was included in the monitoring
program. Table 3-4 is a list of the “gaps” in the monitoring network with a summary explanation of why
each gap should be filled.
3.2 Chemical Analytes and Sampling Frequency
Table 3-5 lists the chemicals that will be analyzed for dissolved concentration in each groundwater sample
for the monitoring program. The table describes the justification for each chemical analyte. Testing will
be performed at a laboratory accredited by the State of California for the testing of inorganic chemistry
of drinking water.
The minimum sampling frequency is once every three years. Many wells chosen for this monitoring
program are sampled more frequently under other required or voluntary monitoring programs.
During each groundwater sampling event, the agency responsible for sampling will attempt to obtain a
static (non-pumping) depth-to-water measurement. In instances when a static depth-to-water
measurement cannot be obtained, it will be noted with a description for the reason.
3.3 Monitoring and Reporting
The CV-SNMP Agencies have the following responsibilities for sampling of the wells in the monitoring
network (described in Section 3.1), the laboratory analysis of chemical analytes (described in Section 3.2),
and the reporting of the laboratory results pursuant to the Policy
3.3.1 Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
For groundwater sampling and analysis:
• Municipal well owners are responsible for the groundwater sampling and laboratory
analyses for their own wells.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
22 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• For private wells within their service area, the overlying CV-SNMP Agency is responsible for
coordinating with the private well owners to conduct groundwater sampling and the
laboratory analyses. In areas of overlapping jurisdictions of CV-SNMP Agencies, the agencies
must jointly coordinate to assign responsibility for sampling and analysis of private wells
that fall within the overlapping jurisdictions. Agency responsibilities may include developing
administrative agreements with the well owners (e.g., right-of-entry agreement) and making
physical modifications to the wellhead to enable collection of a sample (e.g., installation of a
sampling port on the well discharge pipe).
Table 3-6 lists all wells proposed for the monitoring program. For each well, the table includes a
designation for the overlying CV-SNMP Agency(ies).
3.3.2 Reporting of Laboratory Results
Section 6.2.4.1.3 of the Policy requires that all data collected for the monitoring program “shall be
electronically reported annually in a format that is compatible with a Groundwater Ambient Monitoring
& Assessment (GAMA) information system and must be integrated into the GAMA information system or
its successor.” This will centralize data generated from SNMPs at the State level and create consistency
across regional water boards to allow for further analysis of monitoring data.
By March 31 of each year, the CV-SNMP Agencies will report the laboratory water-quality results from the
prior calendar year to the GAMA information system.
3.4 Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network
Table 3-4 lists the gaps in the monitoring network that were identified during the selection of the
monitoring network.
Gaps in the monitoring network will be filled in one of two ways:
Field identification of an existing well that: (i) is located near the identified gap; (ii) can be
sampled, and (iii) has well screens across the appropriate depth interval (e.g., across the
Shallow aquifer system). This may require the following activities: field canvassing to
identify a candidate well; research and/or exploratory well surveys to confirm well screen
depth intervals; and constructing any well/wellhead modifications that are necessary to
collect groundwater samples.
Construction of a new monitoring well with well screens across the appropriate depth
interval. This may require the following activities: a well-siting study; well-site acquisition or
easement; development of technical specifications for a monitoring well; conducting a bid
process to select a well drilling/construction subcontractor; obtaining the necessary permits
and CEQA clearance; performing well construction with oversight; performing well
development and testing; preparing a well completion report; equipping the well for
sampling, and wellhead completion including any needed site improvements.
In the first year, the CV-SNMP Agencies will perform the necessary field work and research and develop a
plan for how each gap in the monitoring program will be filled.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
23 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Filling the gaps in the monitoring network is likely the most expensive, complicated element of the
monitoring program. Therefore, the filling of gaps will be executed over a six-year period, subject to
funding availability. The CV-SNMP Agencies will pursue grant funding to support the filling of gaps under
State-run programs such as Integrated Regional Water Management and the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act.
By March 31 of each year, the CV-SNMP Agencies will report to the Regional Board on progress made
toward filling the gaps in the monitoring network over the preceding calendar year (see Section 5.2
below).
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Shallow Aquifer System
1 03S04E20F01S USGS 335348116352701 Active Monitoring 600-640 S Northwest area at WW-GRF
2 03S04E20J01S USGS 335339116345301 Active Monitoring 550-590 S Northeast area at WW-GRF
3 06S07E33G02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
4 06S07E33J02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
5 06S07E34N03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
7 02S04E26C01S Mission Springs Water District Well 28 Inactive MUN 590-898 S Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF; near golf course and septic areas
8 02S04E28A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 34 Active MUN 550-980 S Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF
9 02S05E31L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 11 Inactive Unknown 220-285 S Downgradient of Desert Hot Springs (DHS) subbasin
10 03S04E04Q02S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04Q02S Active Unknown S Upgradient portion of Mission Creek subbasin
11 03S04E11L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 27 Active MUN 180-380 S Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near potential septic areas in N. Palm Springs
12 03S05E05Q01S Hidden Springs Golf Course P27 Active Unknown 220-600 S Downgradient of DHS subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
13 City of Palm Springs Airport MW-2 Active Monitoring 240-250 S Center of Indio subbasin; near airport and areas served non-potable water (NPW)
14 City of Palm Springs MW-1 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
15 City of Palm Springs MW-3 Active Monitoring 140-215 S Upgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
16 City of Palm Springs MW-4 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
17 City of Palm Springs MW-5 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
18 City of Palm Springs MW-6 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
19 03S03E08M01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26 Active MUN 225-553 S Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
20 03S03E10P02S Agua Caliente DWA P05 Active Unknown 306-906 S Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
21 03S04E12B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 3408-1 Active MUN 270-500 S Central portion of Mission Creek subbasin; near potential septic areas
22 03S04E29F01S USGS 335304116353001 Active Monitoring 550-570 S Monitoring at southwestern area of Whitewater GRF
23 03S04E29R01S USGS 335231116345401 Active Monitoring 431-551 S Monitoring at southeastern area of Whitewater GRF
24 04S04E11Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 5 Standby MUN 302-402 S Western portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient of septic areas
25 04S04E35A01S Agua Caliente Indian Canyons Well Active Unknown 360-680 S Near golf courses, septic, and areas served NPW
26 04S05E09F03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4564-1 Active MUN 410-670 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
27 04S05E29A02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 25 Active MUN 166-300 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds; near golf courses and NPW areas
29 04S07E33L02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2S Active Monitoring 60-190 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
30 05S06E09M03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-7 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
31 05S06E09P02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 2 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
32 05S06E10J01S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 1 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
33 05S06E13G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-8 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
34 05S06E14G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-5 Active Monitoring 240-320 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
35 05S06E14P03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-6 Active Monitoring 190-270 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
36 05S06E15F01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-2 Active Monitoring 160-290 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
37 05S06E15M01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-1 Active Monitoring 145-295 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
38 05S06E15P01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-3 Active Monitoring 130-290 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
39 05S06E16A03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-4 Active Monitoring 190-270 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
40 05S06E21Q04S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 3 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
41 05S06E23M02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 4 Active Monitoring 270-360 S Cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
42 05S07E03D02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4S Active Monitoring 60-190 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
43 05S07E04A04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-3S Active Monitoring 50-180 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
44 05S07E16K02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5737-1 Inactive Monitoring 200-415 S Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient from areas served NPW
45 05S07E19D04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-9 Active Monitoring 260-340 S West in Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
46 05S07E24M02S Indio Water Authority Well 1B Active MUN 190-410 S Center of Indio subbasin; upgradient of VSD plant
47 06S06E12G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6650-1 Inactive Monitoring <370 S Within center of The Cove
48 06S07E34A02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-25 Active Monitoring 115-135 S Downgradient from TEL-GRF and golf courses
49 06S07E34D02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-24 Active Monitoring 180-200 S Directly north and downgradient of TEL-GRF
50 07S08E29P03S Coachella Valley Water District MC-3 Active Monitoring 380-440 S At Martinez Canyon GRF
51 08S09E31R03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 8995-1 Active MUN 260-390 S Southern corner of the Indio basin; near agriculture; near Salton Sea
52 03S04E17K01S Valley View MWC 03S04E17K01S Undetermined Unknown 340-375 S Cross-gradient from Whitewater GRF in Garnet Hill subarea
53 03S04E22A01S Erin Miner 03S04E22A01S Active Unknown 180-230 S Downgradient of Whitewater GRF in Garnet Hill subarea; upgradient of West Valley WWTP
54 03S05E08P02S Bluebeyond Fisheries 03S05E08P02S Active Fish Farm 200-400 S Central Mission Creek subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Shallow Aquifer System
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
55 03S05E15N01S Too Many Palms LLC 03S05E15N01S Active Irrigation 158-320 S Distal area in Mission Creek subbasin; downgradient of DHS subbasin
56 03S05E18J01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E18J01S Active Irrigation 76-340 S Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near golf course and septic areas
57 03S06E21G01S Sky Valley Mobile Home Park 03S06E21G01S Undetermined Unknown 188-248 S Western portion of Sky Valley subarea; near septic areas
58 04S05E04F01S So Pacific Trans Co #32601 04S05E04F01S Active Irrigation 276-576 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient from Garnet Hill subarea; near septic areas
59 04S05E23F01S Westin Mission Hills Resort 04S05E23F01S Active Irrigation 275-1165 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
60 04S05E34C01S Manufacture Home Community Inc 04S05E34C01S Active Irrigation 240-500 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
61 04S05E35Q01S Tamarisk Country Club 04S05E35Q01S Active Irrigation 171-518 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
62 04S05E36L02S Annenberg Estate 04S05E36L02S Active Irrigation 252-650 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
63 04S06E20C01S Shenandoah Ventures LP 04S06E20C01S Inactive Irrigation 250-790 S Upgradient in Thousand Palms area; upgradient of septic areas
66 05S05E12D01S Thunderbird Country Club 05S05E12D01S Active Irrigation 125-360 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
67 05S06E12M01S Palm Desert Resort Country Club 05S06E12M01S Active Irrigation 140-650 S Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
68 05S07E08Q01S Bermuda Dunes Airport 05S07E08Q01S Active Domestic 203-654 S Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
69 05S07E28H02S Tricon/COB Riverdale LP 05S07E28H02S Active Domestic 162-636 S Center of Indio subbasin
70 05S08E28M02S JS Cooper 05S08E28M02S Undetermined Unknown 208-268 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient of VSD discharge point
71 05S08E30N03S Carver Tract Mutual Water Co 05S08E30N03S Active Domestic 270-330 S Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient from VSD plant
72 06S07E07B01S Traditions Golf Club 06S07E07B01S Active Irrigation 200-480 S Downgradient from The Cove; near golf courses and septic areas
73 06S08E02L01S Prime Time International 06S08E02L01S Undetermined Irrigation 216-407 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
74 06S08E05K01S Peter Rabbit Farms 06S08E05K01S Active Irrigation 126-375 S Eastern portion of Indio subbasin in Coachella
75 06S08E32L01S Guillermo Torres 06S08E32L01S Undetermined Unknown 127-227 S Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
76 07S08E27A01S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A01S Active Domestic 147-215 S Downgradient from Martinez Canyon GRF; near septic areas
77 07S09E14C01S Tudor Ranch Inc.07S09E14C01S Active Domestic 93-290 S Southeastern corner of Indio subbasin; near agriculture and septic areas; near Salton Sea
78 08S08E15G02S Thermiculture Management LLC 08S08E15G02S Active Irrigation 260-500 S Southern corner of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; near Salton Sea
79 Mission Springs Water District Well 25 Active MUN 330-455 S Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
80 Mission Springs Water District Well 1 Inactive Monitoring S Northern Miracle Hill subarea; upgradient of Mission Creek subbasin
81 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-1 Active Monitoring 186-236 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
82 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-2 Active Monitoring 220-270 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
83 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-3 Active Monitoring 200-250 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
(a) Well Status Well Status "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use MUN municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S Shallow aquifer system. D Deep aquifer system
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Deep Aquifer System
84 03S04E20F02S USGS 335348116352702 Active Monitoring 850-890 D Northwest area at WW-GRF
85 03S04E20J03S USGS 335339116345303 Active Monitoring 850-890 D Northeast area at WW-GRF
86 06S07E33G01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21D Active Monitoring 390-410 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
87 06S07E33J01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22D Active Monitoring 520-540 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
88 06S07E34N02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23D Active Monitoring 525-545 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
89 07S09E30R03S Coachella Valley Water District Peggy Active Monitoring 730-770 D Downgradient of WRP-4; near agriculture; area of subsurface outflow toward Salton Sea
90 08S09E07N02S Coachella Valley Water District Rosie Active Monitoring 720-780 D Near agriculture; area of subsurface outflow toward Salton Sea
91 05S07E24L03S Indio Water Authority Well 1E Active MUN 552-815 D Center of Indio subbasin; upgradient of VSD plant
92 02S04E28J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 35 Active MUN 725-1020 D Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF
93 02S04E36P01S Mission Springs Water District Well 37 Active MUN 450-1080 D Downgradient of DHS subbasin; possibly downgradient of Horton WWTP
94 02S05E31H01S Mission Springs Water District Well 5 Inactive Monitoring 274-784 D Northern Miracle Hill subarea; upgradient of Mission Creek subbasin
95 03S03E07D01S Mission Springs Water District Well 25A Active MUN 500-740 D Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
96 03S04E04P01S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04P01S Active Unknown D Upgradient portion of Mission Creek subbasin
97 03S04E11A02S Mission Springs Water District Well 32 Active MUN 320-980 D Center of Mission Creek subbasin; near potential septic areas
98 03S03E08A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26A Active MUN 320-600 D Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
99 03S03E10P01S Agua Caliente DWA P04 Active Unknown 476-776 D Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
100 03S04E14J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 33 Active MUN 360-650 D Along boundary of Mission Creek subbasin/Garnet Hill subarea
101 03S04E19L01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 43 Active MUN 500-900 D Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
102 03S04E34H02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 35 Active MUN 600-1000 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
103 03S04E36Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 38 Active MUN 620-1000 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
104 04S04E02B01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 22 Active MUN 570-1003 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
105 04S04E11Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 18 Standby MUN 535-948 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient of septic areas
106 04S04E13C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 23 Active MUN 512-912 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport
107 04S04E24E01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 32 Active MUN 600-1000 D Western portion of Palm Springs subarea; near areas served non-potable water (NPW)
108 04S04E24H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 29 Active MUN 600-1000 D Upgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
109 04S04E25C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 39 Active MUN 580-750 D Downgradient of Indian Canyon; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
110 04S05E05A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4568-1 Active MUN 800-955 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient from Garnet Hill; upgradient of septic areas
111 04S05E08N01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 41 Active MUN 610-1000 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport, near golf courses and areas served NPW
112 04S05E09R01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4567-1 Active MUN 855-1150 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
113 04S05E15G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4521-1 Active MUN 500-800 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
114 04S05E17Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 31 Active MUN 600-1000 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport, golf courses, and areas served NPW
115 04S05E25D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4507-2 Active MUN 860-1320 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
116 04S05E27K01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4527-1 Active MUN 850-1155 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near NPR and septic areas
117 04S05E29H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 26 Active MUN 590-990 D Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds; near golf and areas served NPW
118 04S05E35G04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4504-1 Active MUN 600-1000 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
119 04S06E18Q04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4630-1 Active MUN 480-990 D Upgradient in Thousand Palms area; upgradient of septic areas
120 04S06E28K04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4629-1 Active Monitoring 496-796 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
121 04S07E31H01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4722-1 Active MUN 570-1160 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
122 04S07E33L01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2D Active MUN 245-395 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
123 05S06E02C01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5664-1 Active MUN 500-930 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
124 05S06E06B03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5630-1 Active Monitoring 455-890 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
125 05S06E09A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5682-1 Active Monitoring 850-1300 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
126 05S06E09F01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5637-1 Inactive MUN 450-830 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
127 05S06E14B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5665-1 Inactive MUN 400-600 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
128 05S06E14P02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5603-2 Active MUN 720-975 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf courses and areas served NPW
129 05S06E16A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5620-2 Active MUN 1040-1360 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
130 05S06E16K03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5681-1 Active Monitoring 900-1200 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
131 05S06E17L01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5667-1 Active Monitoring 470-800 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
132 05S06E20A02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5674-1 Inactive Monitoring 750-1050 D South/cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
133 05S07E03D01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4D Active MUN 245-395 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
134 05S07E04A01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-1 Dave Price Active Monitoring 147-367 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
135 05S07E15N01S Indio Water Authority Well AA Active MUN 550-1230 D Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient from areas served NPW
136 05S07E19A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5708-1 Inactive MUN 450-970 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
137 05S07E20J01S Indio Water Authority Well T Active MUN 580-1305 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
138 05S07E26E02S Indio Water Authority Well 3B Active MUN 500-1200 D Center of Indio subbasin
Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Deep Aquifer System
Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name
139 05S07E27P01S Indio Water Authority Well Z Active MUN 580-1290 D Center of Indio subbasin
140 05S07E33E01S Indio Water Authority Well S Active MUN 460-1260 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
141 05S07E34P04S Indio Water Authority Well V Active MUN 460-1270 D Western portion of subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
142 05S07E35R02S Indio Water Authority Well U Active MUN 480-1190 D Center of Indio subbasin
143 05S07E36D03S Coachella Water Authority Well 19 Active MUN 650-1250 D Center of Indio subbasin
144 05S08E31C03S Coachella Water Authority Well 11 Active MUN 513-818 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient from VSD plant
145 06S07E06B01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6701-1 Active MUN 580-800 D Downgradient from The Cove; near golf courses and septic areas
146 06S07E22B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6726-1 Active MUN 640-1160 D North/downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf courses, septic, and agricultural areas
147 06S07E34A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6728-1 Active MUN 500-750 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; near golf courses
148 06S07E34D01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6729-1 Active MUN 500-780 D Directly north/downgradient of TEL-GRF
149 06S08E06K02S Coachella Water Authority Well 12 Active MUN 500-1010 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin
150 06S08E09N02S Coachella Water Authority Well 16 Active Monitoring 480-730 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
151 06S08E19D05S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6808-1 Active MUN 675-1200 D Center of Indio subbasin; near septic and agricultural areas
152 06S08E22D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6803-1 Inactive MUN 500-1100 D Downgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP; near septic and agricultural areas
153 06S08E25P04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6807-1 Active MUN 665-1300 D Upgradient of WRP-4; downgradient of CWA WWTP; near agriculture and septic areas
154 06S08E28N06S Coachella Water Authority Well 18 Active Monitoring 900-1190 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient of VSD discharge point
155 07S08E17A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7803-1 Active MUN 250-710 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural and septic areas
156 07S09E23N01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7990-1 Inactive Unknown 530-560 D Southeastern corner of the basin; near agricultural and septic areas; near Salton Sea
157 Indio Water Authority Well 13A Active Irrigation 550-1171 D East in subbasin; downgradient from WRP-7 ponds and NPR areas
158 03S05E08B01S R.C Roberts 03S05E08B01S Undetermined Irrigation 356-516 D Downgradient of DHS subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
159 03S05E17M01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E17M01S Active Unknown 305-412 D Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near golf course and septic areas
160 03S05E20H02S Donald Franklin 03S05E20H02S Active Irrigation 240-360 D Distal area in Mission Creek subbasin; upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near septic
161 03S06E21R01S Joel Rosenfeld 03S06E21R01S Undetermined Irrigation 355-495 D Western portion of Sky Valley subarea; near septic
162 05S05E12B03S Tandika Corp 05S05E12B03S Active Irrigation 410-800 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near NPR and septic areas
163 05S06E13F01S PD Golf Operations LLC 05S06E13F01S Active Irrigation 400-700 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
164 05S06E15H01S Toscana Country Club 05S06E15H01S Active Irrigation 430-950 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
165 05S06E22C02S Desert Horizons Country Club 05S06E22C02S Active Irrigation 550-990 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
166 05S06E27A01S El Dorado Country Club 05S06E27A01S Active MUN 458-596 D South/cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
167 05S06E29P04S Bighorn Golf Club 05S06E29P04S Active MUN 530-720 D Upgradient of Palm Desert; near golf courses and septic areas
168 05S07E07F04S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 4 Active MUN 430-730 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
169 05S07E08L01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 11 Active Unknown 500-1060 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
170 05S07E17K01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 12 Active Irrigation 450-950 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
171 05S08E09N03S Jamie Brack 05S08E09N03S Undetermined Unknown 480-580 D Downgradient of septic areas in Fargo subarea; upgradient of Indio subbasin
172 06S07E27B01S Andalusia Golf Club 06S07E27B01S Active Irrigation 300-780 D Downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf course and agricultural areas
173 06S07E35L02S Castro Bros Castro Bros Active Unknown 300-400 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; near golf courses and agricultural areas
174 06S08E11A01S Cocopah Nurseries Inc 06S08E11A01S Active Unknown 400-842 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
175 06S08E31P01S Deer Creek Deer Creek Active Irrigation 400-550 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF, in agricultural area
176 06S08E35E02S Otto L. Zahler 06S08E35E02S Undetermined Unknown 521-596 D Center of Indio subbasin; directly upgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area
177 07S07E02G02S Warren Webber Warren Webber Active Irrigation 380-700 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural area
178 07S08E01L02S Bill Wordon 07S08E01L02S Undetermined Domestic 500-880 D Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient of WRP-4, in agricultural area
179 07S08E27A02S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A02S Active MUN 491-811 D Downgradient from Martinez Canyon GRF; in agricultural area
180 07S09E10F01S Prime Time International 07S09E10F01S Active Unknown 360-500 D Southeast Indio subbasin; in agricultural area; near Salton Sea
181 Mission Springs Water District Well 31 Active MUN 270-670 D Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near potential septic areas in N. Palm Springs
(a) Well Status Well Status "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use MUN municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S Shallow aquifer system. D Deep aquifer system
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-3. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Perched Aquifer System
182 Coachella Valley Water District WRP2 MW3 Active Monitoring <90 P At WRP-2; represents subsurface discharge to Salton Sea
183 06S07E27J03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-8 Active Monitoring 25-45 P North/downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf course and agriculture
184 06S07E34A03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-9 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF and golf course
185 06S08E31R01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-10 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
186 07S08E06P01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-11 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
187 Coachella Valley Water District PEW-1 Active Monitoring 10-55 P At WRP-4; agricultural area
(a) Well Status: "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use: MUN = municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S = Shallow aquifer system. D = Deep aquifer system
Well
Status(a)'Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-4. Gaps in SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network
G1 S Monitoring of subsurface inflows from areas upgradient of Mission Creek GRF 700-1000 ft-bgs DWA, MSWD
G2 S Monitoring directly downgradient of the planned MSWD West Valley WWTP 200-300 ft-bgs MSWD, DWA
G3 S Monitoring of southern Miracle Hill subarea; near septic; upgradient of Desert Crest WWTP 100-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G4 S Monitoring of the Fargo subarea of DHS subbasin; near septic 100-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G5 S Monitoring upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF 300-500 ft-bgs DWA
G6 S Monitoring center of Indio subbasin; near airport, golf courses, and areas served non-potable water (NPW)250-350 ft-bgs DWA
G7 S Monitoring a spatial gap in western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses, septic and areas served NPW 200-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G8 S Monitoring of subsurface inflows from areas upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Desert Canyon 250-400 ft-bgs CVWD
G9 S Monitoring a spatial gap in western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD, IWA
G10 S Monitoring downgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP; near septic areas and agriculture 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G11 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf courses, septic, and agricultural areas 85-160 ft-bgs CVWD
G12 S Monitoring a spatial gap in center of Indio subbasin; near septic areas and agriculture 100-235 ft-bgs CVWD
G13 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural areas 50-150 ft-bgs CVWD
G14 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area; near Salton Sea 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G15 S Monitoring a spatial gap directly upgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area 100-275 ft-bgs CVWD
G16 S Monitoring a spatial gap upgradient of WRP-4; downgradient of CWA/CSD WWTP; near agriculture, septic 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G17 P Monitoring a spatial gap in northern portion of Perched area; downgradient from Fargo subarea <100 ft-bgs CVWD, IWA, VSD
G18 P Monitoring a spatial gap on eastern side of Perched area; in agricultural area <70 ft-bgs CVWD, CWA/CSD
G19 P Monitoring a spatial gap in center of Perched area; near agricultural and septic areas <90 ft-bgs CVWD, CWA/CSD
G20 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <70 ft-bgs CVWD
G21 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <70 ft-bgs CVWD
G22 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <90 ft-bgs CVWD
G23 S Monitoring a spatial gap in Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW 150-300 ft-bgs CVWD
(b) CVWD = Coachella Valley Water District; CWA/CSD = Coachella Water Authority and Sanitary District; DWA = Desert Water Agency; IWA = Indio Water Authority; VSD = Valley Sanitary District;
MSWD = Mission Springs Water District
(a) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S = Shallow aquifer system.
Map_ID Approx. Depth
of Well Screens
Depth
Code(a)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring Program Overlying
SNMP Agency(b)
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-5. Analyte List for the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analytes Justification Method Cost/Sample
Total Dissolved Solids Measure of total dissolved salt content in water E160.1/SM2540C $14
Nitrate as Nitrogen Primary nutrient in groundwater EPA 300.0 $12
Major cations: K, Na, Ca, Mg Useful in source water characterization EPA 200.7 $20
Major anions: Cl, SO4 Useful in source water characterization EPA 300.0 $18
Total Alkalinity (HCO3, CO3, OH)Useful in source water characterization SM 2320B/2330B $13
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
1 03S04E20F01S USGS 335348116352701 Active Monitoring 600-640 S CVWD
2 03S04E20J01S USGS 335339116345301 Active Monitoring 550-590 S CVWD
3 06S07E33G02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
4 06S07E33J02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
5 06S07E34N03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
7 02S04E26C01S Mission Springs Water District Well 28 Inactive MUN 590-898 S MSWD
8 02S04E28A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 34 Active MUN 550-980 S MSWD
9 02S05E31L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 11 Inactive Unknown 220-285 S MSWD
10 03S04E04Q02S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04Q02S Active Unknown S DWA, MSWD
11 03S04E11L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 27 Active MUN 180-380 S MSWD
12 03S05E05Q01S Hidden Springs Golf Course P27 Active Unknown 220-600 S DWA, MSWD
13 City of Palm Springs Airport MW-2 Active Monitoring 240-250 S CPS
14 City of Palm Springs MW-1 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
15 City of Palm Springs MW-3 Active Monitoring 140-215 S CPS
16 City of Palm Springs MW-4 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
17 City of Palm Springs MW-5 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
18 City of Palm Springs MW-6 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
19 03S03E08M01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26 Active MUN 225-553 S MSWD
20 03S03E10P02S Agua Caliente DWA P05 Active Unknown 306-906 S DWA
21 03S04E12B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 3408-1 Active MUN 270-500 S CVWD
22 03S04E29F01S USGS 335304116353001 Active Monitoring 550-570 S CVWD
23 03S04E29R01S USGS 335231116345401 Active Monitoring 431-551 S CVWD
24 04S04E11Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 5 Standby MUN 302-402 S DWA
25 04S04E35A01S Agua Caliente Indian Canyons Well Active Unknown 360-680 S DWA
26 04S05E09F03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4564-1 Active MUN 410-670 S CVWD
27 04S05E29A02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 25 Active MUN 166-300 S DWA
29 04S07E33L02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2S Active Monitoring 60-190 S CVWD
30 05S06E09M03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-7 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
31 05S06E09P02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 2 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
32 05S06E10J01S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 1 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
33 05S06E13G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-8 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
34 05S06E14G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-5 Active Monitoring 240-320 S CVWD
35 05S06E14P03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-6 Active Monitoring 190-270 S CVWD
36 05S06E15F01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-2 Active Monitoring 160-290 S CVWD
37 05S06E15M01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-1 Active Monitoring 145-295 S CVWD
38 05S06E15P01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-3 Active Monitoring 130-290 S CVWD
39 05S06E16A03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-4 Active Monitoring 190-270 S CVWD
40 05S06E21Q04S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 3 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
41 05S06E23M02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 4 Active Monitoring 270-360 S CVWD
42 05S07E03D02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4S Active Monitoring 60-190 S CVWD
43 05S07E04A04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-3S Active Monitoring 50-180 S CVWD
44 05S07E16K02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5737-1 Inactive MUN 200-415 S CVWD, IWA, VSD
45 05S07E19D04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-9 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
46 05S07E24M02S Indio Water Authority Well 1B Active Monitoring 190-410 S IWA
47 06S06E12G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6650-1 Inactive Monitoring <370 S CVWD
48 06S07E34A02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-25 Active Monitoring 115-135 S CVWD
49 06S07E34D02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-24 Active MUN 180-200 S CVWD
50 07S08E29P03S Coachella Valley Water District MC-3 Active Unknown 380-440 S CVWD
51 08S09E31R03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 8995-1 Active Unknown 260-390 S CVWD
52 03S04E17K01S Valley View MWC 03S04E17K01S Undetermined Fish Farm 340-375 S DWA, MSWD
53 03S04E22A01S Erin Miner 03S04E22A01S Active Irrigation 180-230 S DWA
54 03S05E08P02S Bluebeyond Fisheries 03S05E08P02S Active Irrigation 200-400 S CVWD
55 03S05E15N01S Too Many Palms LLC 03S05E15N01S Active Unknown 158-320 S CVWD
56 03S05E18J01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E18J01S Active Irrigation 76-340 S CVWD
57 03S06E21G01S Sky Valley Mobile Home Park 03S06E21G01S Undetermined Irrigation 188-248 S CVWD
58 04S05E04F01S So Pacific Trans Co #32601 04S05E04F01S Active Irrigation 276-576 S CVWD
59 04S05E23F01S Westin Mission Hills Resort 04S05E23F01S Active Irrigation 275-1165 S CVWD
60 04S05E34C01S Manufacture Home Community Inc 04S05E34C01S Active Irrigation 240-500 S CVWD
61 04S05E35Q01S Tamarisk Country Club 04S05E35Q01S Active Irrigation 171-518 S CVWD
62 04S05E36L02S Annenberg Estate 04S05E36L02S Active Unknown 252-650 S CVWD
63 04S06E20C01S Shenandoah Ventures LP 04S06E20C01S Inactive Irrigation 250-790 S CVWD
66 05S05E12D01S Thunderbird Country Club 05S05E12D01S Active Domestic 125-360 S CVWD
67 05S06E12M01S Palm Desert Resort Country Club 05S06E12M01S Active Domestic 140-650 S CVWD
68 05S07E08Q01S Bermuda Dunes Airport 05S07E08Q01S Active Unknown 203-654 S CVWD, MDMWC
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 3
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
69 05S07E28H02S Tricon/COB Riverdale LP 05S07E28H02S Active Domestic 162-636 S CVWD, IWA, VSD
70 05S08E28M02S JS Cooper 05S08E28M02S Undetermined Irrigation 208-268 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
71 05S08E30N03S Carver Tract Mutual Water Co 05S08E30N03S Active Irrigation 270-330 S CVWD, VSD
72 06S07E07B01S Traditions Golf Club 06S07E07B01S Active Irrigation 200-480 S CVWD
73 06S08E02L01S Prime Time International 06S08E02L01S Undetermined Unknown 216-407 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
74 06S08E05K01S Peter Rabbit Farms 06S08E05K01S Active Domestic 126-375 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
75 06S08E32L01S Guillermo Torres 06S08E32L01S Undetermined Domestic 127-227 S CVWD
76 07S08E27A01S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A01S Active Irrigation 147-215 S CVWD
77 07S09E14C01S Tudor Ranch Inc.07S09E14C01S Active MUN 93-290 S CVWD
78 08S08E15G02S Thermiculture Management LLC 08S08E15G02S Active Monitoring 260-500 S CVWD
79 Mission Springs Water District Well 25 Active Monitoring 330-455 S MSWD
80 Mission Springs Water District Well 1 Inactive Monitoring S MSWD
81 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-1 Active Monitoring 186-236 S MSWD
82 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-2 Active Monitoring 220-270 S MSWD
83 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-3 Active Monitoring 200-250 S MSWD
84 03S04E20F02S USGS 335348116352702 Active Monitoring 850-890 D CVWD
85 03S04E20J03S USGS 335339116345303 Active Monitoring 850-890 D CVWD
86 06S07E33G01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21D Active Monitoring 390-410 D CVWD
87 06S07E33J01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22D Active Monitoring 520-540 D CVWD
88 06S07E34N02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23D Active Monitoring 525-545 D CVWD
89 07S09E30R03S Coachella Valley Water District Peggy Active MUN 730-770 D CVWD
90 08S09E07N02S Coachella Valley Water District Rosie Active MUN 720-780 D CVWD
91 05S07E24L03S Indio Water Authority Well 1E Active MUN 552-815 D IWA
92 02S04E28J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 35 Active Monitoring 725-1020 D MSWD
93 02S04E36P01S Mission Springs Water District Well 37 Active MUN 450-1080 D MSWD
94 02S05E31H01S Mission Springs Water District Well 5 Inactive Unknown 274-784 D MSWD
95 03S03E07D01S Mission Springs Water District Well 25A Active MUN 500-740 D MSWD
96 03S04E04P01S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04P01S Active MUN D DWA, MSWD
97 03S04E11A02S Mission Springs Water District Well 32 Active Unknown 320-980 D MSWD
98 03S03E08A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26A Active MUN 320-600 D MSWD
99 03S03E10P01S Agua Caliente DWA P04 Active MUN 476-776 D DWA
100 03S04E14J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 33 Active MUN 360-650 D MSWD
101 03S04E19L01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 43 Active MUN 500-900 D DWA
102 03S04E34H02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 35 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
103 03S04E36Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 38 Active MUN 620-1000 D DWA
104 04S04E02B01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 22 Active MUN 570-1003 D DWA
105 04S04E11Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 18 Standby MUN 535-948 D DWA
106 04S04E13C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 23 Active MUN 512-912 D DWA
107 04S04E24E01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 32 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
108 04S04E24H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 29 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
109 04S04E25C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 39 Active MUN 580-750 D DWA
110 04S05E05A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4568-1 Active MUN 800-955 D CVWD
111 04S05E08N01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 41 Active MUN 610-1000 D DWA
112 04S05E09R01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4567-1 Active MUN 855-1150 D CVWD
113 04S05E15G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4521-1 Active MUN 500-800 D CVWD
114 04S05E17Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 31 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
115 04S05E25D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4507-2 Active MUN 860-1320 D CVWD
116 04S05E27K01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4527-1 Active MUN 850-1155 D CVWD
117 04S05E29H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 26 Active MUN 590-990 D DWA
118 04S05E35G04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4504-1 Active MUN 600-1000 D CVWD
119 04S06E18Q04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4630-1 Active MUN 480-990 D CVWD
120 04S06E28K04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4629-1 Active Monitoring 496-796 D CVWD
121 04S07E31H01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4722-1 Active MUN 570-1160 D CVWD
122 04S07E33L01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2D Active MUN 245-395 D CVWD
123 05S06E02C01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5664-1 Active MUN 500-930 D CVWD
124 05S06E06B03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5630-1 Active Monitoring 455-890 D CVWD
125 05S06E09A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5682-1 Active Monitoring 850-1300 D CVWD
126 05S06E09F01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5637-1 Inactive MUN 450-830 D CVWD
127 05S06E14B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5665-1 Inactive MUN 400-600 D CVWD
128 05S06E14P02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5603-2 Active MUN 720-975 D CVWD
129 05S06E16A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5620-2 Active MUN 1040-1360 D CVWD
130 05S06E16K03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5681-1 Active Monitoring 900-1200 D CVWD
131 05S06E17L01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5667-1 Active Monitoring 470-800 D CVWD
132 05S06E20A02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5674-1 Inactive Monitoring 750-1050 D CVWD
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 3
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
133 05S07E03D01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4D Active MUN 245-395 D CVWD
134 05S07E04A01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-1 Active Monitoring 147-367 D CVWD
135 05S07E15N01S Indio Water Authority Well AA Active MUN 550-1230 D IWA
136 05S07E19A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5708-1 Inactive MUN 450-970 D CVWD
137 05S07E20J01S Indio Water Authority Well T Active MUN 580-1305 D IWA
138 05S07E26E02S Indio Water Authority Well 3B Active MUN 500-1200 D IWA
139 05S07E27P01S Indio Water Authority Well Z Active MUN 580-1290 D IWA
140 05S07E33E01S Indio Water Authority Well S Active MUN 460-1260 D IWA
141 05S07E34P04S Indio Water Authority Well V Active MUN 460-1270 D IWA
142 05S07E35R02S Indio Water Authority Well U Active MUN 480-1190 D IWA
143 05S07E36D03S Coachella Water Authority Well 19 Active MUN 650-1250 D CWA/CSD
144 05S08E31C03S Coachella Water Authority Well 11 Active MUN 513-818 D CWA/CSD
145 06S07E06B01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6701-1 Active MUN 580-800 D CVWD
146 06S07E22B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6726-1 Active MUN 640-1160 D CVWD
147 06S07E34A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6728-1 Active MUN 500-750 D CVWD
148 06S07E34D01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6729-1 Active MUN 500-780 D CVWD
149 06S08E06K02S Coachella Water Authority Well 12 Active MUN 500-1010 D CWA/CSD
150 06S08E09N02S Coachella Water Authority Well 16 Active Monitoring 480-730 D CWA/CSD
151 06S08E19D05S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6808-1 Active MUN 675-1200 D CVWD
152 06S08E22D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6803-1 Inactive MUN 500-1100 D CVWD
153 06S08E25P04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6807-1 Active MUN 665-1300 D CVWD
154 06S08E28N06S Coachella Water Authority Well 18 Active Monitoring 900-1190 D CWA/CSD
155 07S08E17A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7803-1 Active MUN 250-710 D CVWD
156 07S09E23N01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7990-1 Inactive Unknown 530-560 D CVWD
157 Indio Water Authority Well 13A Active Irrigation 550-1171 D IWA
158 03S05E08B01S R.C Roberts 03S05E08B01S Undetermined Irrigation 356-516 D DWA
159 03S05E17M01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E17M01S Active Unknown 305-412 D CVWD
160 03S05E20H02S Donald Franklin 03S05E20H02S Active Irrigation 240-360 D CVWD
161 03S06E21R01S Joel Rosenfeld 03S06E21R01S Undetermined Irrigation 355-495 D CVWD
162 05S05E12B03S Tandika Corp 05S05E12B03S Active Irrigation 410-800 D CVWD
163 05S06E13F01S PD Golf Operations LLC 05S06E13F01S Active Irrigation 400-700 D CVWD
164 05S06E15H01S Toscana Country Club 05S06E15H01S Active Irrigation 430-950 D CVWD
165 05S06E22C02S Desert Horizons Country Club 05S06E22C02S Active Irrigation 550-990 D CVWD
166 05S06E27A01S El Dorado Country Club 05S06E27A01S Active MUN 458-596 D CVWD
167 05S06E29P04S Bighorn Golf Club 05S06E29P04S Active MUN 530-720 D CVWD
168 05S07E07F04S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 4 Active MUN 430-730 D MDMWC
169 05S07E08L01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 11 Active Unknown 500-1060 D MDMWC
170 05S07E17K01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 12 Active Irrigation 450-950 D MDMWC
171 05S08E09N03S Jamie Brack 05S08E09N03S Undetermined Unknown 480-580 D CVWD, IWA
172 06S07E27B01S Andalusia Golf Club 06S07E27B01S Active Irrigation 300-780 D CVWD
173 06S07E35L02S Castro Bros Castro Bros Active Unknown 300-400 D CVWD
174 06S08E11A01S Cocopah Nurseries Inc 06S08E11A01S Active Unknown 400-842 D CVWD, CWA/CSD
175 06S08E31P01S Deer Creek Deer Creek Active Irrigation 400-550 D CVWD
176 06S08E35E02S Otto L. Zahler 06S08E35E02S Undetermined Unknown 521-596 D CVWD
177 07S07E02G02S Warren Webber Warren Webber Active Irrigation 380-700 D CVWD
178 07S08E01L02S Bill Wordon 07S08E01L02S Undetermined Domestic 500-880 D CVWD
179 07S08E27A02S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A02S Active MUN 491-811 D CVWD
180 07S09E10F01S Prime Time International 07S09E10F01S Active Monitoring 360-500 D CVWD
181 Mission Springs Water District Well 31 Active Monitoring 270-670 D MSWD
182 Coachella Valley Water District WRP2 MW3 Active Monitoring <90 P CVWD
183 06S07E27J03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-8 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
184 06S07E34A03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-9 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
185 06S08E31R01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-10 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
186 07S08E06P01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-11 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
187 Coachella Valley Water District PEW-1 Active Monitoring 10-55 P CVWD
(a) Well Status: "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use: MUN = municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system. S = Shallow aquifer system. D = Deep aquifer system
(d) CVWD = Coachella Valley Water District; CWA/CSD = Coachella Water Authority and Sanitary District; DWA = Desert Water Agency; IWA = Indio Water Authority; MDMWC = Myoma Dunes Mutual Water
Company; VSD = Valley Sanitary District; MSWD = Mission Springs Water District; CPS = City of Palm Springs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 3 of 3
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 4-16-21
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
37 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
CV-SNMP DEVELOPMENT WORKPLAN
This section describes:
• The logic and reasoning behind this proposed CV-SNMP Development Workplan, and how it
ensures the development of a CV-SNMP that will comply with State law and Policy.
• The detailed scope of work for the CV-SNMP Development Workplan.
Through discussions and advice from West Yost Associates, the CV-SNMP Agencies have concluded that
numeric objectives for TDS and nitrate in groundwater are necessary for a CV-SNMP that complies with
the 2018 Policy and resolves the concerns of the Regional Board with the 2015 CV-SNMP. Numeric
objectives in the CV-SNMP will be necessary to:
• Demonstrate that beneficial uses are protected.
• Quantify the magnitude of available assimilative capacity for salt and nutrient loading.
• Provide a technical basis for the Regional Board to allocate the use of assimilative capacity.
• Set triggers for implementation measures at appropriate locations and times.
Currently, the Basin Plan includes a nitrate-nitrogen objective of 10 mgl for groundwater in the Coachella
Valley based on the primary drinking water MCL but lacks scientifically-derived numeric TDS objectives
that are consistent with the provisions of Title 22. The process to recommend numeric TDS objectives
needs to include technically-defensible methods and tools to answer the following questions:
• What are logical management areas within the Basin (management zones) and the beneficial uses
of groundwater within the management zones?
• What is current groundwater quality? And, is current groundwater quality protective of beneficial
uses?
• How is groundwater quality expected to change in the future, both across the basin and within
the depth-specific aquifer systems?
• Will these changes in groundwater quality impact beneficial uses? If so, where and when?
• What are economically and technically feasible salt management strategies, that when
implemented, will achieve the objectives of both the CV-SNMP stakeholders and the Regional
Board? Economic feasibility needs to be defined and should consider the sources of revenue and
the factors that could restrict the sources of revenue.
California Water Code section 13241 (CWC 13241) describes the factors to consider when establishing the
TDS objectives:
a) Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water.
b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality
of water available thereto.
c) Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all
factors which affect water quality in the area.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
38 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
d) Economic considerations.
e) The need for developing housing within the region.
f) The need to develop and use recycled water.
The CV-SNMP Development Workplan must address each of these factors in CWC 13241, and answer the
questions above, when recommending the TDS objectives for groundwater to ensure that the Basin is put
to maximum beneficial use while also protecting water quality pursuant to State law and Policy.
The proposed scope-of-work for the CV-SNMP Development Workplan is described in the subsections
below, and is organized as follows:
Task 4.1 Select Consultants for CV-SNMP Facilitation and Technical Services
Task 4.2 Establish CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Committee
Task 4.3 Characterize N/TDS Loading to the Groundwater Basin
Task 4.4 Characterize Current Groundwater Quality
Task 4.5 Delineate Draft Management Zones and Describe Metrics to Characterize Beneficial Use
Protection
Task 4.6 Develop Technical Approach for Forecasting N/TDS Concentrations in Groundwater
Task 4.7 Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and Evaluate the Baseline Scenario
Task 4.8 Forecast N/TDS Concentrations for CV-SNMP Scenarios
Task 4.9 Characterize and Compare the Cost of Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios
Task 4.10 Select the Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario, Finalize Management Zones and Beneficial Uses,
and Recommend TDS Objectives
Task 4.11 Prepare Final CV-SNMP
Table 4-1 describes how this CV-SNMP Development Workplan will result in a CV-SNMP that satisfies all
recommended and required components for SNMPs pursuant to the 2018 Policy.
4.1 Select Consultants for CV-SNMP Facilitation and Technical Services
The objective of this task is to select a qualified consultant(s) to facilitate and execute the implementation
of this workplan.
• A Facilitation Consultant will be responsible for leading and conducting stakeholder outreach and
engagement efforts, leading and attending all stakeholder and technical meetings, and co-
authoring all interim and final project deliverables with the Technical Consultant. Qualifications
for the Facilitation Consultant include comprehensive knowledge of the legal, policy, and
regulatory issues regarding SNMPs; successful experience in leading stakeholder groups; and local
knowledge of the Coachella Valley and its CV-SNMP stakeholders, including the agricultural, golf,
and tribal entities.
• A Technical Consultant will be responsible for executing the technical scope-of-work described in
this workplan. Minimum qualifications for the Technical Consultant include: successful experience
in characterizing water quality and the fate and transport of salt and nutrients; successful
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
39 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
experience in water and groundwater management planning; successful experience in modeling
of water quality; and local knowledge of the hydrology, hydrogeology, and water resources of the
Coachella Valley. Preferred qualifications include a working knowledge and of the legal, policy,
and regulatory issues regarding SNMPs and successful experience in leading technical
committees.
In this task, the CV-SNMP Agencies will prepare a request for qualification (RFQ) or request for proposals
(RFP) and select a qualified consultant(s) for stakeholder facilitation and technical services. Once the
consultant(s) is selected, the CV-SNMP Agencies will negotiate and issue a contract(s).
4.2 Establish CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory
Committee
The objective of this task is to convene a CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group and the CV-SNMP Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC). The CV-SNMP Agencies and the selected consultants will organize and
facilitate both groups during the implementation of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan.
4.2.1 Convene the CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group
The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be comprised of the CV-SNMP Agencies, other salt and nutrient
contributors to groundwater, and other interested groups. The objectives of convening the CV-SNMP
Stakeholder Group are:
• Provide the CV-SNMP Agencies with a venue to engage interested parties in the CV-SNMP
development process.
• Inform the CV-SNMP development process of the needs and wants of all interested parties.
• Provide a venue to keep the interested parties informed through key steps of the CV-SNMP
development process.
• Understand the ability/authority of the stakeholders to implement best management practices
and salt and nutrient management measures.
• Provide a mechanism to receive input on draft CV-SNMP deliverables.
• Garner participation from other salt and nutrient contributors to groundwater.
• Identify potential cost-sharing partners and in-kind services for CV-SNMP implementation.
The CV-SNMP Agencies and the Facilitation Consultant will conduct outreach to identify stakeholders and
inform them of the intent to form the CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group. Outreach activities will include but
are not limited to:
• Prepare and maintain a website that is available to the public with information on the CV-SNMP
development and the public’s role in the process.
• Distribute public notices on the development of the CV-SNMP and the establishment of the CV-
SNMP Stakeholder Group. The public notices will include the website details and information on
introductory public meetings.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
40 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Lead two (2) public meetings to request stakeholder engagement and explain the purpose of the
CV-SNMP and the process to develop it.
• Prepare and maintain a directory of contact information of stakeholders and establish an email
listserve.
Potential stakeholders include but are not limited to: the agricultural community and groups; golf course
industry groups; tribes; the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group; the Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies in the Coachella Valley; all major water and wastewater agencies; industrial
dischargers; county and city land use planning agencies; Federal and State agencies; the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs).
A critical first step will be to solicit input from the CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group as to their issues, needs
and wants. This information will be collected up front so the CV-SNMP Agencies and consultants can
proactively address stakeholder concerns, and potentially incorporate them in the CV-SNMP development
process.
The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be kept informed of CV-SNMP development progress through the
website and email listserves. The group will be informed of draft deliverables and provided an opportunity
to submit comments. All stakeholder comments will be noted in appendices of the final deliverables.
Group meetings will typically occur to support the review of draft deliverables, and these meetings are
included in the individual tasks of this workplan.
4.2.2 Convene the CV-SNMP Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC can be composed of representatives of the CV-SNMP Agencies, technical consultants that each
CV-SNMP Agency chooses to represent them, and at least one neutral technical expert (e.g., U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] hydrologist). Regional Board staff will be encouraged to participate on the TAC
in an advisory role.
The objectives of the TAC are:
• Advise the Technical Consultant on the execution of workplan tasks.
• Provide review and comment on administrative draft and draft CV-SNMP deliverables.
The Technical Consultant will coordinate with the CV-SNMP Agencies to prepare a directory of contact
information of TAC members and will establish an email listserve. The TAC will be kept informed of CV-
SNMP development progress through the website and the email listserve. The group will be informed of
all draft deliverables and will be provided an opportunity to submit comments. All TAC comments will be
addressed in the final deliverables, and the comments and responses will be included as appendices of
the final deliverables.
An inaugural meeting of the TAC will be held to describe the roles and responsibilities of the TAC, describe
the CV-SNMP Development Workplan and its milestones and schedule, and inform the TAC of next steps.
Subsequent meetings of the TAC will typically occur for review of draft deliverables, and these meetings
are included in the individual tasks of this workplan.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
41 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
4.3 Characterize N/TDS Loading to the Groundwater Basin
The objective of this task is to quantify the individual components of N/TDS loading to groundwater.
The results of this task will:
• Satisfy the requirements of Section 6.2.4 of the Policy regarding the required components of
SNMPs:
Section 6.2.4.3. Salt and nutrient source identification, basin or subbasin assimilative
capacity and loading estimates, together with fate and transport of salts and nutrients.
• Provide the information to prepare input files for the modeling of future N/TDS
concentrations in groundwater.
• Support subsequent tasks in this workplan to recommend TDS objectives pursuant to CWC
13241(b): Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration,
including the quality of water available thereto.
The general sources of N/TDS loading in the basin are described in Section 2.3.1. The characterization of
N/TDS loading will be performed for a recent historical period to the present to characterize seasonal
variations and long-term trends in loading and generate estimates of N/TDS loads in the vadose zone. The
length of the historical period will be defined as part of this task but should be long enough to characterize
the N/TDS loads in the vadose zone.
4.3.1 Collect Data and Information
The following types of data and information will be collected for the historical period:
• Existing groundwater-flow model data/estimates of historical recharge volumes over the
model calibration periods.
• Groundwater-quality data from wells in adjacent, upgradient basins to characterize the
quality of subsurface inflow.
• Water quality of subsurface inflow from the surrounding mountains and hills and streambed
recharge:
o Water-quality data from bedrock springs, wells, and streamflow within the watersheds
tributary to the Coachella Valley.
o Literature on salt-intensification and nitrogen-loss rates during streambed recharge.
• Groundwater replenishment:
o Historical volumes of Colorado River water artificially recharged at GRFs.
o Water-quality data for each source of Colorado River water supply.
o Historical volumes and water-quality data of local runoff diverted for recharge at GRFs.
• Wastewater and recycled water:
o Historical volumes of treated wastewater discharged to percolation ponds and the
associated water-quality data.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
42 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
o Historical volumes of recycled water used for irrigation and the associated water-quality
data.
• Septic systems data:
o Characterizations of current and future parcels using septic systems.
o Literature on N/TDS concentrations of septic tank discharges.
o Information on septic tank moratoriums and abatement efforts.
• Applied water:
o Historical and current land use maps.
o Historical and current agriculture crop types.
o Current and future agricultural land fertilizer application practices.
o Literature on crop nitrogen requirements and loading associated with the application of
fertilizer.
o Literature on crop evapotranspiration and water requirements.
o Local reference evapotranspiration data.
o Literature/data for historical and current agriculture and urban irrigation efficiency.
o Historical and current agriculture water supply plans, including sources and associated
water quality.
o Boundaries of agriculture and urban water service areas.
o Historical and future water supply plans of urban water purveyors, including detail on
volume and associated water quality of each supply source.
o Historical and future water supply plans of other overlying water users.
4.3.2 Characterize Historical and Current N/TDS Loading
The data collected will be reviewed and the Technical Consultant will prepare a draft recommendation to
describe the types of tables, maps, and data graphics that can be prepared with the available data to
characterize historical and current N/TDS loading to groundwater. A meeting will be held with the TAC to
review the draft recommendation and receive TAC feedback.
Once the types of tables, maps, and data graphics are finalized, the time-history of the volumes and
associated N/TDS concentrations will be estimated and described for each N/TDS loading term. The N/TDS
concentrations will be based on historical data to the extent possible, and where needed, assumptions
based on literature review.
4.3.3 Prepare Task Memorandum
A draft and final task memorandum will be prepared to document the data collected and the
characterization of historical and current N/TDS loading, as described below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for
review and comment.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
43 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• A meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive
feedback from the TAC.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed
to the TAC for review and comment.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft
memorandum for review and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
4.4 Characterize Current Groundwater Quality
The objective of this task is to characterize N/TDS concentrations in groundwater as of 2020 (i.e. current
conditions). The characterization will include an analysis of the time history of N/TDS concentrations in
groundwater that led to current conditions. The results of this task will provide the necessary information
to:
• Satisfy Section 6.2.4 of the Policy regarding the required components of SNMPs. In this case,
estimating current groundwater quality is necessary to compute the existence and magnitude of
assimilative capacity for a basin, subbasin, or management zone:
Section 6.2.4.3. Salt and nutrient source identification, basin or subbasin assimilative
capacity and loading estimates, together with fate and transport of salts and nutrients.
• Understand the current trends in N/TDS concentrations in groundwater.
• Support subsequent tasks in this workplan to:
o Delineate draft groundwater management zones.
o Define the methods to compute the current “ambient” N/TDS concentrations in
groundwater management zones (i.e. the AWQ metric).
o Assess the current protection of beneficial uses within groundwater management zones.
o Prepare input files of initial conditions of N/TDS concentrations in groundwater for the
forecast modeling of N/TDS concentrations.
o Recommend TDS objectives pursuant to CWC 13241(b): Past, present, and probable
future beneficial uses of water.
o Support assessment of assimilative capacity for additional loading of N/TDS.
The characterizations of current groundwater quality will primarily rely on data collected from wells in the
CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network (see Section 3), since these wells are intended to be
representative of groundwater quality in all subbasins, subareas, and depth-specific aquifer systems
within the Basin. However, the Groundwater Monitoring Network is not yet complete, and historical data
may be lacking for some wells. For this reason, other available groundwater-quality data will likely be
necessary for this characterization.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
44 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
4.4.1 Collect Data and Information
The following data and information will be collected, compiled, checked, and uploaded to project
databases and Geographic Information System (GIS):
• Well information
o Well ID (State Well Number)
o Well owner
o Well name
o Well use
o Well status
o XYZ coordinates
o Well screen depth intervals
• Historical groundwater-elevation data at wells
• Historical water-quality data at wells for the following constituents:
o TDS
o Nitrate
o Major cations: K, Na, Ca, Mg
o Major anions: Cl, SO4
o Total alkalinity: HCO3, CO3, OH
Some of these data have already been collected and compiled for the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring
Program Workplan (see Section 3).
4.4.2 Prepare Tables, Maps, and Data Graphics
The data collected will be reviewed and the Technical Consultant will prepare a draft recommendation to
describe the periods of record and the types of tables, maps, and data graphics that can be prepared with
the available data to characterize current N/TDS concentrations in groundwater. A meeting will be held
with the TAC to review the draft recommendation and receive TAC feedback.
Described below are recommended examples of the tables, maps, and data graphics that could be
prepared to characterize historical and current groundwater quality across the Basin. Examples of these
types of tables, maps, and data graphics are included in Appendix B.12
Summary statistics of N/TDS concentrations at wells. These statistics characterize the data set at each
well in terms of duration, depth, sample size, mean concentrations, variability, precision, and trends. The
statistics can be summarized in tables that include the following fields:
• State Well Number, well owner, well name, and well status.
• DWR subbasin.
• Aquifer layers penetrated by the well screens.
• Period of record of available data.
12 These examples are illustrative, and do not represent the exact tables and figures that will be prepared for this task.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
45 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Number of years with sample results.
• Total number of sample results.
• Minimum, maximum, median, and average N/TDS concentration statistics.
• Average N/TDS concentrations for the defined historical and current periods (e.g. 2016-2020).
• Standard deviation and coefficient of variance for the sample set.
• Comparison to drinking water-quality standards or other beneficial use thresholds.
• Mann-Kendall trend test results for N/TDS concentrations.
Table B-1 is an example of a table prepared for similar purposes.
Point and raster maps of N/TDS concentrations in groundwater. The objectives of these maps are to:
• Characterize the spatial distribution of N/TDS concentrations in groundwater relative to the
sources of recharge and discharge.
• Provide the initial conditions for N/TDS concentrations in groundwater for the forecast modeling
of N/TDS concentrations.
• Support the mapping of change in N/TDS concentrations over time.
On these types of maps, wells are typically labeled with the average N/TDS concentrations for a defined
period (e.g. five-year period). Maps can be prepared for a historical period (e.g. 1996-2000) and a current
period (e.g. 2016-2020) to facilitate characterization of historical changes in water quality. An
interpolation tool in ArcGIS can be used to generate raster surfaces of average N/TDS concentrations
across the Basin. The raster can be symbolized by color-ramp to illustrate the spatial distribution of N/TDS
concentrations. For areas with multiple aquifer layers and sufficient data, maps can be prepared to
characterize each layer. Figure B-1 is an example of such a map that was prepared for similar purposes.
If this mapping approach is adopted, the following areas and aquifer layers should be mapped:
• Northern portion of the Indio subbasin (including the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs subareas)
o Shallow aquifer system (Layers 1-3)
o Deep aquifer system (Layer 4)
• Central portion of the Indio subbasin (including the Thousand Palms subarea)
o Shallow aquifer system (Layers 1-3)
o Deep aquifer system (Layer 4)
• Southern portion of the Indio subbasin (including the Thermal and Oasis subareas)
o Perched aquifer system (Layer 1)
o Shallow aquifer system (Layers 2/3)
o Deep aquifer system (Layer 4)
• Mission Creek subbasin
o Shallow aquifer system (Layers 1-3)
o Deep aquifer system (Layer 4)
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
46 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Desert Hot Springs subbasin
Maps of changes and trends in N/TDS concentration in groundwater. The objectives of these maps are
to:
• Identify areas (and depths) within the Basin where N/TDS concentrations are increasing,
decreasing, or not changing, and potentially reveal why the changes are occurring.
• Support the understanding of the fate and transport of N/TDS.
On these types of maps, wells are typically labeled by changes in average N/TDS concentrations between
two defined periods (a historical period [e.g. 1996-2000] minus a current period [e.g. 2016-2020]). Wells
with enough data can be symbolized by the Mann-Kendall trend test results for N/TDS concentrations. An
interpolation tool in ArcGIS can be used to generate raster surfaces of changes in N/TDS concentrations
across the Basin. The raster can be symbolized by color-ramp to illustrate the spatial changes in N/TDS
concentrations. For areas with multiple aquifer layers and sufficient data, maps can be prepared to
characterize each layer. The maps can be prepared for the same areas and aquifer layers as listed above
for the point and raster maps of N/TDS concentrations. Figure B-2 is an example of such a map that was
prepared for similar purposes.
Multi-variate exhibits of groundwater and surface water. The objectives of these types of exhibits is to
improve understanding of the fate and transport of N/TDS in the Basin, and support interpretations of the
potential causes of increasing or decreasing N/TDS concentrations in groundwater.
These exhibits can be prepared for each well in the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network (or logical
groupings of wells) over a historical to current period, and typically include:
• Time-series chart of groundwater levels at the well(s).
• Time-series chart of N/TDS concentrations at the well(s), including a statistical quantification of
trends using the Mann-Kendall test results.
• Time-series chart of N/TDS concentrations for nearby sources of N/TDS loading.
• Piper Diagrams for the well(s) and the nearby sources of N/TDS loading. Piper Diagrams are a
graphical representation of the chemistry of water samples that aid in understanding the sources
of the dissolved constituents in the groundwater.
Figure B-3 is an example of such an exhibit that was prepared for similar purposes.
4.4.3 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to document the data collected and the characterization of current
N/TDS concentrations in groundwater, as described below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed to
the TAC for review and comment.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
47 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum for
review and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing TAC feedback.
4.5 Delineate Draft Management Zones and Desc ribe Metrics to
Characterize Beneficial Use Protection
The objectives of this task are to:
• Delineate draft groundwater management zones.
• Describe the existing and potential future beneficial uses of groundwater within each
management zone.
• Define the ambient water quality (AWQ) metric in each management zone that will be used to
estimate ambient water quality conditions and assess beneficial use protection. An AWQ metric
is a method to estimate “ambient” N/TDS concentrations for groundwater in each manageme nt
zone. The purpose of AWQ metrics is to enable the comparison of ambient N/TDS concentrations
in groundwater versus the beneficial-use thresholds and water quality objectives, and thereby
indicate the state of beneficial use protection. Examples of AWQ metrics include, but are not
limited to:
o Volume-weighted constituent concentration within the management zone.
o 5-year moving average of constituent concentration at a key well or wells within a
management zone.
o Volume-weighted constituent concentration of groundwater discharge from a
management zone.
The results of this task will provide the necessary information to:
• Assess the current and future protection of the beneficial uses of groundwater.
• Support subsequent tasks in this workplan to:
o Post-process, display, and interpret the forecast modeling results.
o Recommend TDS objectives pursuant to CWC 13241(a): Past, present, and probable future
beneficial uses of water.
o Support assessments of assimilative capacity for additional loading of N/TDS.
The management zone delineations and the AWQ metrics will be considered draft at this stage. It is
possible that subsequently derived information, such as understanding potential future water-quality
conditions and the ability for the stakeholders to control future water-quality conditions, will indicate that
modifications to management zone delineations and AWQ metrics will better support salt and nutrient
management.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
48 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
4.5.1 Delineate Draft Groundwater Management Zones
The delineation of draft management zones will be based on:
• Hydrogeology of the basin.
• Locations and magnitudes of N/TDS loading.
• Location of hydrologically vulnerable areas as identified in the GAMA Groundwater Information
System database.
• Current understanding of groundwater-flow directions and the fate and transport of N/TDS
within the groundwater basin.
• Current N/TDS concentrations in groundwater.
• Existing and potential future beneficial uses of groundwater.
Management zones will be delineated both spatially and vertically throughout the basin.
4.5.2 Describe Beneficial Uses for Management Zones and Beneficial-Use Thresholds
For each management zone, the existing and potential beneficial uses and users of groundwater will be
described along with the associated beneficial-use thresholds for N/TDS concentrations.
The beneficial uses will reference those uses listed in the Water Quality Control Plan and the known
existing users and uses of groundwater in each proposed management zone.
The beneficial-use thresholds will be based on regulatory standards and guidance published by the State
of California on the numeric water-quality thresholds that protect the beneficial uses.
4.5.3 Define AWQ Metrics and Determine Current Protection of Beneficial Uses
Draft AWQ metrics will be proposed for each management zone and used to estimate the current ambient
N/TDS concentrations for groundwater in each management zone. The current ambient N/TDS
concentrations will be compared to the beneficial-use thresholds to assess the current state of beneficial
use protection. If the concentration of the AWQ metric is less than the beneficial-use threshold, then that
specific beneficial use is protected. If the concentration of the AWQ metric is greater than the beneficial-
use threshold, then that specific beneficial use is not protected.
The appropriate AWQ metric may be different in different management zones based on the size of the
management zone, the beneficial users and uses within the management zone, the location and
magnitude of N/TDS loading, and the fate and transport of N/TDS.
Figure 4-1 is a chart that conceptually illustrates:
• The use of a hypothetical AWQ metric that utilizes existing TDS data to estimate the “historical
ambient” and “current ambient” TDS concentrations for a management zone. These features
can characterize the recent trends in TDS concentration within the management zone.
• A comparison of a current ambient TDS concentration in the management zone to the beneficial
use thresholds for TDS. This comparison can characterize the current protection of beneficial
uses.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
49 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
These types of charts will be prepared for N/TDS in each management zone over a recent historical period.
4.5.4 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to document the draft management zones, the beneficial uses
within each management zone, the beneficial-use thresholds for N/TDS concentrations in each
management zone, the proposed AWQ metrics that represent ambient N/TDS concentrations in each
management zone, and the assessment of beneficial use protection in each management zone over a
recent historical period, as described below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed to
the TAC and the CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group for review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
4.6 Develop Technical Approach for Forecasting N/TDS Concentrations
in Groundwater
The objective of this task is to define the most appropriate and efficient technical approach to forecast
N/TDS concentrations in groundwater.
Currently, two numerical groundwater-flow models are being updated and used to support SGMA
compliance in the Mission Creek subbasin13 and the Indio subbasin. Both models are based on the USGS
modular groundwater-flow model MODFLOW. Review of preliminary model documentation and
discussions with the technical consultants who are preparing these model updates indicate that the
appropriate strategy for making forecasts of N/TDS concentrations is to build two separate water-quality
models that cascade from the Mission Creek subbasin to the Indio subbasin. In this strategy, the water-
quality models will be capable of making forecasts of N/TDS concentrations in groundwater utilizing the
results of MODFLOW simulations. The water-quality model results for N/TDS concentrations in
groundwater will be at the same spatial and temporal resolution as the MODFLOW model results for
groundwater flow. For the CV-SNMP Development Workplan, it is assumed that a water-quality model of
the Mission Creek subbasin will be executed first, and its results will be used as boundary conditions that
will be carried over (cascaded) to a water-quality model of the Indio subbasin.
This modeling approach for forecasting N/TDS concentrations must include the following capabilities:
• Ability to assign a volume and N/TDS concentrations to each individual source of recharge.
• Ability to simulate the vadose zone processes (e.g. transport and chemical transformations).
13 The Mission Creek Subbasin Model includes the Miracle Hill subarea of the Desert Hot Springs subbasin where there may be
significant subsurface flows from the Desert Hot Springs subbasin into the Mission Creek subbasin.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
50 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Ability to simulate the feedback cycles associated with groundwater pumping, the N/TDS
concentrations of potable water supply, the N/TDS concentrations of recycled water, and the
N/TDS concentrations of return flows.
• Ability to simulate the fate and transport of N/TDS with a cascading approach from the existing
Mission Creek subbasin MODFLOW model domain to the Indio subbasin MODFLOW model
domain. Because the domains of the two MODFLOW models overlap the Garnet Hill Subarea,
consideration must be given to this boundary in the water-quality modeling approach.
• Ability to calculate the volume-weighted N/TDS concentrations for each management zone by
layer.
• Ability to calculate N/TDS concentration at wells.
• The ability to reasonably simulate verifiable historical groundwater-quality conditions.
• Ability to efficiently simulate several CV-SNMP scenarios with modified input files that represent
potential CV-SNMP management projects and programs.
• Ability to forecast N/TDS concentrations in subareas that are not covered by the model domains
of the MODFLOW models, which includes the Fargo Canyon Subarea and a portion of the Sky
Valley Subarea in the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin.
Formulating this modeling strategy will require a thorough understanding of the existing MODFLOW
models, the model input files (particularly the recharge files that represent N/TDS loading terms), and the
output files. It is likely that separate data-processing routines will need to be automated (i.e. coded) so
the water-quality modeling of multiple scenarios can be performed efficiently and accurately. Such data-
processing routines may include reconstructing the MODFLOW recharge input files to include the
assignment of N/TDS concentrations to the individual recharge sources, automating the update of model
input files to address feedback cycles to achieve appropriate convergence of model results, and the post-
processing of the water-quality model results to support the cascading model approach.
The vadose zone processes (solute travel time and chemical transformations) and their effect on the
N/TDS loading to groundwater will need to be analyzed and considered for inclusion in the modeling
approach.
4.6.1 Evaluate Existing MODFLOW Models
Model reports and documentation are forthcoming for the updates to the Mission Creek Subbasin Model
and the Indio Subbasin Model. These reports and documentation will be reviewed to gain insight into the
hydrogeologic conceptual model, model assumptions, model settings, and model limitations.
The MODFLOW input files need to be understood, particularly to develop automated routines for
assigning N/TDS concentrations to recharge terms. For example, the MODFLOW models include recharge
input files for return flows that originate from several water sources. The SGMA modeling teams have
indicated that significant pre-processing efforts are conducted to prepare the input files for recharge from
the various recharge sources. To perform the water-quality modeling, the N/TDS concentrations for each
water source must be estimated, and the volume-weighted concentration needs to be calculated and
assigned to the water-quality models. These pre-processing efforts will likely need to be automated for
the water-quality modeling, so a thorough understanding of the MODFLOW model input files, and their
preparation, is necessary.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
51 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
The MODFLOW output files need to be assessed to determine whether they meet the requirements of
the water-quality modeling and its cascading modeling approach.
In this subtask, it is likely that meetings and conference calls will be necessary with the SGMA modeling
teams to ask questions and resolve challenges that are identified during the evaluation of the MODFLOW
models.
4.6.2 Develop Procedures for Simulating Vadose Zone Processes
Vadose zone processes may be important to timing and magnitude of N/TDS loading to the saturated
zone, particularly for return flows from the land surface through partially saturated sediments. Criteria to
consider in developing procedures for simulating the vadose zone are: microbial processes in the
hyporheic zone; vadose zone thickness, hydraulic and solute lag times, the initial N/TDS conditions within
the vadose zone, and the appropriate methods and tools to simulate N/TDS loading through the vadose
zone to the saturated zone.
In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will evaluate the existing information developed in prior tasks
and the existing models to develop a recommendation for procedures to simulate vadose zone processes
in N/TDS loading.
4.6.3 Define the Appropriate Planning Period
The appropriate length of the planning period for water-quality model forecasting is partly dependent on
the solute travel times through the vadose zone. In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will evaluate
the solute travel times through the vadose zone and develop a recommendation for the planning period.
If the planning period is recommended for a period longer than 50 years, the modeling approach must
describe how the planning period will be extended beyond the 2020-2070 period that the MODFLOW
models are using in the development of the Alternatives to Groundwater Sustainability Plans to comply
with the SGMA (SGMA Alternative Plans).
4.6.4 Develop Procedures for Simulating Feedback Processes
The future changes in N/TDS concentrations in groundwater will influence the N/TDS concentrations in
water supplies that include groundwater, such as potable water and recycled water, which in turn, can
migrate back to the groundwater system as irrigation return flows. Such feedback processes can have a
significant effect on the future N/TDS concentrations in groundwater and must be simulated.
In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will evaluate the existing information developed in prior tasks
and the existing models to develop a recommendation for procedures to simulate feedback processes in
N/TDS loading.
4.6.5 Define Assumptions for Future N/TDS Concentration of Colorado River Water
Colorado River water is a major source of supplemental water that supports groundwater basin
sustainability and the economy of the Coachella Valley. The future N/TDS concentrations of Colorado
River water will affect the quality of groundwater.
In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will: analyze the historical N/TDS concentrations of Colorado
River water; research the existing and any proposed changes to the water quality objectives for Colorado
River water; review available information on the existing structures and efforts in place to help reduce
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
52 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
salinity in Colorado River water; review available information on salinity projections for Colorado River
water including any predicted impacts from climate change; and recommend assumptions for N/TDS
concentrations of Colorado River water for water-quality modeling over the planning period.
4.6.6 Develop Procedures for Verifying the N/TDS Forecasting Tools
The water-quality models cannot be calibrated using traditional methods of model calibration primarily
because of a lack of historical, depth-specific groundwater-quality data. However, the water-quality
models should have the ability to reasonably simulate the available data and information on historical
groundwater-quality conditions.
In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will describe the process to verify the ability of the water-quality
models to reasonably simulate historical groundwater-quality conditions. Likely, the water-quality models
will need to be run and evaluated, and adjustments to the input files or other model assumptions will
need to be tested to produce “reasonable” results.
4.6.7 Develop Procedures for Post-Processing Model Results
The water-quality modeling will need efficient tools for post-processing and displaying the model results.
This is because:
• In Task 4.7, the water-quality models will need to be run and evaluated repeatedly to demonstrate
their ability to produce “reasonable” results.
• In Task 4.8, the water-quality models will be used to test the effectiveness of various
implementation measures to control N/TDS loading and protect beneficial uses. Hence, the water-
quality model results will need to be evaluated efficiently to save cost and time in the
identification of a preferred CV-SNMP Scenario.
In this subtask, the Technical Consultant will describe the post-processing tools that will be prepared to
efficiently display and characterize the water-quality model results.
4.6.8 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to describe and document the methods, assumptions, and tools
that will be used to construct and run the water-quality models and interpret the results, as described
below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed to
the TAC for review and comment.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum for
review and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive additional feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
53 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
4.7 Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and Evaluate the Baseline
Scenario
The objectives of this task will be to:
• Construct the N/TDS forecasting tools defined in Task 4.6 and verify their ability to reasonably
simulate historical groundwater-quality conditions.
• Define a “baseline” planning scenario that represents the current water-supply plans and water-
management plans for the Coachella Valley (Baseline Scenario).
• Forecast N/TDS concentrations to determine whether beneficial uses of groundwater are
protected under the Baseline Scenario.
These objectives will be accomplished by constructing the water-quality models (and associated pre-
processing and post-processing tools) and using the models to forecast N/TDS concentrations in
groundwater for a Baseline Scenario over the planning period.
The evaluation of the Baseline Scenario will be used in subsequent tasks of this workplan to:
• If necessary, support the development of CV-SNMP implementation measures (i.e. projects
and/or programs) to manage N/TDS loading to protect beneficial uses of groundwater on a
sustainable basis.
• Finalize the management zone delineations and the AWQ metrics that are used to estimate the
ambient N/TDS concentrations for each management zone.
• Recommend TDS objectives pursuant to CWC 13241(b): Environmental characteristics of the
hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality of water available thereto.
4.7.1 Develop a Baseline Scenario based on the SGMA Alternative Plans
The Baseline Scenario will be based on:
• The SGMA Alternative Plans that are being developed for the Mission Creek and Indio Subbasins
to comply with the SGMA.
• The N/TDS loading that is estimated to occur under the SGMA Alternative Plans (described in Task
4.3).
The Baseline Scenario will be described in enough detail to prepare model input files for the water-quality
modeling efforts in Task 4.7.2 and to prepare cost estimates for the aggregate water supply in Task 4.9.
4.7.2 Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and Run the Baseline Scenario
In this task, the water-quality models and associated pre- and post- processing tools are constructed,
verified, and used to run the Baseline Scenario pursuant to the methods described in the task
memorandum for Task 4.6 – Develop Technical Approach for Forecasting N/TDS Concentrations in
Groundwater.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
54 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
Verification of the water-quality models will be performed by running the models over a defined historical
period to verify their ability to reasonably simulate historical water groundwater-quality conditions. The
model verification results will be reviewed with the TAC before running of the Baseline Scenario.
The initial conditions for N/TDS concentrations in groundwater (by model layer) will be based on the
results of Task 4.4 – Characterize Current Groundwater Quality. The initial condition for N/TDS loads within
the vadose will be based on the strategies outlined in Task 4.6.
Several iterative model runs and sensitivity analyses will be needed to check for the reasonableness of
the water-quality model results, and if necessary, adjust various assumptions in the initial conditions and
the input datasets of the Baseline Scenario. The interim results will need to be reviewed with the TAC to
define changes to any assumptions.
The interim simulation results will be summarized for each model run with: N/TDS concentration maps
for selected points in the planning period, maps of change in N/TDS concentration, N/TDS concentration
time-series charts for wells and return flows over the planning period, and time-series charts of the draft
compliance metrics for each management zone as proposed in Task 4.5.3 – Define AWQ metrics and
determine current protection of beneficial uses.
Any TAC-recommended adjustments will be implemented to the Baseline Scenario, the water-quality
models and associated tools will be modified accordingly, and the next simulation run for Baseline
Scenario will be conducted. It is anticipated that three iterative model runs will be necessary to finalize
the Baseline Scenario.
The final simulation results of the Baseline Scenario will be evaluated to determine if CV-SNMP
implementation measures are potentially necessary in the future to control N/TDS loading to protect the
beneficial uses of groundwater in specific management zones.
Figure 4-2 is a chart that conceptually illustrates the evaluation of a hypothetical Baseline Scenario in a
hypothetical management zone. These types of charts will be prepared for N/TDS in each management
zone over the planning period. Each management zone will be evaluated for:
• The long-term protection of beneficial uses in the management zone.
• The potential need for, and timing of, CV-SNMP implementation measure(s) that may be
necessary in the future to protect beneficial uses.
At this stage, the water-quality modeling and evaluation of the Baseline Scenario are considered final, and
“buy-in” from Regional Board staff is needed to confirm that:
• The data, assumptions, tools, and methods that were used to develop and evaluate the Baseline
Scenario are acceptable.
• The need for implementation measures to control N/TDS loading in specific management zones
(if any) have been appropriately identified.
4.7.3 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to describe the methods, assumptions, results and evaluations of
the Baseline Scenario and document the “buy-in” from the Regional Board, as outlined below:
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
55 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment. Review and comment by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive feedback.
Attendance by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC. An appendix of
comments and responses-to-comments will be included in the draft memorandum. Additional
review and comment on the draft memorandum by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum for
review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback. Attendance
by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback. An appendix of comments and
responses-to-comments will be included in the final memorandum.
• Regional Board staff approval of the final memorandum by letter from the Executive Officer is
required before proceeding with Task 4.8.
4.8 Forecast N/TDS Concentrations for CV-SNMP Scenarios
Task 4.8 is necessary if Task 4.7 concludes that CV-SNMP implementation measures are potentially
necessary in the future to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater in management zones. If not, then
Tasks 4.8 and 4.9 in this workplan are not necessary to execute.
The objective of Task 4.8 is to develop CV-SNMP implementation measures that have the potential to
control N/TDS loading and protect beneficial uses of groundwater in the Coachella Valley on a sustainable
basis. The CV-SNMP implementation measures will be grouped into logical CV-SNMP Scenarios, evaluated
with the water-quality models, and compared to the Baseline Scenario results. The CV-SNMP Scenarios
will be evaluated in steps, with the model results of a scenario (or a set of scenarios) informing the
preparation of subsequent scenarios. For cost estimating purposes, this workplan assumes an iterative,
step-wise process to evaluate up to eight CV-SNMP Scenarios.
The water-quality modeling results for the CV-SNMP Scenarios will:
• Quantify the relative effectiveness of each CV-SNMP Scenario in managing the N/TDS
concentrations in each groundwater management zone.
• Support subsequent tasks in this workplan to:
o Propose final management zone delineations and AWQ metrics. As stated earlier in this
workplan, it is possible that understanding potential future water-quality conditions, and
the ability for the stakeholders to control future water-quality conditions, will indicate
that modifications to management zone delineations and AWQ metrics will better
support salt and nutrient management.
o Recommend TDS objectives pursuant to CWC 13241(c): Water quality conditions that
could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect
water quality in the area. In other words, the results of this task will describe the water-
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
56 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
quality conditions that could be achieved via the implementation of various CV-SNMP
implementation measures.
4.8.1 Evaluate Baseline Scenario Results and Recommend Implementation Measures
In this task, the Baseline Scenario results will be used to develop recommendations for CV-SNMP
implementation measures to manage N/TDS loading in the Basin on a sustainable basis. These
implementation measures will be formulated into CV-SNMP Scenarios (i.e. one or more projects or
programs) with the objective to protect the long-term beneficial uses of groundwater in the management
zones.
The Technical Consultant will prepare a task memorandum to describe the recommended CV-SNMP
Scenarios, as described below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for
review and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive
feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum
for review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
4.8.2 Evaluate CV-SNMP Scenarios
In this task, the recommended CV-SNMP Scenarios will be implemented in the models, the model
simulations will be conducted, and the model results will be evaluated and compared against the Baseline
Scenario for their effectiveness in controlling N/TDS loading and protecting beneficial uses.
The CV-SNMP Scenarios will be evaluated in steps, with the model results of one scenario (or a set of
scenarios) informing the preparation of the subsequent scenarios. After each step, the results will be
shared with the TAC to receive feedback on the preparation of the subsequent scenarios. This will be an
iterative process to evaluate up to eight CV-SNMP Scenarios.
Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 are charts that conceptually illustrate the evaluation of two hypothetical CV-
SNMP Scenarios in a hypothetical management zone:
• Hypothetical SNMP Scenario #1 is assumed to include a relatively aggressive and expensive
implementation measure to reduce TDS loading. The TDS concentration in the management zone
is projected to stabilize at concentrations significantly below the maximum beneficial use
threshold over the planning period, and hence, appears to be protective of beneficial uses.
• Hypothetical SNMP Scenario #2 is assumed to include a less aggressive and less expensive
implementation measures to reduce TDS loading compared to Hypothetical SNMP Scenario #1.
The TDS concentration in the management zone is still projected to stabilize at concentrations
below the maximum beneficial use threshold over the planning period, and hence, appears to be
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
57 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
protective of beneficial uses, but at a higher TDS concentration than projected for Hypothetical
SNMP Scenario #1.
The types of charts in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 will be prepared for N/TDS concentrations for each
scenario in each management zone over the planning period. The CV-SNMP Scenarios will be evaluated
for:
• The long-term protection of beneficial uses.
• The potential need for, and timing of, other CV-SNMP implementation measure(s) that may be
necessary for the long-term protection of beneficial uses in the most cost-efficient manner.
The evaluation of economic considerations between scenarios is performed in Task 4.9.
4.8.3 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to describe and document the methods, assumptions, and results
of the evaluations of the CV-SNMP Scenarios, as described below:
• An administrative draft memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive
feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed for
review and comment.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum
for review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
4.9 Characterize and Compare the Cost of Baseline and CV-SNMP
Scenarios
The objective of this task is to prepare an engineering cost analysis of the Coachella Valley water supply
for the Baseline Scenario and the CV-SNMP Scenarios. The cost analysis will provide information required
for recommending TDS objectives pursuant to CWC 13241(d): Economic considerations.
4.9.1 Develop Cost-Estimating Planning Criteria and a Cost Model
Standard planning criteria will be developed for assumptions related to capital improvement construction
and operations and maintenance (O&M) of projects to ensure consistency in estimating costs.
An engineering cost model will be developed for the purposes of estimating the annual melded unit cost
of the aggregate water supply14 in the Coachella Valley over the planning period for the Baseline and the
14 Aggregate water supply is the cumulative of all water supplies produced and used in the Basin.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
58 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
CV-SNMP Scenarios. The cost model will breakdown each water purveyor’s water-supply plan into
individual water-supply sources, and then assign costs for acquiring the water supply, production (energy
costs associated with producing the water supply), O&M, treatment, and conveyance over the planning
period. Agricultural water users and golf course water users will be analyzed in an aggregate fashion.
If applicable, the cost model will include the costs associated with the effects of potential future increases
in groundwater salinity.
A description of the planning criteria and the cost model will be shared with the TAC to receive feedback
from the TAC. The planning criteria and cost model will be finalized based on TAC feedback.
4.9.2 Develop Cost Estimates for the Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios
The engineering cost model will be applied to the Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios to estimate and
compare the annual melded unit cost of the aggregate water supply in the Coachella Valley over the
planning period. These costs will be summarized into an annual melded unit cost of the aggregate water
supply over the planning period and a net-present value cost for each Scenario.
This task will also include a description of the funding mechanisms available to the agencies responsible
for CV-SNMP implementation and the cost impacts to those agencies and their rate payers.
4.9.3 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to describe and document the planning criteria and the methods,
assumptions, and results of the cost analyses and cost comparisons, as described below:
• An administrative draft memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive
feedback.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC and distributed for
review and comment.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum
for review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback.
4.10 Select the Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario, Finalize Management
Zones and Beneficial Uses, and Recommend TDS Objectives
The objective of this task is to select a preferred CV-SNMP Scenario, which will form the basis for a CV-
SNMP implementation plan and any recommended updates to the Basin Plan, which could include:
• Establishment of management zone delineations and descriptions.
• Groundwater beneficial use descriptions for each management zone.
• Addition of numeric TDS objectives for each management zone.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
59 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• Addition of CV-SNMP implementation measures and associated time schedules.
4.10.1 Evaluate All Forecasted Information and Select a Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario
In this task, the results of the Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios will be compared and ranked based on the
following criteria:
1. The ability of the scenario to protect the beneficial uses over the planning period.
2. The feasibility of implementation.
3. The melded unit cost of the total water supply.
4. The funding mechanisms available to the agencies responsible for CV-SNMP implementation and
the cost impacts to those agencies and their rate payers.
At this stage, it is possible that results of the scenarios indicate the need for refinements to the
management zone delineations and/or the AWQ metrics that are meant to represent ambient N/TDS
concentrations in the management zones. If so, the model results will be re-processed to compute the
revised AWQ metrics.
Based on the evaluation and ranking of the Baseline and CV-SNMP Scenarios, the consultant(s) will
recommend a preferred CV-SNMP Scenario, including the final management zones, beneficial use
designations, and TDS objectives.15 The evaluation, ranking, and the recommended CV-SNMP Scenario
will be shared with the TAC to receive feedback. The TAC will then select the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario.
4.10.2 Recommend TDS Objectives based on CWC 13241
California Water Code (CWC) section 13241 lists the factors to consider when establishing water quality
objectives without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. These factors include:
a) Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water.
b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality
of water available thereto.
c) Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of
all factors which affect water quality in the area.
d) Economic considerations.
e) The need for developing housing within the region.
f) The need to develop and use recycled water.
A written demonstration will be prepared, referencing all work performed in prior tasks, to illustrate how
the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario and the recommended TDS objectives collectively satisfy the
requirements of CWC 13241.
15 A numeric nitrate-nitrogen objective for groundwater in the Basin is already established in the Basin Plan at 10 mgl.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
60 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
4.10.3 Document Antidegradation Demonstration Pursuant to State Board Policy 68-16
An antidegradation demonstration will be prepared as required by Section 6.2.4.5 of the 2018 Policy. The
objective will be to illustrate how the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario and the recommended N/TDS
objectives collectively satisfy the requirements of State Board Resolution 68-16 (the Antidegradation
Policy). The key components of an antidegradation demonstration include:
• Identifying the water quality parameters and beneficial uses that will be impacted by the
proposed action and the extent of the impact. In this case, the proposed action is the adoption of
the CV-SNMP (including implementation of the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario) and the proposed
changes to the Basin Plan (e.g. management zones, TDS objectives, and beneficial use
designations).
• The scientific rationale for the determination that the proposed action will or will not lower water
quality in the impacted receiving waters.
• A discussion of the alternative measures that were considered.
• A socio-economic evaluation.
• The rationale for determining that the proposed action is or is not justified by socio-
economic considerations.
• Comparing the potential water-quality outcomes.
• Demonstrating that any water quality degradation allowed by the CV-SNMP provides maximum
benefit to the people of California.
Figure 4-5 is a chart that conceptually illustrates the evaluation of a hypothetical preferred SNMP Scenario
in a hypothetical management zone. In this example, the TDS concentration objective in the management
zone is selected based upon an evaluation of all factors listed in CWC 13241 and a demonstration that the
scenario and the recommended TDS objective collectively satisfy the requirements of Antidegradation
Policy (see Section 4.10.3 below). These types of charts will be prepared for N/TDS concentrations for
each scenario in each management zone over the planning period.
4.10.4 Prepare Task Memorandum
A task memorandum will be prepared to describe: the evaluation and ranking of the Baseline and CV-
SNMP Scenarios; the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario; the final management zones, beneficial use
designations, and recommended TDS objectives; and how the CV-SNMP and the recommended TDS
objectives collectively satisfy the requirements of CWC 13241 and the Antidegradation Policy. “Buy-in”
from the Regional Board is mandatory at this stage. The memorandum will be completed as described
below:
• An administrative draft task memorandum will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review
and comment. Review and comment by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft memorandum and receive feedback.
Attendance by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A draft memorandum will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC. An appendix of
comments and responses-to-comments will be included in the draft memorandum. Additional
review and comment on the draft memorandum by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
61 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum for
review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft memorandum and receive feedback. Attendance
by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A final memorandum will be prepared addressing the feedback. An appendix of comments and
responses-to-comments will be included in the final memorandum.
• Regional Board staff approval of the final memorandum by letter from the Executive Officer is
required before proceeding with Task 4.11.
4.11 Prepare Final CV-SNMP
The complete findings and recommendations from the work performed to implement this CV-SNMP
Development Workplan will be documented in a final plan titled: Final Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan (CV-SNMP). The CV-SNMP will be a compilation of the final technical memorandums
and interim work products prepared in Tasks 4.1 through 4.10. The CV-SNMP will define the management
activities that the CV-SNMP Agencies will implement, including the ongoing monitoring programs, to
comply with the N/TDS objectives of the defined groundwater management zones.
The CV-SNMP will include a plan and schedule to implement the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario and perform
the monitoring, reporting, and update activities as required by Sections 6.2.4.1.3 and 6.2.6 of the 2018
Policy. The CV-SNMP will address:
• Milestones, triggers, and schedules for implementation of any programs or facilities included in
the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario.
• Milestones and schedules for implementing and updating the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring
Program. The monitoring program may need to be updated to address new information and data
gaps identified in the implementation of this CV-SNMP Development Workplan (or during ongoing
monitoring efforts) and to ensure monitoring program is robust enough to assess the impacts of
implementing the preferred CV-SNMP Scenario.
• A process for performing the five-year data assessment, which must include an evaluation of:
o Observed trends in water quality data as compared with trends predicted in the CV-
SNMP.
o The ability of the monitoring network to adequately characterize groundwater quality in
the Basin.
o Potential new data gaps.
o Groundwater quality impacts predicted in the CV-SNMP based on most recent trends and
any relied-upon models, including an evaluation of the ability of the models to simulate
groundwater quality.
o Available assimilative capacity based on observed trends and most recent water quality
data.
o New projects that are reasonably foreseeable at the time of the data assessment but may
not have been considered when the CV-SNMP was prepared or last updated.
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
62 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
The process to prepare the final CV-SNMP will include the following:
• An administrative draft CV-SNMP will be prepared and distributed to the TAC for review and
comment. Review and comment by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A TAC meeting will be held to review the administrative draft CV-SNMP and receive feedback.
Attendance by Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• A draft CV-SNMP will be prepared based on the feedback from the TAC for additional review and
comment. An appendix of comments and responses-to-comments will be included in the draft
memorandum. Review and comment on the draft memorandum by Regional Board staff is
mandatory.
• The CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group will be notified of the availability of the draft memorandum for
review and comment.
• A public meeting will be held to review the draft CV-SNMP and receive feedback. Attendance by
Regional Board staff is mandatory.
• The CV-SNMP will be prepared addressing the feedback. An appendix of comments and
responses-to-comments will be included in the final memorandum.
• The final CV-SNMP will be submitted to the Regional Board for approval.
Workplan Section that Complies
with the 2018 Policy
Section 6.2 Development and adoption of salt and nutrient management plans
Section 4.2 - Establish CV-SNMP Stakeholder Group and
Technical Advisory Committee
Section 3 - CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Workplan
Section 4.7 - Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and
Evaluate the Baseline Scenario
Section 4.3 - Characterize N/TDS Loading to the
Groundwater Basin
Section 4.4 - Characterize Current Groundwater Quality
Section 4.5 - Delineate Draft Management Zones and
Describe Metrics to Characterize Beneficial Use Protection
Section 4.7 - Construct N/TDS Forecasting Tools and
Evaluate Baseline Scenario
Section 4.8 - Forecast N/TDS for up to Eight CV-SNMP
Scenarios
Section 4.10 - Select the Preferred CV-SNMP Scenario,
Finalize Management Zones and Beneficial Uses, and Set
TDS Objectives
Table 4-1. CV-SNMP Development Workplan Compliance with the 2018 Recycled Water Policy
Recommended and Required Components of SNMPs
pursutant to 2018 Recycled Water Policy
6.2.4.1. A basin- or subbasin-wide monitoring plan that includes an appropriate
network of monitoring locations to provide a reasonable, cost effective means of
determining whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of
concern as identified in the salt and nutrient management plans are consistent with
applicable water quality objectives. The number, type, and density of monitoring
locations to be sampled and other aspects of the monitoring program shall be
dependent upon basin-specific conditions and input from the regional water board.
6.2.4.5. An antidegradation analysis demonstrating that the existing projects,
reasonably foreseeable future projects, and other sources of loading to the basin
included within the plan will, cumulatively, satisfy the requirements of State Water
Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High
Quality of Waters in California (Antidegradation Policy).
6.2.4.4. Implementation measures to manage or reduce the salt and nutrient loading in
the basin on a sustainable basis and the intended outcome of each measure.
6.2.4.3. Salt and nutrient source identification, basin or subbasin assimilative capacity
and loading estimates, together with fate and transport of salts and nutrients.
6.2.4.2. Water recycling use goals and objectives.
6.2.1 The State Water Board encourages collaborative work among salt and nutrient
management planning groups, the agricultural community, the regional water boards,
Integrated Regional Water Management groups, and groundwater sustainability
agencies formed under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to achieve the
goals of groundwater sustainability, recycled water use, and water quality protection.
For basins identified pursuant to 6.1.3, the State Water Board encourages local water
suppliers, wastewater treatment agencies, and recycled water producers, together with
local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders, to continue locally driven and
controlled, collaborative processes open to all stakeholders and the regional water
board that will result in the development of salt and nutrient management plans for
groundwater basins and the management of salts and nutrients on a basin-wide basis.
K – 943 – 80-20-01
CV-SNMP Agencies
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
Last Revised: 04-30-2021
CV-SNMP Development Workplan
K – 943 – 80-20-01 – WP – R – SNMP Work Plan
70 CV-SNMP Agencies
September 2, 2021
5.2 Progress Reporting to the Regional Board
To keep the Regional Board informed of progress and future activities during implementation of the CV-
SNMP Development Workplan, the CV-SNMP Agencies will add a section to the annual progress report
that will be submitted to the Regional Board for the Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan. The
annual progress report will be retitled: Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program and CV-SNMP Development Workplan. It will be submitted to the
Regional Board by March 31 of each year of implementation. The first annual progress report will be due
by March 31, 2022 to report progress achieved during calendar year 2021.
5.3 Cost Estimates
This section summarizes the total costs to implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan as described
in Section 4 and to implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan as described in
Section 3.
Total Costs to implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan. Table 5-2 below summarizes the cost
estimates by major task for the implementation of the CV-SNMP Development Workplan (excluding the
costs to implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program). The costs in Table 5-2 are first-order
estimates for work performed by the consultant(s) and are based on the 2021 rates for West Yost
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
(Approved by Regional Board on February 21, 2021)
Appendix A
This page intentionally left blank.
PREP ARED BY
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan Update
PREP ARED FOR
The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
FINAL REPORT | DECEMBER 23, 2020
FINAL REPORT | DECEMBER 23, 2020
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan Update
Prepared for
The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Project No. 943-80-20-01
12/23/2020
Project Manager: Andrew E. Malone, PG Date
12/23/2020
QA/QC Review: Samantha Adams Date
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
i The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model of the Basin .............................................................................. 3
2.1 Basin Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater ......................................................................... 4
2.3 Origin, Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients ............................................................................ 5
2.3.1 Salt and Nutrient Loading ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Transport and Discharge of Salts and Nutrients ..................................................................... 6
Groundwater Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 11
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network ................................................................................................ 11
3.1.1 Methods for Selection of the Groundwater Monitoring Network ....................................... 12
3.1.2 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System ................................................... 12
3.1.3 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Deep Aquifer System ....................................................... 13
3.1.4 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System ................................................... 13
3.2 Chemical Analytes and Sampling Frequency .................................................................................. 13
3.3 Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analysis ................................................................. 13
3.3.2 Reporting of Laboratory Results ........................................................................................... 14
3.4 Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network ..................................................................................... 14
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................. 30
4.1 Schedule of Activities ..................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Progress Reporting to the Regional Board ..................................................................................... 31
4.3 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 32
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Shallow Aquifer System ................................. 16
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Deep Aquifer System ..................................... 18
Table 3-3. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network – Perched Aquifer System ................................ 20
Table 3-4. Gaps in SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network ............................................................. 21
Table 3-5. Analyte List for the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program ........................................... 22
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses ............................... 23
Table 4-1. Cost Estimates – Initial Six-Year Implementation Period of CV-SNMP Groundwater
Monitoring Program ............................................................................................................................. 34
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
ii The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Basin Setting ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-2. Hydrogeologic Map .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-3. Generalized Stratigraphic Column in Lower Coachella Valley ............................................. 9
Figure 2-4. Salt and Nutrient Loading, Transport, and Discharge ........................................................ 10
Figure 3-1. Groundwater Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System .......................... 27
Figure 3-2. Groundwater Monitoring Network – Deep Aquifer System ............................................... 28
Figure 3-3. Groundwater Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System .......................... 29
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CPS City of Palm Springs
CV-SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA/CSD Coachella Water Authority and Coachella Sanitary District
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ft-bgs Feet below ground surface
IWA Indio Water Authority
GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring & Assessment
MC-GRF Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment System
MDMWC Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
PD-GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TEL-GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility
USGS United States Geological Survey
VSD Valley Sanitary District
WRP Water Reclamation Plant
WW-GRF White Water Groundwater Replenishment Facility
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
1 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (CV-SNMP)
must include a monitoring and reporting program pursuant to Section 6.2.4.1 of the 2018 Recycled Water
Policy (Policy):
6.2.4.1. A basin- or subbasin-wide monitoring plan that includes an appropriate network of
monitoring locations to provide a reasonable, cost effective means of determining whether the
concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and
nutrient management plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives. The number,
type, and density of monitoring locations to be sampled and other aspects of the monitoring
program shall be dependent upon basin-specific conditions and input from the regional water
board. Salts, nutrients, and the constituents identified in 6.2.1.1 shall be monitored. The
frequency of monitoring shall be proposed in the salt and nutrient management plan for review
by the regional water board pursuant to 6.2.3.
6.2.4.1.1. The monitoring plan must be designed to effectively evaluate water quality in
the basin. The monitoring plan must focus on water supply wells, areas proximate to large
water recycling projects, particularly groundwater recharge projects, and other potential
sources of salt and nutrients identified in the salt and nutrient management plan. Also,
monitoring locations shall, where appropriate, target groundwater and surface waters
where groundwater has connectivity with adjacent surface waters.
6.2.4.1.2. The monitoring plan may include water quality data from existing wells where
the wells are located and screened appropriately to determine water quality throughout
the most critical areas of the basin. The State Water Board supports monitoring
approaches that leverage the use of groundwater monitoring wells from other regulatory
programs, such as the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program and the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
6.2.4.1.3. The monitoring plan shall identify those stakeholders responsible for
conducting, compiling, and reporting the monitoring data. Where applicable, the regional
water board will assist by encouraging other dischargers in the basin or subbasin to
participate in the monitoring program. The data shall be electronically reported annually
in a format that is compatible with a Groundwater Ambient Monitoring & Assessment
(GAMA) information system and must be integrated into the GAMA information system
or its successor.
In its evaluation of the 2015 CV-SNMP, the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board) perceived insufficiencies in the proposed monitoring program, including: (i) a lack of data
necessary to characterize groundwater quality in all areas and sub-areas of the basin; (ii) a lack of data in
critical areas of salt loading (e.g., water recycling and recharge projects); and (iii) it did not propose a
plan/timeline to fill the data gaps (Regional Board letter; February 19, 2020). Hence, the Regional Board
is requiring the CV-SNMP stakeholders (CV-SNMP Agencies) to prepare a revised Groundwater Monitoring
Program Workplan (Workplan) for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) by December 2020
(Regional Board letter; April 27, 2020).
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
2 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
The CV-SNMP Agencies include: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD); Coachella Water Authority and
Coachella Sanitary District (CWA/CSD); Desert Water Agency (DWA); Indio Water Authority (IWA); Myoma
Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC); Valley Sanitary District (VSD); Mission Springs Water District
(MSWD); and City of Palm Springs (CPS).
To achieve the requirements of the Policy and address the concerns of the Regional Board, this Workplan
describes the following:
The physical setting of the Coachella Valley which includes the basic hydrology and
hydrogeology of the Basin and its subbasins. The physical understanding of how the
groundwater basin functions is necessary to select a monitoring network that is capable of
characterizing groundwater quality in all areas and subareas of the Basin, both spatially
and vertically.
An initial sampling network, including the locations planned for sampling, justifications for
the sampling locations, well construction details, and the SNMP Agencies responsible for
conducting monitoring at each site.
The existing spatial and vertical gaps in the monitoring network, why the gaps were
identified, and how the gaps will be filled.
A proposed plan to implement the monitoring program.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
3 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE BASIN
This section summarizes the physical characteristics and dynamics of the Basin regarding surface water,
groundwater, and the origin, fate and transport of salts and nutrients within the Basin. Understanding the
physical characteristics and dynamics of the Basin provides the foundation for selecting a monitoring
network that will meet the objectives of the Policy.
This section was prepared from a review of past technical studies and reports; no original work or analyses
were performed for this section of the workplan.
2.1 Basin Setting
Figure 2-1 is a map that shows the Basin as delineated by the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR Groundwater Basin No. 7-021, excluding the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin), which represents the
area subject to the CV-SNMP. The Basin is located within the northwest portion of the Salton Sea
Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 18100200).
Figure 2-1 shows the surface geology as generalized into natural divisions with regard to groundwater:
Unconsolidated water-bearing sediments. These are the pervious formations that comprise
the Basin.
Bedrock formations. These are the semi-consolidated sediments and the consolidated
bedrock formations that come to the surface in the hills and mountains that surround and
bound the Basin. The permeability of the bedrock formations is much less than the water-
bearing sediments.
The upper 2,000 ft of the unconsolidated water-bearing sediments constitute the freshwater aquifer
system that is the main source of groundwater supply in the region. The sediments tend to be finer-
grained in the southeastern portions of the Basin due to the greater distance from the mountainous
source areas and the lower-energy depositional environments, such as historical Lake Cahuilla.
The Whitewater River is the major drainage course in the Basin. The Whitewater River is an unlined
channel, so surface water flows have the potential to infiltrate and recharge the Basin. In areas with
shallow groundwater, the groundwater has the potential to discharge to interconnected surface water.
2.2 Hydrogeology
2.2.1 Subbasins and Subareas
Figure 2-2 is a map of the general hydrogeology of the area. The Basin is cross-cut by several geologic
faults, which have created low-permeability zones within the water-bearing sediments that act as barriers
to groundwater flow. These barriers impede, but do not eliminate, groundwater flow between subbasins.
Groundwater flow can still occur across the barriers from areas of higher groundwater levels to areas of
lower groundwater levels. The map identifies the locations of faults, subbasins, and subareas that
comprise the Basin, and describes the general occurrence and movement of groundwater through
the Basin.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
4 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
The DWR has defined three main subbasins within the study area that are separated by geologic faults or
changes in formation permeability that limit and control the movement of groundwater: the Indio
Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 7-021.01), the Mission Creek Subbasin (7-021.02), and the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasin (7-021.03).1 These subbasins have been further subdivided into subareas based on one or more
of the following geologic or hydrogeologic characteristics: type(s) of water-bearing formations, water
quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, and groundwater or surface drainage divides.
Figure 2-2 shows groundwater-elevation contours for water-year 2019 (October 1, 2018 through
September 30, 2019). Lateral groundwater flow is generally perpendicular to the contours from higher to
lower elevation, as indicated by the arrows on the map. Generally, groundwater flows from areas of
natural recharge along the surrounding mountain-fronts toward the valley floor and then southeast
toward the distal portions of the Basin near the Salton Sea. Locally, the structural and compositional
features within the Basin result in groundwater conditions and flow directions that vary significantly
between subbasins. Anthropogenic activities such as artificial recharge and groundwater pumping also
influence groundwater-flow directions.
2.2.2 Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater
Described below is the general occurrence of groundwater, and how groundwater flows through and
discharges from each subbasin:
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin. In the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin, groundwater typically flows from the
Little San Bernardino Mountains to the southeast, but is locally variable due to faulting. The aquifer system
is poorly understood due to relatively poor water quality, which has limited the development of
groundwater resources in the area. Faulting in the northern portion of the subbasin has resulted in
thermal mineral waters in the aquifer with temperatures up to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. These thermal
waters are used by several spas in the area. Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells
or subsurface outflow. Generally, groundwater elevations in the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin are higher
than in the Mission Creek and Indio Subbasins, and hence, the subsurface outflow from the Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin occurs across the Mission Creek Fault into these downgradient subbasins. These
subsurface flows are thought to be relatively minor based on the differences in groundwater quality on
either side of the fault barriers that separate the subbasins.
Mission Creek Subbasin. In the Mission Creek Subbasin, groundwater typically flows from northwest to
southeast. The aquifer system is up to 2,000 feet thick and is predominantly unconfined. Portions of the
aquifer along the Banning Fault northwest of the Seven Palms Ridge area are semi-confined as evidenced
by historically flowing-artesian wells in the area. Depth to groundwater in the Mission Creek Subbasin in
2019 ranged from an estimated 600 feet-bgs (ft-bgs) upgradient of the Mission Creek Groundwater
Replenishment Facility (MC-GRF) to less than 5 feet-bgs in the southeast (west of the Indio Hills).
Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells or subsurface flow across the Banning Fault
into the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin is bordered on the southwest by the crystalline bedrock of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. It is separated from the Mission Creek Subbasin by the Banning Fault,
and from the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin by the San Andreas Fault. Both faults are barriers to
1 The DWR defines the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (7-021.04) as part the Basin, but it is not included in the
CV-SNMP.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
5 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
groundwater flow as evidenced by differences in groundwater levels across the faults. For example,
groundwater-level differences across the Banning Fault, between the Mission Creek Subbasin and the
Indio Subbasin, can be up to 250 feet. Subsurface flow between subbasins primarily occurs from the
Desert Hot Springs and Mission Creek subbasins into the Indio subbasin.
In the Indio Subbasin, the aquifer system is generally unconfined in the forebay areas and across the
northwestern portion of the subbasin. Generally, groundwater flows from the northwest toward the
southeastern distal portions of the subbasin near the Salton Sea. In the southeast portion of the Indio
Subbasin, the predominance of fine-grained sediments at depth has created three distinct aquifer
systems, which are shown graphically in Figure 2-3 and are described below:
Perched. A semi-perched aquifer up to 100 feet thick that is persistent across much of the
area southeast of the City of Indio. The fine-grain units that cause the perched conditions
are likely a barrier to deep percolation of surface water. The extent of the semi-perched
aquifer is shown on Figure 2-2. Shallow groundwater within the semi-perched aquifer is
conveyed away from the root zone by a network of privately-owned subsurface tile drainage
systems that are distributed across the agricultural land uses in the southeastern portion of
the Basin. CVWD maintains a regional network of surface and subsurface drains, shown on
Figure 2-4, that accumulate and convey the drainage waters from the agricultural lands to
the Salton Sea.
Shallow. An upper aquifer up to 300 feet thick that is present across most of the area. The
upper aquifer is unconfined except in the areas of the semi-perched aquifer where it is semi-
confined.
Deep. A lower aquifer that is 500-2,000 feet thick and is the most productive portion of the
Basin. In the southeast portion of the Basin, the lower aquifer is confined and is separated
from the upper aquifer by a fine-grained aquitard unit that is 100-200 feet thick. Figure 2-2
displays the extent of the aquitard unit.
Groundwater discharge primarily occurs by pumping at wells, shallow groundwater discharge to
subsurface tile drainage systems on agricultural lands that ultimately discharge to the Salton Sea, and
subsurface outflow to groundwater underlying the Salton Sea.
2.3 Origin, Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients
Figure 2-4 is a map that depicts the general areas and processes of salt and nutrient loading, transport,
and discharge throughout the Basin.
2.3.1 Salt and Nutrient Loading
Salts, and in some cases nutrients, are loaded to the Basin via the following mechanisms:
Subsurface inflow from saturated sediments and bedrock fractures in the surrounding
mountains and hills and from upgradient groundwater subbasins.
Recharge of precipitation runoff in unlined stream channels that cross the Basin.
Artificial recharge of imported Colorado River Water at the Groundwater Replenishment
Facilities (GRF).
Percolation of treated wastewater discharge to unlined ponds.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
6 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Seepage from septic systems.
Return flows from precipitation and irrigation waters applied to the overlying land uses
(e.g., agriculture, golf courses, etc.). Loading from return flows is a complex process that is
influenced by:
— The combination of precipitation and irrigation waters that ultimately result in the
return flows (and their associated TDS and nitrate concentrations) that migrate past the
root zone.
— During the downward migration of return flows through the unsaturated (vadose) zone,
the TDS and nitrate concentrations of the return flows can be influenced by past TDS
and nitrate loading to the vadose zone by historical overlying land uses.
Figure 2-4 shows the spatial distribution and location of these sources of salt and nutrient loading across
the Basin.
2.3.2 Transport and Discharge of Salts and Nutrients
Once within the saturated zone, the dissolved salts and nutrients are transported through the aquifer
system via the groundwater-flow systems shown on Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-4. Ultimately, salts and
nutrients are discharged from the Basin via the following mechanisms:
Groundwater pumping.
Discharge to agricultural drains. As described above, throughout the lower Basin, CVWD
maintains a network of surface and subsurface drains to convey shallow groundwater away
from the crop root zones. These drains convey water to the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel (CVSC) and 26 smaller open channel drains that discharge directly to the Salton Sea.
Subsurface outflow to downgradient subbasins. In the Indio Subbasin, subsurface outflow
occurs to groundwater beneath the Salton Sea.
Phreatophyte consumptive use.
Figure 2-3
From DWR (1964)
Generalized Stratigraphic Column in Lower Coachella Valley
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
11 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
The Groundwater Monitoring Program for the CV-SNMP consists of the following components, each
further described below:
Groundwater Monitoring Network
Chemical Analytes and Sampling Frequency
Monitoring and Reporting
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network
Section 6.2.4.1 of the Policy requires the implementation of a monitoring program that can determine
whether the concentrations of salts and nutrients in groundwater are consistent with water quality
objectives and are thereby protective of beneficial uses. The Policy also recognizes the monitoring
program will be dependent upon basin-specific conditions and input from the Regional Board.
For the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program, the Regional Board is requiring that the
monitoring program:
Cover all subbasins and subareas within the Basin. The updated SNMP will require periodic
mapping of groundwater quality to estimate ambient water quality and assimilative
capacity. A monitoring network that is spatially distributed across all subbasins and subareas
of the Basin will provide the necessary data for technically defensible mapping of
groundwater quality.
Include sampling from all three major aquifer systems: Deep, Shallow, and Perched. Section
2 of this Workplan described the hydrogeologic stratification of the aquifer system in the
Basin. Groundwater quality, and the physical processes that can alter groundwater quality
over time, can be significantly different between aquifer systems. This is because: (i)
anthropogenic loading of salts and nutrients occur primarily at the ground surface, and
hence, can influence the quality of shallower groundwaters first before influencing the
quality of deeper groundwaters; (ii) thick aquitards in the southeastern portion of the Basin
restrict the vertical movement of groundwater between aquifer systems; and (iii) upward
hydraulic gradients, as evidenced by flowing artesian conditions in the southeastern portion
of the Basin, limit the downward migration of salts and nutrients to the Deep aquifer system
in this region. For these reasons, monitoring of perched, shallow and deep groundwaters is
proposed herein across most of the Basin.
Focus on critical areas near: (i) large water recycling projects, (ii) near large recharge
projects, particularly where Colorado River water is used to replenish the Basin for water-
supply and groundwater management purposes, and (iii) near other potential sources of salt
and nutrients. It is important that monitoring occurs hydraulically upgradient and
downgradient from these sources of salt and nutrient loading to characterize their influence
on groundwater quality.
Focus on critical areas near water supply wells. The water-supply wells are the main points
of extraction for the ultimate beneficial uses of the Basin.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
12 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Identify critical gaps in the monitoring network and develop a plan and timeline to fill the
gaps. The current gaps in the monitoring network are described in this section. The plan and
timeline to fill the gaps are included in Section 4.
Identify the stakeholders responsible for conducting, compiling, and reporting the
monitoring data.
3.1.1 Methods for Selection of the Groundwater Monitoring Network
The criteria used to select the groundwater monitoring network included the following:
Spatial Distribution. The monitoring network was designed to cover all subbasins and
subareas within the Basin.
Hydrogeology. The monitoring network was designed to monitor all three major aquifer
systems: Deep, Shallow, and Perched. Water-supply wells in the Basin typically pump
groundwater from the Deep aquifer system and were therefore more available for inclusion
in the monitoring network. Wells with screens across the Shallow and Perched aquifer
systems were less abundant. Hence, most “gaps” in the proposed monitoring network are
within the Shallow and Perched aquifer systems.
Areas of Salt or Nutrient Loading. The network was designed to monitor the influence of
known sources of salt or nutrient loading on groundwater quality within the Basin. These
sources included: the GRFs; wastewater percolation ponds; areas with septic systems;
overlying land uses with irrigation returns (e.g., golf, landscapes, agriculture); and areas
served non-potable waters for irrigation (e.g., recycled and/or imported waters). Monitoring
of non-point-source loading, such as returns from non-potable irrigation waters and septic
systems, is intended to be representative of the influence of non-point-sources of loading
on groundwater quality. It is not intended to be site-specific monitoring of every area of
non-point-source loading across the Basin, which would be infeasible.
Groundwater Flow. The network was designed to monitor all major groundwater-flow
systems, from areas of recharge to areas of discharge, and within and between the
groundwater subbasins. This is necessary in order to track the subsurface migration of salts
and nutrients through the Basin.
Use of Existing Wells. Wherever possible, active municipal production or monitoring wells
were preferentially selected if they currently participate in a similar monitoring program
(e.g., California Division of Drinking Water [DDW] or Regional Board orders). In some areas,
such wells were not available for selection. In those areas, inactive municipal production
wells or private wells were selected for inclusion in the monitoring network. The use of
inactive or private wells in this monitoring program will require significant coordination with
the private well owners and/or physical wellhead improvements to collect groundwater
samples. Lastly, if no wells were identified in an area/depth that should be monitored, a
“gap” was designated in the monitoring network.
3.1.2 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Shallow Aquifer System
Figure 3-1 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Shallow aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. Because most production wells in the Basin have well screens across the Deep
aquifer system, there were several identified “gaps” in the monitoring network, particularly in the Thermal
Subarea of the Indio Subbasin. Table 3-1 is a list of wells shown on Figure 3-1 sorted by Map_ID. The table
includes a summary justification for why each well was included in the monitoring program. Table 3-4 is
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
13 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
a list of the “gaps” in the monitoring network with a summary explanation of why each gap should be
filled.
3.1.3 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Deep Aquifer System
Figure 3-2 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Deep aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. Most production wells in the Basin have well screens across the Deep aquifer system;
hence, there were no identified “gaps” in the Deep monitoring network. Table 3-2 is a list of wells shown
on Figure 3-2 sorted by Map_ID. The table includes a summary justification for why the well was included
in the monitoring program.
3.1.4 Monitoring Network and Gaps – Perched Aquifer System
Figure 3-3 is a map of the groundwater monitoring network for the Perched aquifer system. Each well is
labeled by a Map_ID. The map shows the extent of the Perched aquifer system which is confined to the
Thermal Subarea of the Indio Subbasin. The network of CVWD’s agricultural drains that convey perched
groundwater to the CVSC and the Salton Sea is also shown. The only existing wells with well screens across
the Perched aquifer system are five monitoring wells owned by the CVWD; hence, there were several
identified “gaps” in the Perched monitoring network. Table 3-3 is a list of wells shown on Figure 3-3 sorted
by Map_ID. The table includes a summary justification for why each well was included in the monitoring
program. Table 3-4 is a list of the “gaps” in the monitoring network with a summary explanation of why
each gap should be filled.
3.2 Chemical Analytes and Sampling Frequency
Table 3-5 lists the chemicals that will be analyzed for dissolved concentration in each groundwater sample
for the monitoring program. The table describes the justification for each chemical analyte. Testing will
be performed at a laboratory accredited by the State of California for the testing of inorganic chemistry
of drinking water.
The minimum sampling frequency is once every three years. Many wells chosen for this monitoring
program are sampled more frequently under other required or voluntary monitoring programs.
During each groundwater sampling event, the agency responsible for sampling will attempt to obtain a
static (non-pumping) depth-to-water measurement. In instances when a static depth-to-water
measurement cannot be obtained, it will be noted with a description for the reason.
3.3 Monitoring and Reporting
3.3.1 Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
The SNMP Agencies have the following responsibilities for sampling of the wells in the monitoring network
(described in Section 3.1) and the laboratory analysis of chemical analytes (described in Section 3.2):
Municipal well owners are responsible for the groundwater sampling and laboratory
analyses for their own wells.
For private wells within their service area, the overlying SNMP Agency is responsible for
coordinating with the private well owners to conduct groundwater sampling and the
laboratory analyses. In areas of overlapping jurisdictions of SNMP Agencies, the agencies
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
14 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
must jointly coordinate to assign responsibility for sampling and analysis of private wells
that fall within the overlapping jurisdictions. Agency responsibilities may include developing
administrative agreements with the well owners (e.g., right-of-entry agreement) and making
physical modifications to the wellhead to enable collection of a sample (e.g., installation of a
sampling port on the well discharge pipe).
Table 3-6 lists all wells proposed for the monitoring program. For each well, the table includes a
designation for the overlying SNMP Agency(ies).
3.3.2 Reporting of Laboratory Results
Section 6.2.4.1.3 of the Policy requires that all data collected for the monitoring program “shall be
electronically reported annually in a format that is compatible with a Groundwater Ambient Monitoring
& Assessment (GAMA) information system and must be integrated into the GAMA information system or
its successor.” This will centralize data generated from SNMPs at the State level and create consistency
across regional water boards to allow for further analysis of monitoring data.
By March 31 of each year, the SNMP Agencies will report the laboratory water-quality results from the
prior calendar year to the GAMA information system.
3.4 Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network
Table 3-4 lists the gaps in the monitoring network that were identified during the selection of the
monitoring network.
Gaps in the monitoring network will be filled in one of two ways:
Field identification of an existing well that: (i) is located near the identified gap; (ii) can be
sampled, and (iii) has well screens across the appropriate depth interval (e.g., across the
Shallow aquifer system). This may require the following activities: field canvassing to
identify a candidate well; research and/or exploratory well surveys to confirm well screen
depth intervals; and constructing any well/wellhead modifications that are necessary to
collect groundwater samples.
Construction of a new monitoring well with well screens across the appropriate depth
interval. This may require the following activities: a well-siting study; well-site acquisition or
easement; development of technical specifications for a monitoring well; conducting a bid
process to select a well drilling/construction subcontractor; obtaining the necessary permits
and CEQA clearance; performing well construction with oversight; performing well
development and testing; preparing a well completion report; equipping the well for
sampling, and wellhead completion including any needed site improvements.
In the first year, the SNMP Agencies will perform the necessary field work and research and develop a
plan for how each gap in the monitoring program will be filled.
Filling the gaps in the monitoring network is likely the most expensive, complicated element of the
monitoring program. Therefore, the filling of gaps will be executed over a six-year period, subject to
funding availability. The SNMP Agencies will pursue grant funding to support the filling of gaps under
State-run programs such as Integrated Regional Water Management and the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act. The SNMP Agencies also are developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
15 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
implement the CV-SNMP Monitoring Program Workplan. The MOU will assign responsibilities and cost-
sharing agreements between the SNMP Agencies for the filling of the gaps in the monitoring network.
By March 31 of each year, the SNMP Agencies will report to the Regional Board on progress made toward
the filling the gaps in the monitoring network over the preceding calendar year (see Section 4.2 below).
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Shallow Aquifer System
1 03S04E20F01S USGS 335348116352701 Active Monitoring 600-640 S Northwest area at WW-GRF
2 03S04E20J01S USGS 335339116345301 Active Monitoring 550-590 S Northeast area at WW-GRF
3 06S07E33G02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
4 06S07E33J02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
5 06S07E34N03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23S Active Monitoring 230-250 S Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
7 02S04E26C01S Mission Springs Water District Well 28 Inactive MUN 590-898 S Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF; near golf course and septic areas
8 02S04E28A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 34 Active MUN 550-980 S Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF
9 02S05E31L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 11 Inactive Unknown 220-285 S Downgradient of Desert Hot Springs (DHS) subbasin
10 03S04E04Q02S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04Q02S Active Unknown S Upgradient portion of Mission Creek subbasin
11 03S04E11L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 27 Active MUN 180-380 S Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near potential septic areas in N. Palm Springs
12 03S05E05Q01S Hidden Springs Golf Course P27 Active Unknown 220-600 S Downgradient of DHS subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
13 City of Palm Springs Airport MW-2 Active Monitoring 240-250 S Center of Indio subbasin; near airport and areas served non-potable water (NPW)
14 City of Palm Springs MW-1 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
15 City of Palm Springs MW-3 Active Monitoring 140-215 S Upgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
16 City of Palm Springs MW-4 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
17 City of Palm Springs MW-5 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
18 City of Palm Springs MW-6 Active Monitoring 170-210 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
19 03S03E08M01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26 Active MUN 225-553 S Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
20 03S03E10P02S Unknown DWA P05 Active Unknown 306-906 S Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
21 03S04E12B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 3408-1 Active MUN 270-500 S Central portion of Mission Creek subbasin; near potential septic areas
22 03S04E29F01S USGS 335304116353001 Active Monitoring 550-570 S Monitoring at southwestern area of Whitewater GRF
23 03S04E29R01S USGS 335231116345401 Active Monitoring 431-551 S Monitoring at southeastern area of Whitewater GRF
24 04S04E11Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 5 Standby MUN 302-402 S Western portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient of septic areas
25 04S04E35A01S Indian Canyons Golf Resort 04S04E35A01S Active Unknown 360-680 S Near golf courses, septic, and areas served NPW
26 04S05E09F03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4564-1 Active MUN 410-670 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
27 04S05E29A02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 25 Active MUN 166-300 S Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds; near golf courses and NPW areas
29 04S07E33L02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2S Active Monitoring 60-190 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
30 05S06E09M03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-7 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
31 05S06E09P02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 2 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
32 05S06E10J01S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 1 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
33 05S06E13G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-8 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
34 05S06E14G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-5 Active Monitoring 240-320 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
35 05S06E14P03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-6 Active Monitoring 190-270 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
36 05S06E15F01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-2 Active Monitoring 160-290 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
37 05S06E15M01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-1 Active Monitoring 145-295 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
38 05S06E15P01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-3 Active Monitoring 130-290 S Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
39 05S06E16A03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-4 Active Monitoring 190-270 S Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
40 05S06E21Q04S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 3 Active Monitoring 260-340 S Cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
41 05S06E23M02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 4 Active Monitoring 270-360 S Cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
42 05S07E03D02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4S Active Monitoring 60-190 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
43 05S07E04A04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-3S Active Monitoring 50-180 S Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
44 05S07E16K02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5737-1 Inactive Monitoring 200-415 S Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient from areas served NPW
45 05S07E19D04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-9 Active Monitoring 260-340 S West in Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
46 05S07E24M02S Indio Water Authority Well 1B Active MUN 190-410 S Center of Indio subbasin; upgradient of VSD plant
47 06S06E12G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6650-1 Inactive Monitoring <370 S Within center of The Cove
48 06S07E34A02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-25 Active Monitoring 115-135 S Downgradient from TEL-GRF and golf courses
49 06S07E34D02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-24 Active Monitoring 180-200 S Directly north and downgradient of TEL-GRF
50 07S08E29P03S Coachella Valley Water District MC-3 Active Monitoring 380-440 S At Martinez Canyon GRF
51 08S09E31R03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 8995-1 Active MUN 260-390 S Southern corner of the Indio basin; near agriculture; near Salton Sea
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-1. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Shallow Aquifer System
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
52 03S04E17K01S Valley View MWC 03S04E17K01S Undetermined Unknown 340-375 S Cross-gradient from Whitewater GRF in Garnet Hill subarea
53 03S04E22A01S Erin Miner 03S04E22A01S Active Unknown 180-230 S Downgradient of Whitewater GRF in Garnet Hill subarea; upgradient of West Valley WWTP
54 03S05E08P02S Bluebeyond Fisheries 03S05E08P02S Active Fish Farm 200-400 S Central Mission Creek subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
55 03S05E15N01S Too Many Palms LLC 03S05E15N01S Active Irrigation 158-320 S Distal area in Mission Creek subbasin; downgradient of DHS subbasin
56 03S05E18J01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E18J01S Active Irrigation 76-340 S Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near golf course and septic areas
57 03S06E21G01S Sky Valley Mobile Home Park 03S06E21G01S Undetermined Unknown 188-248 S Western portion of Sky Valley subarea; near septic areas
58 04S05E04F01S So Pacific Trans Co #32601 04S05E04F01S Active Irrigation 276-576 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient from Garnet Hill subarea; near septic areas
59 04S05E23F01S Westin Mission Hills Resort 04S05E23F01S Active Irrigation 275-1165 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
60 04S05E34C01S Manufacture Home Community Inc 04S05E34C01S Active Irrigation 240-500 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
61 04S05E35Q01S Tamarisk Country Club 04S05E35Q01S Active Irrigation 171-518 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
62 04S05E36L02S Annenberg Estate 04S05E36L02S Active Irrigation 252-650 S Center of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
63 04S06E20C01S Shenandoah Ventures LP 04S06E20C01S Inactive Irrigation 250-790 S Upgradient in Thousand Palms area; upgradient of septic areas
66 05S05E12D01S Thunderbird Country Club 05S05E12D01S Active Irrigation 125-360 S Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
67 05S06E12M01S Palm Desert Resort Country Club 05S06E12M01S Active Irrigation 140-650 S Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
68 05S07E08Q01S Bermuda Dunes Airport 05S07E08Q01S Active Domestic 203-654 S Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
69 05S07E28H02S Tricon/COB Riverdale LP 05S07E28H02S Active Domestic 162-636 S Center of Indio subbasin
70 05S08E28M02S JS Cooper 05S08E28M02S Undetermined Unknown 208-268 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient of VSD discharge point
71 05S08E30N03S Carver Tract Mutual Water Co 05S08E30N03S Active Domestic 270-330 S Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient from VSD plant
72 06S07E07B01S Traditions Golf Club 06S07E07B01S Active Irrigation 200-480 S Downgradient from The Cove; near golf courses and septic areas
73 06S08E02L01S Prime Time International 06S08E02L01S Undetermined Irrigation 216-407 S Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
74 06S08E05K01S Peter Rabbit Farms 06S08E05K01S Active Irrigation 126-375 S Eastern portion of Indio subbasin in Coachella
75 06S08E32L01S Guillermo Torres 06S08E32L01S Undetermined Unknown 127-227 S Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
76 07S08E27A01S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A01S Active Domestic 147-215 S Downgradient from Martinez Canyon GRF; near septic areas
77 07S09E14C01S Tudor Ranch Inc.07S09E14C01S Active Domestic 93-290 S Southeastern corner of Indio subbasin; near agriculture and septic areas; near Salton Sea
78 08S08E15G02S Thermiculture Management LLC 08S08E15G02S Active Irrigation 260-500 S Southern corner of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; near Salton Sea
79 Mission Springs Water District Well 25 Active MUN 330-455 S Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
80 Mission Springs Water District Well 1 Inactive Monitoring S Northern Miracle Hill subarea; upgradient of Mission Creek subbasin
81 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-1 Active Monitoring 186-236 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
82 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-2 Active Monitoring 220-270 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
83 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-3 Active Monitoring 200-250 S Monitoring wells upgradient and downgradient of the Horton WWTP
(a) Well Status Well Status "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use MUN municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S Shallow aquifer system. D Deep aquifer system
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Deep Aquifer System
84 03S04E20F02S USGS 335348116352702 Active Monitoring 850-890 D Northwest area at WW-GRF
85 03S04E20J03S USGS 335339116345303 Active Monitoring 850-890 D Northeast area at WW-GRF
86 06S07E33G01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21D Active Monitoring 390-410 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
87 06S07E33J01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22D Active Monitoring 520-540 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
88 06S07E34N02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23D Active Monitoring 525-545 D Adjacent to and downgradient of TEL-GRF
89 07S09E30R03S Coachella Valley Water District Peggy Active Monitoring 730-770 D Downgradient of WRP-4; near agriculture; area of subsurface outflow toward Salton Sea
90 08S09E07N02S Coachella Valley Water District Rosie Active Monitoring 720-780 D Near agriculture; area of subsurface outflow toward Salton Sea
91 05S07E24L03S Indio Water Authority Well 1E Active MUN 552-815 D Center of Indio subbasin; upgradient of VSD plant
92 02S04E28J01S Mission Springs Water District
Well 35 Active MUN 725-1020 D Downgradient from Mission Creek GRF
93 02S04E36P01S Mission Springs Water District Well 37 Active MUN 450-1080 D Downgradient of DHS subbasin; possibly downgradient of Horton WWTP
94 02S05E31H01S Mission Springs Water District Well 5 Inactive Monitoring 274-784 D Northern Miracle Hill subarea; upgradient of Mission Creek subbasin
95 03S03E07D01S Mission Springs Water District Well 25A Active MUN 500-740 D Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
96 03S04E04P01S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04P01S Active Unknown D Upgradient portion of Mission Creek subbasin
97 03S04E11A02S Mission Springs Water District Well 32 Active MUN 320-980 D Center of Mission Creek subbasin; near potential septic areas
98 03S03E08A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26A Active MUN 320-600 D Monitoring of subsurface inflow from San Gorgonio Pass subbasin
99 03S03E10P01S Unknown DWA P04 Active Unknown 476-776 D Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
100 03S04E14J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 33 Active MUN 360-650 D Along boundary of Mission Creek subbasin/Garnet Hill subarea
101 03S04E19L01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 43 Active MUN 500-900 D Upgradient of Whitewater GRF
102 03S04E34H02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 35 Active MUN 600-1000 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
103 03S04E36Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 38 Active MUN 620-1000 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
104 04S04E02B01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 22 Active MUN 570-1003 D Upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF
105 04S04E11Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 18 Standby MUN 535-948 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient of septic areas
106 04S04E13C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 23 Active MUN 512-912 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport
107 04S04E24E01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 32 Active MUN 600-1000 D Western portion of Palm Springs subarea; near areas served non-potable water (NPW)
108 04S04E24H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 29 Active MUN 600-1000 D Upgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds
109 04S04E25C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 39 Active MUN 580-750 D Downgradient of Indian Canyon; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
110 04S05E05A01S Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD Well 4568-1 Active MUN 800-955 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient from Garnet Hill; upgradient of septic areas
111 04S05E08N01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 41 Active MUN 610-1000 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport, near golf courses and areas served NPW
112 04S05E09R01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4567-1 Active MUN 855-1150 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
113 04S05E15G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4521-1 Active MUN 500-800 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
114 04S05E17Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 31 Active MUN 600-1000 D Center of Indio subbasin; near airport, golf courses, and areas served NPW
115 04S05E25D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4507-2 Active MUN 860-1320 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
116 04S05E27K01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4527-1 Active MUN 850-1155 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near NPR and septic areas
117 04S05E29H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 26 Active MUN 590-990 D Downgradient of Palm Springs WTP percolation ponds; near golf and areas served NPW
118 04S05E35G04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4504-1 Active MUN 600-1000 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near septic and areas served NPW
119 04S06E18Q04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4630-1 Active MUN 480-990 D Upgradient in Thousand Palms area; upgradient of septic areas
120 04S06E28K04S Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD Well 4629-1 Active Monitoring 496-796 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
121 04S07E31H01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4722-1 Active MUN 570-1160 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
122 04S07E33L01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2D Active MUN 245-395 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
123 05S06E02C01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5664-1 Active MUN 500-930 D Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW
124 05S06E06B03S Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD Well 5630-1 Active Monitoring 455-890 D Center of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
125 05S06E09A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5682-1 Active Monitoring 850-1300 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
126 05S06E09F01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5637-1 Inactive MUN 450-830 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
127 05S06E14B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5665-1 Inactive MUN 400-600 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
128 05S06E14P02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5603-2 Active MUN 720-975 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf courses and areas served NPW
129 05S06E16A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5620-2 Active MUN 1040-1360 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
130 05S06E16K03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5681-1 Active Monitoring 900-1200 D Upgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
131 05S06E17L01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5667-1 Active Monitoring 470-800 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
132 05S06E20A02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5674-1 Inactive Monitoring 750-1050 D South/cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
133 05S07E03D01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4D Active MUN 245-395 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
134 05S07E04A01S Coachella Valley Water District
WRP7 MW-1 Dave Price Active Monitoring 147-367 D Near WRP-7 percolation ponds
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-2. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Deep Aquifer System
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
135 05S07E15N01S Indio Water Authority Well AA Active MUN 550-1230 D Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient from areas served NPW
136 05S07E19A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5708-1 Inactive MUN 450-970 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
137 05S07E20J01S Indio Water Authority Well T Active MUN 580-1305 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and areas served NPW
138 05S07E26E02S Indio Water Authority Well 3B Active MUN 500-1200 D Center of Indio subbasin
139 05S07E27P01S Indio Water Authority Well Z Active MUN 580-1290 D Center of Indio subbasin
140 05S07E33E01S Indio Water Authority Well S Active MUN 460-1260 D Western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
141 05S07E34P04S Indio Water Authority Well V Active MUN 460-1270 D Western portion of subbasin; near golf courses and septic areas
142 05S07E35R02S Indio Water Authority Well U Active MUN 480-1190 D Center of Indio subbasin
143 05S07E36D03S Coachella Water Authority
Well 19 Active MUN 650-1250 D Center of Indio subbasin
144 05S08E31C03S Coachella Water Authority Well 11 Active MUN 513-818 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; downgradient from VSD plant
145 06S07E06B01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6701-1 Active MUN 580-800 D Downgradient from The Cove; near golf courses and septic areas
146 06S07E22B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6726-1 Active MUN 640-1160 D North/downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf courses, septic, and agricultural areas
147 06S07E34A01S Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD Well 6728-1 Active MUN 500-750 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; near golf courses
148 06S07E34D01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6729-1 Active MUN 500-780 D Directly north/downgradient of TEL-GRF
149 06S08E06K02S Coachella Water Authority Well 12 Active MUN 500-1010 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin
150 06S08E09N02S Coachella Water Authority Well 16 Active Monitoring 480-730 D Eastern portion of Indio subbasin; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
151 06S08E19D05S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6808-1 Active MUN 675-1200 D Center of Indio subbasin; near septic and agricultural areas
152 06S08E22D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6803-1 Inactive MUN 500-1100 D Downgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP; near septic and agricultural areas
153 06S08E25P04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6807-1 Active MUN 665-1300 D Upgradient of WRP-4; downgradient of CWA WWTP; near agriculture and septic areas
154 06S08E28N06S Coachella Water Authority Well 18 Active Monitoring 900-1190 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; downgradient of VSD discharge point
155 07S08E17A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7803-1 Active MUN 250-710 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural and septic areas
156 07S09E23N01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7990-1 Inactive Unknown 530-560 D Southeastern corner of the basin; near agricultural and septic areas; near Salton Sea
157 Indio Water Authority Well 13A Active Irrigation 550-1171 D East in subbasin; downgradient from WRP-7 ponds and NPR areas
158 03S05E08B01S R.C Roberts 03S05E08B01S Undetermined Irrigation 356-516 D Downgradient of DHS subbasin; near golf course and septic areas
159 03S05E17M01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E17M01S Active Unknown 305-412 D Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near golf course and septic areas
160 03S05E20H02S Donald Franklin 03S05E20H02S Active Irrigation 240-360 D Distal area in Mission Creek subbasin; upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near septic
161 03S06E21R01S Joel Rosenfeld 03S06E21R01S Undetermined Irrigation 355-495 D Western portion of Sky Valley subarea; near septic
162 05S05E12B03S Tandika Corp 05S05E12B03S Active Irrigation 410-800 D Western edge of Indio subbasin; near NPR and septic areas
163 05S06E13F01S PD Golf Operations LLC 05S06E13F01S Active Irrigation 400-700 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
164 05S06E15H01S Toscana Country Club 05S06E15H01S Active Irrigation 430-950 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
165 05S06E22C02S Desert Horizons Country Club 05S06E22C02S Active Irrigation 550-990 D Downgradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
166 05S06E27A01S El Dorado Country Club 05S06E27A01S Active MUN 458-596 D South/cross-gradient of WRP-10/PD-GRF; near golf, septic, and areas served NPW
167 05S06E29P04S Bighorn Golf Club 05S06E29P04S Active MUN 530-720 D Upgradient of Palm Desert; near golf courses and septic areas
168 05S07E07F04S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 4 Active MUN 430-730 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
169 05S07E08L01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 11 Active Unknown 500-1060 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
170 05S07E17K01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 12 Active Irrigation 450-950 D Center of Indio subbasin; near areas served NPW
171 05S08E09N03S Jamie Brack 05S08E09N03S Undetermined Unknown 480-580 D Downgradient of septic areas in Fargo subarea; upgradient of Indio subbasin
172 06S07E27B01S Andalusia Golf Club 06S07E27B01S Active Irrigation 300-780 D Downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf course and agricultural areas
173 06S07E35L02S Castro Bros Castro Bros Active Unknown 300-400 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; near golf courses and agricultural areas
174 06S08E11A01S Cocopah Nurseries Inc 06S08E11A01S Active Unknown 400-842 D Eastern edge of Indio subbasin; near agriculture; upgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP
175 06S08E31P01S Deer Creek Deer Creek Active Irrigation 400-550 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF, in agricultural area
176 06S08E35E02S Otto L. Zahler 06S08E35E02S Undetermined Unknown 521-596 D Center of Indio subbasin; directly upgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area
177 07S07E02G02S Warren Webber Warren Webber Active Irrigation 380-700 D Downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural area
178 07S08E01L02S Bill Wordon 07S08E01L02S Undetermined Domestic 500-880 D Center of Indio subbasin; downgradient of WRP-4, in agricultural area
179 07S08E27A02S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A02S Active MUN 491-811 D Downgradient from Martinez Canyon GRF; in agricultural area
180 07S09E10F01S Prime Time International 07S09E10F01S Active Unknown 360-500 D Southeast Indio subbasin; in agricultural area; near Salton Sea
181 Mission Springs Water District Well 31 Active MUN 270-670 D Upgradient of Garnet Hill subarea; near potential septic areas in N. Palm Springs
(a) Well Status Well Status "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use MUN municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S Shallow aquifer system. D Deep aquifer system
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 2
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-3. SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network -- Perched Aquifer System
182 Coachella Valley Water District WRP2 MW3 Active Monitoring <90 P At WRP-2; represents subsurface discharge to Salton Sea
183 06S07E27J03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-8 Active Monitoring 25-45 P North/downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf course and agriculture
184 06S07E34A03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-9 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF and golf course
185 06S08E31R01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-10 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
186 07S08E06P01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-11 Active Monitoring 25-45 P Downgradient from TEL-GRF; agricultural area
187 Coachella Valley Water District PEW-1 Active Monitoring 10-55 P At WRP-4; agricultural area
(a) Well Status: "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use: MUN = municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S = Shallow aquifer system. D = Deep aquifer system
Well
Status(a)'Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring ProgramWell
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-4. Gaps in SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Network
G1 S Monitoring of subsurface inflows from areas upgradient of Mission Creek GRF 700-1000 ft-bgs DWA, MSWD
G2 S Monitoring directly downgradient of the planned MSWD West Valley WWTP 200-300 ft-bgs MSWD, DWA
G3 S Monitoring of southern Miracle Hill subarea; near septic; upgradient of Desert Crest WWTP 100-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G4 S Monitoring of the Fargo subarea of DHS subbasin; near septic 100-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G5 S Monitoring upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Springs; downgradient of WW-GRF 300-500 ft-bgs DWA
G6 S Monitoring center of Indio subbasin; near airport, golf courses, and areas served non-potable water (NPW)250-350 ft-bgs DWA
G7 S Monitoring a spatial gap in western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses, septic and areas served NPW 200-300 ft-bgs CVWD
G8 S Monitoring of subsurface inflows from areas upgradient of urban land uses in Palm Desert Canyon 250-400 ft-bgs CVWD
G9 S Monitoring a spatial gap in western portion of Indio subbasin; near golf courses and septic 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD, IWA
G10 S Monitoring downgradient from CWA/CSD WWTP; near septic areas and agriculture 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G11 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient of TEL-GRF; near golf courses, septic, and agricultural areas 85-160 ft-bgs CVWD
G12 S Monitoring a spatial gap in center of Indio subbasin; near septic areas and agriculture 100-235 ft-bgs CVWD
G13 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient from TEL-GRF; in agricultural areas 50-150 ft-bgs CVWD
G14 S Monitoring a spatial gap downgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area; near Salton Sea 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G15 S Monitoring a spatial gap directly upgradient of WRP-4; in agricultural area 100-275 ft-bgs CVWD
G16 S Monitoring a spatial gap upgradient of WRP-4; downgradient of CWA/CSD WWTP; near agriculture, septic 100-250 ft-bgs CVWD
G17 P Monitoring a spatial gap in northern portion of Perched area; downgradient from Fargo subarea <100 ft-bgs CVWD, IWA, VSD
G18 P Monitoring a spatial gap on eastern side of Perched area; in agricultural area <70 ft-bgs CVWD, CWA/CSD
G19 P Monitoring a spatial gap in center of Perched area; near agricultural and septic areas <90 ft-bgs CVWD, CWA/CSD
G20 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <70 ft-bgs CVWD
G21 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <70 ft-bgs CVWD
G22 P Monitoring a spatial gap in southern basin; may represent subsurface discharge to Salton Sea <90 ft-bgs CVWD
G23 S Monitoring a spatial gap in Thousand Palms area; near septic and areas served NPW 150-300 ft-bgs CVWD
(b) CVWD = Coachella Valley Water District; CWA/CSD = Coachella Water Authority and Sanitary District; DWA = Desert Water Agency; IWA = Indio Water Authority; VSD = Valley Sanitary District;
MSWD = Mission Springs Water District
(a) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system, mainly in the Thermal subarea. S = Shallow aquifer system.
Map_ID Approx. Depth
of Well Screens
Depth
Code(a)Justification for Inclusion in SNMP Monitoring Program Overlying
SNMP Agency(b)
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-5. Analyte List for the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analytes Justification Method Cost/Sample
Total Dissolved Solids Measure of total dissolved salt content in water E160.1/SM2540C $14
Nitrate as Nitrogen Primary nutrient in groundwater EPA 300.0 $12
Major cations: K, Na, Ca, Mg Useful in source water characterization EPA 200.7 $20
Major anions: Cl, SO4 Useful in source water characterization EPA 300.0 $18
Total Alkalinity (HCO3, CO3, OH)Useful in source water characterization SM 2320B/2330B $13
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
1 03S04E20F01S USGS 335348116352701 Active Monitoring 600-640 S CVWD
2 03S04E20J01S USGS 335339116345301 Active Monitoring 550-590 S CVWD
3 06S07E33G02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
4 06S07E33J02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
5 06S07E34N03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23S Active Monitoring 230-250 S CVWD
7 02S04E26C01S Mission Springs Water District Well 28 Inactive MUN 590-898 S MSWD
8 02S04E28A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 34 Active MUN 550-980 S MSWD
9 02S05E31L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 11 Inactive Unknown 220-285 S MSWD
10 03S04E04Q02S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04Q02S Active Unknown S DWA, MSWD
11 03S04E11L01S Mission Springs Water District Well 27 Active MUN 180-380 S MSWD
12 03S05E05Q01S Hidden Springs Golf Course P27 Active Unknown 220-600 S DWA, MSWD
13 City of Palm Springs Airport MW-2 Active Monitoring 240-250 S CPS
14 City of Palm Springs MW-1 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
15 City of Palm Springs MW-3 Active Monitoring 140-215 S CPS
16 City of Palm Springs MW-4 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
17 City of Palm Springs MW-5 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
18 City of Palm Springs MW-6 Active Monitoring 170-210 S CPS
19 03S03E08M01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26 Active MUN 225-553 S MSWD
20 03S03E10P02S Unknown DWA P05 Active Unknown 306-906 S DWA
21 03S04E12B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 3408-1 Active MUN 270-500 S CVWD
22 03S04E29F01S USGS 335304116353001 Active Monitoring 550-570 S CVWD
23 03S04E29R01S USGS 335231116345401 Active Monitoring 431-551 S CVWD
24 04S04E11Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 5 Standby MUN 302-402 S DWA
25 04S04E35A01S Indian Canyons Golf Resort 04S04E35A01S Active Unknown 360-680 S DWA
26 04S05E09F03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4564-1 Active MUN 410-670 S CVWD
27 04S05E29A02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 25 Active MUN 166-300 S DWA
29 04S07E33L02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2S Active Monitoring 60-190 S CVWD
30 05S06E09M03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-7 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
31 05S06E09P02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 2 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
32 05S06E10J01S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 1 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
33 05S06E13G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-8 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
34 05S06E14G03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-5 Active Monitoring 240-320 S CVWD
35 05S06E14P03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-6 Active Monitoring 190-270 S CVWD
36 05S06E15F01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-2 Active Monitoring 160-290 S CVWD
37 05S06E15M01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-1 Active Monitoring 145-295 S CVWD
38 05S06E15P01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-3 Active Monitoring 130-290 S CVWD
39 05S06E16A03S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-4 Active Monitoring 190-270 S CVWD
40 05S06E21Q04S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 3 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
41 05S06E23M02S Coachella Valley Water District PD-GRF MW 4 Active Monitoring 270-360 S CVWD
42 05S07E03D02S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4S Active Monitoring 60-190 S CVWD
43 05S07E04A04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-3S Active Monitoring 50-180 S CVWD
44 05S07E16K02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5737-1 Inactive MUN 200-415 S CVWD, IWA, VSD
45 05S07E19D04S Coachella Valley Water District WRP10 MW-9 Active Monitoring 260-340 S CVWD
46 05S07E24M02S Indio Water Authority Well 1B Active Monitoring 190-410 S IWA
47 06S06E12G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6650-1 Inactive Monitoring <370 S CVWD
48 06S07E34A02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-25 Active Monitoring 115-135 S CVWD
49 06S07E34D02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-24 Active MUN 180-200 S CVWD
50 07S08E29P03S Coachella Valley Water District MC-3 Active Unknown 380-440 S CVWD
51 08S09E31R03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 8995-1 Active Unknown 260-390 S CVWD
52 03S04E17K01S Valley View MWC 03S04E17K01S Undetermined Fish Farm 340-375 S DWA, MSWD
53 03S04E22A01S Erin Miner 03S04E22A01S Active Irrigation 180-230 S DWA
54 03S05E08P02S Bluebeyond Fisheries 03S05E08P02S Active Irrigation 200-400 S CVWD
55 03S05E15N01S Too Many Palms LLC 03S05E15N01S Active Unknown 158-320 S CVWD
56 03S05E18J01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E18J01S Active Irrigation 76-340 S CVWD
57 03S06E21G01S Sky Valley Mobile Home Park 03S06E21G01S Undetermined Irrigation 188-248 S CVWD
58 04S05E04F01S So Pacific Trans Co #32601 04S05E04F01S Active Irrigation 276-576 S CVWD
59 04S05E23F01S Westin Mission Hills Resort 04S05E23F01S Active Irrigation 275-1165 S CVWD
60 04S05E34C01S Manufacture Home Community Inc 04S05E34C01S Active Irrigation 240-500 S CVWD
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 4
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
61 04S05E35Q01S Tamarisk Country Club 04S05E35Q01S Active Irrigation 171-518 S CVWD
62 04S05E36L02S Annenberg Estate 04S05E36L02S Active Unknown 252-650 S CVWD
63 04S06E20C01S Shenandoah Ventures LP 04S06E20C01S Inactive Irrigation 250-790 S CVWD
66 05S05E12D01S Thunderbird Country Club 05S05E12D01S Active Domestic 125-360 S CVWD
67 05S06E12M01S Palm Desert Resort Country Club 05S06E12M01S Active Domestic 140-650 S CVWD
68 05S07E08Q01S Bermuda Dunes Airport 05S07E08Q01S Active Unknown 203-654 S CVWD, MDMWC
69 05S07E28H02S Tricon/COB Riverdale LP 05S07E28H02S Active Domestic 162-636 S CVWD, IWA, VSD
70 05S08E28M02S JS Cooper 05S08E28M02S Undetermined Irrigation 208-268 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
71 05S08E30N03S Carver Tract Mutual Water Co 05S08E30N03S Active Irrigation 270-330 S CVWD, VSD
72 06S07E07B01S Traditions Golf Club 06S07E07B01S Active Irrigation 200-480 S CVWD
73 06S08E02L01S Prime Time International 06S08E02L01S Undetermined Unknown 216-407 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
74 06S08E05K01S Peter Rabbit Farms 06S08E05K01S Active Domestic 126-375 S CVWD, CWA/CSD
75 06S08E32L01S Guillermo Torres 06S08E32L01S Undetermined Domestic 127-227 S CVWD
76 07S08E27A01S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A01S Active Irrigation 147-215 S CVWD
77 07S09E14C01S Tudor Ranch Inc.07S09E14C01S Active MUN 93-290 S CVWD
78 08S08E15G02S Thermiculture Management LLC 08S08E15G02S Active Monitoring 260-500 S CVWD
79 Mission Springs Water District Well 25 Active Monitoring 330-455 S MSWD
80 Mission Springs Water District Well 1 Inactive Monitoring S MSWD
81 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-1 Active Monitoring 186-236 S MSWD
82 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-2 Active Monitoring 220-270 S MSWD
83 Mission Springs Water District Horton WWTP MW-3 Active Monitoring 200-250 S MSWD
84 03S04E20F02S USGS 335348116352702 Active Monitoring 850-890 D CVWD
85 03S04E20J03S USGS 335339116345303 Active Monitoring 850-890 D CVWD
86 06S07E33G01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-21D Active Monitoring 390-410 D CVWD
87 06S07E33J01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-22D Active Monitoring 520-540 D CVWD
88 06S07E34N02S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-23D Active Monitoring 525-545 D CVWD
89 07S09E30R03S Coachella Valley Water District Peggy Active MUN 730-770 D CVWD
90 08S09E07N02S Coachella Valley Water District Rosie Active MUN 720-780 D CVWD
91 05S07E24L03S Indio Water Authority Well 1E Active MUN 552-815 D IWA
92 02S04E28J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 35 Active Monitoring 725-1020 D MSWD
93 02S04E36P01S Mission Springs Water District Well 37 Active MUN 450-1080 D MSWD
94 02S05E31H01S Mission Springs Water District Well 5 Inactive Unknown 274-784 D MSWD
95 03S03E07D01S Mission Springs Water District Well 25A Active MUN 500-740 D MSWD
96 03S04E04P01S CPV Sentinel 03S04E04P01S Active MUN D DWA, MSWD
97 03S04E11A02S Mission Springs Water District Well 32 Active Unknown 320-980 D MSWD
98 03S03E08A01S Mission Springs Water District Well 26A Active MUN 320-600 D MSWD
99 03S03E10P01S Unknown DWA P04 Active MUN 476-776 D DWA
100 03S04E14J01S Mission Springs Water District Well 33 Active MUN 360-650 D MSWD
101 03S04E19L01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 43 Active MUN 500-900 D DWA
102 03S04E34H02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 35 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
103 03S04E36Q01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 38 Active MUN 620-1000 D DWA
104 04S04E02B01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 22 Active MUN 570-1003 D DWA
105 04S04E11Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 18 Standby MUN 535-948 D DWA
106 04S04E13C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 23 Active MUN 512-912 D DWA
107 04S04E24E01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 32 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
108 04S04E24H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 29 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
109 04S04E25C01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 39 Active MUN 580-750 D DWA
110 04S05E05A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4568-1 Active MUN 800-955 D CVWD
111 04S05E08N01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 41 Active MUN 610-1000 D DWA
112 04S05E09R01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4567-1 Active MUN 855-1150 D CVWD
113 04S05E15G01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4521-1 Active MUN 500-800 D CVWD
114 04S05E17Q02S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 31 Active MUN 600-1000 D DWA
115 04S05E25D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4507-2 Active MUN 860-1320 D CVWD
116 04S05E27K01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4527-1 Active MUN 850-1155 D CVWD
117 04S05E29H01S Desert Water Agency DWA Well 26 Active MUN 590-990 D DWA
118 04S05E35G04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4504-1 Active MUN 600-1000 D CVWD
119 04S06E18Q04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4630-1 Active MUN 480-990 D CVWD
120 04S06E28K04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4629-1 Active Monitoring 496-796 D CVWD
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 2 of 4
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
121 04S07E31H01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 4722-1 Active MUN 570-1160 D CVWD
122 04S07E33L01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-2D Active MUN 245-395 D CVWD
123 05S06E02C01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5664-1 Active MUN 500-930 D CVWD
124 05S06E06B03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5630-1 Active Monitoring 455-890 D CVWD
125 05S06E09A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5682-1 Active Monitoring 850-1300 D CVWD
126 05S06E09F01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5637-1 Inactive MUN 450-830 D CVWD
127 05S06E14B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5665-1 Inactive MUN 400-600 D CVWD
128 05S06E14P02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5603-2 Active MUN 720-975 D CVWD
129 05S06E16A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5620-2 Active MUN 1040-1360 D CVWD
130 05S06E16K03S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5681-1 Active Monitoring 900-1200 D CVWD
131 05S06E17L01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5667-1 Active Monitoring 470-800 D CVWD
132 05S06E20A02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5674-1 Inactive Monitoring 750-1050 D CVWD
133 05S07E03D01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-4D Active MUN 245-395 D CVWD
134 05S07E04A01S Coachella Valley Water District WRP7 MW-1 Active Monitoring 147-367 D CVWD
135 05S07E15N01S Indio Water Authority Well AA Active MUN 550-1230 D IWA
136 05S07E19A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 5708-1 Inactive MUN 450-970 D CVWD
137 05S07E20J01S Indio Water Authority Well T Active MUN 580-1305 D IWA
138 05S07E26E02S Indio Water Authority Well 3B Active MUN 500-1200 D IWA
139 05S07E27P01S Indio Water Authority Well Z Active MUN 580-1290 D IWA
140 05S07E33E01S Indio Water Authority Well S Active MUN 460-1260 D IWA
141 05S07E34P04S Indio Water Authority Well V Active MUN 460-1270 D IWA
142 05S07E35R02S Indio Water Authority Well U Active MUN 480-1190 D IWA
143 05S07E36D03S Coachella Water Authority Well 19 Active MUN 650-1250 D CWA/CSD
144 05S08E31C03S Coachella Water Authority Well 11 Active MUN 513-818 D CWA/CSD
145 06S07E06B01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6701-1 Active MUN 580-800 D CVWD
146 06S07E22B02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6726-1 Active MUN 640-1160 D CVWD
147 06S07E34A01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6728-1 Active MUN 500-750 D CVWD
148 06S07E34D01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6729-1 Active MUN 500-780 D CVWD
149 06S08E06K02S Coachella Water Authority Well 12 Active MUN 500-1010 D CWA/CSD
150 06S08E09N02S Coachella Water Authority Well 16 Active Monitoring 480-730 D CWA/CSD
151 06S08E19D05S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6808-1 Active MUN 675-1200 D CVWD
152 06S08E22D02S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6803-1 Inactive MUN 500-1100 D CVWD
153 06S08E25P04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 6807-1 Active MUN 665-1300 D CVWD
154 06S08E28N06S Coachella Water Authority Well 18 Active Monitoring 900-1190 D CWA/CSD
155 07S08E17A04S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7803-1 Active MUN 250-710 D CVWD
156 07S09E23N01S Coachella Valley Water District CVWD Well 7990-1 Inactive Unknown 530-560 D CVWD
157 Indio Water Authority Well 13A Active Irrigation 550-1171 D IWA
158 03S05E08B01S R.C Roberts 03S05E08B01S Undetermined Irrigation 356-516 D DWA
159 03S05E17M01S Desert Dunes Golf Club 03S05E17M01S Active Unknown 305-412 D CVWD
160 03S05E20H02S Donald Franklin 03S05E20H02S Active Irrigation 240-360 D CVWD
161 03S06E21R01S Joel Rosenfeld 03S06E21R01S Undetermined Irrigation 355-495 D CVWD
162 05S05E12B03S Tandika Corp 05S05E12B03S Active Irrigation 410-800 D CVWD
163 05S06E13F01S PD Golf Operations LLC 05S06E13F01S Active Irrigation 400-700 D CVWD
164 05S06E15H01S Toscana Country Club 05S06E15H01S Active Irrigation 430-950 D CVWD
165 05S06E22C02S Desert Horizons Country Club 05S06E22C02S Active Irrigation 550-990 D CVWD
166 05S06E27A01S El Dorado Country Club 05S06E27A01S Active MUN 458-596 D CVWD
167 05S06E29P04S Bighorn Golf Club 05S06E29P04S Active MUN 530-720 D CVWD
168 05S07E07F04S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 4 Active MUN 430-730 D MDMWC
169 05S07E08L01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 11 Active Unknown 500-1060 D MDMWC
170 05S07E17K01S Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Well 12 Active Irrigation 450-950 D MDMWC
171 05S08E09N03S Jamie Brack 05S08E09N03S Undetermined Unknown 480-580 D CVWD, IWA
172 06S07E27B01S Andalusia Golf Club 06S07E27B01S Active Irrigation 300-780 D CVWD
173 06S07E35L02S Castro Bros Castro Bros Active Unknown 300-400 D CVWD
174 06S08E11A01S Cocopah Nurseries Inc 06S08E11A01S Active Unknown 400-842 D CVWD, CWA/CSD
175 06S08E31P01S Deer Creek Deer Creek Active Irrigation 400-550 D CVWD
176 06S08E35E02S Otto L. Zahler 06S08E35E02S Undetermined Unknown 521-596 D CVWD
177 07S07E02G02S Warren Webber Warren Webber Active Irrigation 380-700 D CVWD
178 07S08E01L02S Bill Wordon 07S08E01L02S Undetermined Domestic 500-880 D CVWD
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 3 of 4
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
Table 3-6. Responsibilities for Groundwater Sampling and Laboratory Analyses
Well
Use(b)
Screen
Interval
ft-bgs
Well
Status(a)Map_ID SWN Well Owner Well Name Depth
Code(c)
Overlying
SNMP Agency(d)
179 07S08E27A02S Gimmway Enterprises Inc 07S08E27A02S Active MUN 491-811 D CVWD
180 07S09E10F01S Prime Time International 07S09E10F01S Active Monitoring 360-500 D CVWD
181 Mission Springs Water District Well 31 Active Monitoring 270-670 D MSWD
182 Coachella Valley Water District WRP2 MW3 Active Monitoring <90 P CVWD
183 06S07E27J03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-8 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
184 06S07E34A03S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-9 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
185 06S08E31R01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-10 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
186 07S08E06P01S Coachella Valley Water District TEL-GRF MW-11 Active Monitoring 25-45 P CVWD
187 Coachella Valley Water District PEW-1 Active Monitoring 10-55 P CVWD
(a) Well Status: "Active" means well is known to exist and currently used for original purpose; "Standby" means active backup well; "Inactive" means well exists but is no longer used as a water-supply.
(b) Well Use: MUN = municipal and domestic supply
(c) Depth Code: This monitoring program assigns wells to aquifer layers by depth. P = Perched aquifer system. S = Shallow aquifer system. D = Deep aquifer system
(d) CVWD = Coachella Valley Water District; CWA/CSD = Coachella Water Authority and Sanitary District; DWA = Desert Water Agency; IWA = Indio Water Authority; MDMWC = Myoma Dunes Mutual Water
Company; VSD = Valley Sanitary District; MSWD = Mission Springs Water District; CPS = City of Palm Springs
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 4 of 4
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
This page intentionally left blank.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
30 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
4.1 Schedule of Activities
The objective of the SNMP Agencies is to have a fully functioning groundwater monitoring program by
March 31, 2027, including: (i) implementing the monitoring program at existing wells in the monitoring
network; (ii) filling all gaps in the monitoring network identified in this Workplan; (iii) analysis of at least
one groundwater sample for the constituents listed in Table 3-5 from all monitoring wells in the network;
and (iv) reporting of all laboratory results to the GAMA information system or its successor.
The schedule of activities to implement the groundwater monitoring program is described below:
Active and standby municipal production wells.
— All active and standby municipal production wells, identified in this SNMP groundwater
monitoring program under a DDW monitoring order, will be sampled pursuant to their
existing DDW Groundwater Monitoring Schedules. Most municipal production wells are
sampled at least once every three years, or more frequently for some analytes like
nitrate.
— By March 31 of each year beginning in 2022, the SNMP Agencies will report to the
GAMA information system the laboratory results from all groundwater samples
collected during the prior calendar year for the analytes listed in Table 3-5.
Active monitoring wells.
— All monitoring wells identified in this SNMP groundwater monitoring program that are
participating in regulatory or voluntary monitoring programs will be sampled pursuant
to their existing monitoring schedules. Typically, such monitoring wells are sampled at
least once every three years, and most are sampled more frequently. At least one
sample must be analyzed for the constituents listed in Table 3-5 every three years.
— By March 31 of each year beginning in 2022, the SNMP Agencies will report to the
GAMA information system the laboratory results from all groundwater samples
collected during the prior calendar year for the analytes listed in Table 3-5.
Private wells and inactive wells.
— Starting 2021, SNMP Agencies responsible for sampling at private wells or inactive wells
will initiate steps to collect the first groundwater sample from these wells. This may
include executing access agreements and devising and/or implementing a method to
collect a groundwater sample.
— By the end of 2023, the responsible SNMP Agencies will collect and analyze one
groundwater sample for every private and inactive well in the monitoring network,
where feasible. By March 31 of each year beginning in 2022, the SNMP Agencies will
report to the GAMA information system the laboratory results from all groundwater
samples collected during the prior calendar year for the analytes listed in Table 3-5.
— Thereafter, each private and inactive well will be sampled at least once every three
years. It is the objective of this program to collect and analyze at least two groundwater
samples for all private and inactive wells during the initial six-year implementation
period.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
31 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network.
— In 2021, the SNMP Agencies that are responsible for filling gaps in the monitoring
network will perform the necessary research and field work and develop plans to fill
each gap. These plans will be summarized in the first annual progress report to the
Regional Board by March 31, 2022.
— Starting in 2022, the SNMP Agencies will initiate steps to fill the gaps. The objective is to
fill all gaps in the monitoring network and collect and analyze at least one groundwater
sample by December 31, 2026.
— By March 31 of each year beginning in 2023, the SNMP Agencies will report to the
GAMA information system the laboratory results from all groundwater samples
collected during the prior calendar year for the analytes listed in Table 3-5.
— It should be expected that new gaps in the monitoring network may be identified during
implementation of the monitoring program. This may occur if a well in the monitoring
network can no longer be sampled because it was destroyed, becomes inoperable, or
otherwise is no longer available for monitoring. In such cases, the SNMP Agencies will
attempt to identify a suitable replacement well (similar location and well construction)
or develop a plan to fill this new gap in the monitoring network. These challenges and
plans to address new data gaps will be summarized in the annual progress reports to the
Regional Board (see Section 4.2 below).
4.2 Progress Reporting to the Regional Board
To keep the Regional Board informed of progress and future activities during implementation of the
monitoring program, the SNMP Agencies will submit an Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the
CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program to the Regional Board. The first progress report will be due
by March 31, 2022 to report progress achieved during calendar year 2021. The contents of the progress
report will include:
Section 1. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Program and Implementation Schedule
Section 2. Activities Accomplished or In-Progress during the Prior Calendar Year
Sampling and analysis of existing municipal production wells and monitoring wells.
Progress made towards sampling and analysis of inactive and private wells.
Progress made towards filling gaps in the monitoring network.
Wells that can no longer be sampled and other challenges in sampling.
Section 3. Activities Planned for the Next Calendar Year
Plans for sampling at wells, including addressing sampling challenges.
Activities to replace wells that can no longer be sampled and fill gaps in the monitoring
network.
Figures.
Updated map of Groundwater Monitoring Network – Shallow Aquifer System.
Updated map of Groundwater Monitoring Network – Deep Aquifer System.
Updated map of Groundwater Monitoring Network – Perched Aquifer System.
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
32 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
Tables.
Updated list of wells in Groundwater Monitoring Network.
Updated list of gaps in Groundwater Monitoring Network.
Appendix A. 2020 CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
4.3 Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were derived for the first six-year period of monitoring program implementation. Costs
were estimated for only those additional activities that the monitoring program would cause the SNMP
Agencies to perform (that they otherwise would not perform). These activities include: (i) sampling and
analysis of private wells; (ii) filling of gaps in the monitoring program; and (iii) preparing the annual
progress reports to the Regional Board.
Table 4-1 summarizes the cost estimates by task and subtask. The costs described herein are first-order
estimates. Actual costs may vary because monitoring program implementation may unfold differently
than assumed herein. For example, a gap in the monitoring network may be filled by identifying an existing
suitable well, as opposed to constructing a new well. In addition, these costs do not include land
acquisition costs for new monitoring well sites or any needed site improvements, including grading, block
walls, or fencing.
Sampling of private wells. Table 3-6 indicates there are 58 private wells that are proposed to participate
in the monitoring program. Each well is assumed to be sampled twice over the first six years (116 samples).
The main activities associated with the sampling of private wells include:
Performing a field canvass of each well to: initiate coordination with the well owners;
document the condition of the well; and determine the current ability to collect a water-
quality sample.
Developing and executing an access agreement with the private well owner.
If necessary, hiring a subcontractor to construct wellhead improvements to enable sample
collection. It is assumed that about half of the private wells will require such improvements
at $3,000 per well.
Perform two sampling events and laboratory analyses over the six-year period. Laboratory
costs are about $77 per sample.
Total costs for sampling of private wells over the first six-year implementation period are estimated at
about $260,000.
Filling gaps in the monitoring network. Table 3-4 indicates that there are 23 gaps in the monitoring
network that need to be filled over the first six-year period. For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed
that each gap will be filled with the construction of a new monitoring well.
Six of the proposed monitoring wells are targeted for the Perched aquifer system with well depths of less
than about 100 ft-bgs—these well boreholes are assumed to be drilled via a sonic method. Sixteen of the
proposed wells are targeted for the Shallow aquifer system with well depths of less than about
500 ft-bgs—these well boreholes are assumed to be drilled via a mud-rotary method. One of the proposed
Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan
Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update
N-943-80-20-01-WP-R-M&R WORKPLAN
33 The Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
December 23, 2020
wells is estimated to have a total depth of about 1,000 ft-bgs—this well borehole is assumed to be drilled
via a mud-rotary method.
The main activities associated with the drilling and construction of new monitoring wells are listed below.
Perform a well-siting study to select 23 available and appropriate well sites.
Prepare two sets of standard technical specifications for the drilling, construction, and
development of two types of monitoring wells: (i) a monitoring well in the Perched aquifer
system and (ii) a monitoring well in the Shallow or Deep aquifer systems.
Acquire well-site property and/or execute easements. The cost associated with land
purchase or long-term land leases are unknown at this time and were therefore not
estimated; however, such costs are likely to be significant.
Prepare bid package and conduct the bid process to select a well drilling/construction
subcontractor. It is assumed that one contractor will construct all 23 wells.
Obtain all permits and CEQA clearance.
Drill, construct, and develop 23 monitoring wells. The wells are assumed to be comprised of
4” PVC Schedule 80 pipe with 40 feet of well screens. Well head completions are assumed to
be an above ground 10-inch diameter stovepipe casing with a locking cap. Any needed well-
site improvements are unknown at this time and were therefore not estimated; however,
such costs are likely to be significant.
Prepare well completion reports for 23 new monitoring wells and file Well Completion
Reports with the California Department of Water Resources. New monitoring wells will be
added to the SNMP database.
Total costs to fill all gaps in the monitoring network over the first six-year implementation period are
estimated to be about $2,900,000. These estimates do not include land acquisition costs for new
monitoring well sites or any needed site improvements.
Task 3 – Preparing the Annual Progress Report to the Regional Board. As described above in Section 4.2,
the SNMP Agencies will prepare an Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program to the Regional Board each year to keep it abreast of progress and
future activities.
Total costs to prepare five annual progress reports over the first six-year implementation period are
estimated to be about $140,000.
Total Costs. Total costs for the first six-year period of monitoring program implementation are estimated
to be about $4,100,000 (including a contingency of 25%). Total costs are likely to be higher because these
estimates do not include land acquisition or site improvement costs for new monitoring well sites.
Table 4-1. Cost Estimates -- Initial Six-Year Implementation Period of CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Sub-Task Task
Task 1 - Sampling and Analysis of Private Wells $152,146 $108,030 $260,175
1.1 $19,529 $1,472 $1,472 $21,001
1.2 $79,924 $0 $79,924
1.3 $16,733 $87,000 $87,000 $103,733
1.4 $35,960 $10,626 $8,932 $19,558 $55,518
Task 2 - Filling of Gaps in the Monitoring Network $1,089,443 $1,769,514 $2,858,957
2.1 $53,776 $0 $53,776
2.2 $50,828 $0 $50,828
2.3 $32,378 $0 $32,378
2.4 $14,996 $0 $14,996
2.5 $5,988 $184 $184 $6,172
2.6 $3,299 $24,600 $24,600 $27,899
2.7 a $94,608 $1,536 $89,820 $42,000 $3,180 $136,536 $231,144
2.8 a $555,712 $8,192 $1,314,720 $112,000 $8,480 $1,443,392 $1,999,104
2.9 a $51,492 $512 $158,260 $5,500 $530 $164,802 $216,294
2.10 $226,366 $226,366
Task 3 - Preparing Annual Progress Reports to the Regional Board $139,800 $0 $139,800
$1,381,389 $11,896 $1,649,800 $159,500 $24,600 $10,626 $21,122 $1,877,544 $3,258,932
$814,733
$4,073,665
Notes
a These estimates do not include land acquisition costs for new monitoring well sites or any needed site improvements, including grading, block walls, or fencing.
Total Reimbursable Expenses
Sub-Task
Total Project Costs
Task and Subtask Descriptions
NotesLabor Cost
TaskSub-Task Task Lab
Other Direct Costs
Field EquipTravel
Well
Construction
Services (Sub)
E-Logging
Services
(Sub)
Permits
and
CEQA
Development/execution of private well access agreements
Devise and construct and wellhead improvements to enable sample collection
Perform two sampling and laboratory analysis events over the five-year period
Prepare well-siting study to identify 23 well sites
Perform field canvass of private wells; develop access agreements
Perform field work and research; prepare plan to fill gaps in monitoring network
Prepare technical specifications for of two monitoring well types
Acquire well sites and/or execute lease agreements
Conducting a bid process to select a well drilling/construction subcontractor
Obtain permits and CEQA clearance
Drill, construct, and develop six wells in the Perched aquifer system
Drill, construct, and develop 16 wells in the Shallow aquifer system
Drill, construct, and develop one deep monitoring well
Prepare well completion reports for 23 new monitoring wells/file with DWR
Project Total
Project Subtotals
Contingency (25%)
K-943-80-20-01-WP-T-MON-RPT-WORKPLAN Page 1 of 1
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies
Coachella Valley SNMP Update
Last Revised: 11-19-20
This page intentionally left blank.
Example Maps and Data Graphics
to Characterize Groundwater Quality
Appendix B
This page intentionally left blank.
Table B-1: Example of Summary Statistics for N/TDS Concentrations at Wells
Well_ID Well Name Well Owner Well Status Management Zone Aquifer Layer(s)
Number of
TDS
Sample
Results
Mean of Annual
Average
Concentration
Values
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
1025698 MW1 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 49 789.49 60.13 255.12
1025699 MW2 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 46 1519.88 76.30 275.12
1025700 Offsite MW1 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 2 32 444.13 12.06 41.77
1025701 Offsite MW2 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 23 500.72 10.40 32.88
1025702 Offsite MW3 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 33 518.14 31.35 113.03
1025703 Offsite MW4 Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 30 678.56 57.31 198.53
1025704 MW2A Alcoa Monitoring Chino-3/Chino-North 1 6 2700.00 237.54 411.43
1025705 NA_1006182 Almo, M.C.Monitoring Beaumont unknown 5 339.04 10.57 23.63
1025706 Arco Well 14 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 275.00
1025707 Arco Well 18 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 310.00
1025708 Arco Well 19 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 1 320.00
1025709 Arco Well 20 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 295.00
1025710 Arco Well 21 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 1 2 290.00
1025711 Arco Well 22 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 320.00
1025712 Arco Well 23 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 280.00
1025713 Arco Well 24 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 300.00
1025714 Arco Well 25 Arco Facility 5172 Monitoring Yucaipa 12 2 300.00
1025715 3 Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company Active Bunker Hill A 23 1 331.40
1025716 PS & B 2 Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company Active Bunker Hill B 1 1 579.00
1025717 BV 5th Ave. 1 Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Active Yucaipa 3 2 340.00
1025718 Cemetery Well 1 Beaumont Cemetery Active Beaumont 1 3 346.67 21.70 37.58
1025719 Cemetery Well 2 Beaumont Cemetery Active Beaumont 12 3 388.80 35.82 62.04
1025720 BCVWD 13 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Active Beaumont 123 2 230.00
1025721 BCVWD 12 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Active Beaumont 123 8 240.86 9.75 25.80
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure B-1: Example of Point and Raster Map of N/TDS Concentrations in Groundwater
This page intentionally left blank.
Responses to Comments on the
Draft CV-SNMP Development Workplan
Appendix C
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 4-A
GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING WELL HYDROGRAPHS
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A-1
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
03S03E08A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj1,150
1,200
1,250
1,300
1,350
1,400
1,450
1,500
1,550
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
03S03E08A01S
Appendix A-2
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
03S04E17K01S and
03S04E22A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
03S04E17K01S | 03S04E22A01S
Appendix A-3
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
03S04E14J01S and
03S05E30G01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
03S04E14J01S | 03S05E30G01S
Appendix A-4
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S05E08R01S and
04S05E05K01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S05E08R01S | 04S05E05K01S
Appendix A-5
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S05E15C01S and
04S06E18Q04S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S05E15C01S | 04S06E18Q04S
Appendix A-6
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
03S04E20F01S and
03S04E30C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
03S04E20F01S | 03S04E30C01S
Appendix A-7
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S06E20M02S and
04S06E28H02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S06E20M02S | 04S06E28H02S
Appendix A-8
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
03S04E35R01S and
03S04E34R01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
03S04E34R01S | 03S04E35R01S
Appendix A-9
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S06E10L01S and
05S06E05Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S06E10L01S | 05S06E05Q01S
Appendix A-10
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S04E24E01S and
04S04E13C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S04E24E01S | 04S04E13C01S
Appendix A-11
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S07E09D01S and
05S07E04A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S07E09D01S | 05S07E04A01S
Appendix A-12
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S04E24H01S and
04S05E29A02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S04E24H01S | 04S05E29A02S
Appendix A-13
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S05E27E01S and
04S05E22C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S05E27E01S | 04S05E22C01S
Appendix A-14
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
04S05E36M01S and
05S06E06B03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
04S05E36M01S | 05S06E06B03S
Appendix A-15
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S06E20A02S and
05S06E13D01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S06E20A02S | 05S06E13D01S
Appendix A-16
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S07E32H01S and
05S07E32B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S07E32H01S | 05S07E32B01S
Appendix A-17
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S07E20G01S and
05S07E27L01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S07E20G01S | 05S07E27L01S
Appendix A-18
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S07E14K02S and
05S07E12M01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S07E14K02S | 05S07E12M01S
Appendix A-19
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S08E18G01S and
05S08E31C03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S08E18G01S | 05S08E31C03S
Appendix A-15
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
05S06E20A02S and
05S06E13D01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
05S08E29G01S | 05S08E33D01S
Appendix A-21
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S07E06J01S and
06S07E02D02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S07E06J01S | 06S07E02D02S
Appendix A-22
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S08E05R03S and
06S08E12Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S08E05R03S | 06S08E12Q01S
Appendix A-23
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S07E16A02S and
06S07E16R02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S07E16A02S | 06S07E16R02S
Appendix A-24
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S08E22D02S and
06S08E25P04S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S08E22D02S | 06S08E25P04S
Appendix A-25
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S08E19C02S and
06S07E26Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S08E19C02S | 06S07E26Q01S
Appendix A-26
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
06S09E33K01S and
07S09E14C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
06S09E33K01S | 07S09E14C01S
Appendix A-27
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S07E03D03S and
07S07E03A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S07E03D03S | 07S07E03A01S
Appendix A-28
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S08E17A04S and
07S07E01C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S08E17A04S | 07S07E01C01S
Appendix A-29
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S08E33B01S and
08S08E03L01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S08E33B01S | 08S08E03L01S
Appendix A-30
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
08S08E24L01S and
08S09E32G02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
08S08E24L01S | 08S09E32G02S
Appendix A-31
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S08E10P01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S08E10P01S
Appendix A-32
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S09E07J01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S09E07J01S
Appendix A-33
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S09E08R01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S09E08R01S
Appendix A-34
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S07E02G02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S07E02G02S
Appendix A-35
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S09E18H01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S09E18H01S
Appendix A-36
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S08E36B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S08E36B01S
Appendix A-37
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S09E26G03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S09E26G03S
Appendix A-38
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
08S09E07M01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
08S09E07M01S
Appendix A-39
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
08S09E07N03S and
08S09E07N04S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
08S09E07N03S | 08S09E07N04S
Appendix A-40
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrographs
07S09E30R01S and
07S09E30R02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
07S09E30R01S | 07S09E30R02S
APPENDIX 4-B
INDIO SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS STUDY
This page intentionally left blank.
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 1 Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Coachella Valley Water District
CC: Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
PREPARED BY: William L. Medlin, PWS, ENV SP
REVIEWED BY: Rosalyn Prickett, AICP
DATE: November 2021
RE: Indio Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study
Identification of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) are a required component of groundwater management
planning under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA defines GDEs as “ecological
communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or on groundwater occurring near the
ground surface” (23 CCR § 351(m)). This Technical Memorandum (memo) specifically focuses on potential GDEs
identified within the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (project area).
1. INDIO GROUNDWATER BASIN ECOLOGICAL SETTING
An ecoregion is an area with generally similar ecosystems with similar quantity, quality, and type of environmental
resources. Ecoregions are an important geospatial mapping system that are used by many local, state, and federal
regulatory agencies and non-governmental organizations as a frame of reference for assessment and management of
ecosystems across the United States (US). In the context of GDEs, it is important to consider the ecoregion where the
GDEs are being assessed because biotic and abiotic processes may vary widely between localities.
The Indio Subbasin is located in southern California and sits between the San Jacinto Mountains to the west and the
Little San Bernardino Mountains to the east. The project area encompasses multiple cities and unincorporated
communities within Riverside County, California. A very small section in the southwestern extent of the Subbasin
extends into San Diego County and Imperial County. The Subbasin sits entirely within the Sonoran Basin and Range
(85) Level III ecoregion (USGS, EPA 2016). The Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregion consists of low mountains with
large swaths of federal government-owned property and is generally hotter than the Mojave. Vegetation is typically
adapted to prolonged drought and hot weather, along with accompanying extreme soil moisture and temperature
regimes. Predominant natural vegetative communities are desert scrub including multiple species of cacti and
creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) and microphyll woodlands that generally occupy desert washes or bajadas that carry
occasional stormwater flow.
The project area covers four different Level IV ecoregions. Figure 1 (Attachment A) illustrates the general location of
the Indio Subbasin in the context of the Ecoregions of California. The extreme southwestern extents of the Indio
Subbasin occupy the Western Sonoran Mountain Woodland and Shrubland (81b) ecoregion. This montane transition
area occurs at the western edge of the Sonoran Desert and is generally above 3,000 feet in elevation. The landscape
typically consists of desert chapparal mixed with pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and California juniper (Juniperus
californica) along with a few canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) among the scattered granitic boulders. Native fan
palm oases are found in some of the steeper canyons. Rocky mountainous slopes, cliffs, canyons, dry washes, and
alluvial fans in this region provide habitat for the protected Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni).
The western edges and tips of the basin extend into the Western Sonoran Mountains (81a) ecoregion. This area is
characterized by erosional highlands of exposed bedrock dissected by dry washes that are subject to flash flooding.
Rainfall is infrequent in this ecoregion. Vegetative communities in this rocky terrain are typically creosotebush scrub
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 2 Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
with ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) and cacti scattered throughout. Spring annual forbs are also abundant in this
region.
The northern half of the basin consists of the Upper Coachella Valley and Hills (81e) ecoregion. This area is made up
of alluvial and sand deposits surrounded by mountains to the east, west, and north. To the south, the valley slopes
towards the Salton Sea and land use transitions to a vast agricultural landscape. However, the Mecca Hills and Indio
Hills provide some rolling topography, and the Indio Hills have canyons where some native fan palm oases still persist.
Soils are typically hot and very dry. Certain sandy areas may provide suitable habitat for the protected Coachella Valley
fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) as well as other rare or unusual species. Habitat fragmentation and loss by urban and
suburban land development presents constant pressure on these protected species.
The southern half of the basin consists of the Imperial/Lower Coachella Valleys (81f) ecoregion. This area is largely
comprised of the former Lake Cahuilla lakebed within the greater Salton Sink geologic formation. The region is mostly
below sea level and contains significant areas of historically deposited silts and other river sediments that have made
the area rich in agricultural productivity. Planted and fallow fields dominate the landscape and there is a complex
system of irrigation for crop production. The Salton Sea sits at the low point of the Salton Trough and serves as the
terminal drainage point for the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), New River, and Alamo
River along with numerous other small tributaries, agricultural drains, and dry washes. The Salton Sea is an important
ecological “stopover” habitat for a multitude of migratory birds and waterfowl that travel the Pacific Flyway; however,
there are some persistent water quality problems that pose a threat to species such as eutrophication, contamination,
and ever-increasing salinity.
According to United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topography, the approximate elevation of the
western extent of the Indio Subbasin within the Santa Rosa Mountains is 3,000 above mean sea level and the
approximate elevation of the southern extent of the basin along the shoreline of the Salton Sea is -230 feet below mean
sea level. The principal surface drainage features within the Indio Subbasin are mainly comprised of larger, named
urban stormwater channels, canals, creeks, agricultural drains, and dry washes that drain to the Whitewater River
Stormwater Channel (which becomes the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel in the lower portion of the valley).
Most of these major drainages generally flow east and south through the project area eventually emptying into the
Salton Sea. It should also be noted that, according to the USGS topography mapping, there are many mapped springs
in various locations throughout the basin. Refer to Figure 2 (Attachment A) for USGS 7.5-minute topography in the
vicinity of the Indio groundwater basin.
2. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE INDIO BASIN
As part of the GDEs assessment, Woodard & Curran conducted a preliminary review of special-status species within
the Indio Subbasin. This study focuses on state and federal listed species designated as “threatened” and/or
“endangered” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Other listed or otherwise unlisted special status species were excluded from our evaluation. The purpose of this
exercise was to support the determination of ecological value for potential GDEs within the Subbasin.
Much of the Indio Subbasin is covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHCP). The plan was approved in September 2008 and most recently amended in August 2016. The CVMSHCP
is administered by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) and is designed to conserve regional
sensitive ecological habitat and protected plant and animal species by coordinating project impacts and compensatory
mitigation through the issuance of “take” permits for special-status species. The CVMSHCP plan area encompasses
approximately 1.2 million acres within Riverside County, California. The small portions of the Indio Subbasin located
within San Diego and Imperial Counties are not covered by the CVMSHCP. Refer to Figure 3 (Attachment A) for
protected areas covering the Coachella Valley and the Indio Subbasin.
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 6 Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
Additional relevant environmental and hydrogeological GIS data sets were also reviewed as part of the desktop GDE
assessment. Data resources included, but were not limited to, the following:
Aerial photography, including USDA-NRCS National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) data and Microsoft
Bing aerial imagery
United States Geological Services (USGS) 7.5-minute topography
USGS Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and USGS Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 8-digit maps
USDA-NRCS Soil Surveys
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data
USFWS Critical Habitat mapper
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mapper
NRCS land use/land cover and conservation plan data
California DWR list of impaired (303d/305b) waters (latest approved)
United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) data
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online data
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System
(BIOS)
CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
LIDAR (as available for the project counties)
A Subbasin map was created using these publicly available statewide and regional data layers to understand the extent
of the NCCAG dataset within the project area. Refer to Figure 5 (Attachment A) for a map of GDE indicators within the
project area. Once the basin map of GDE indicators was developed, Woodard & Curran then reviewed the project area
and attempted to identify NCCAG polygons that appeared to be “probable GDEs” based on the following observations:
Presence of a USGS-mapped stream, spring, seep, or other waterbody
Presence of USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands
Inundation visible on aerial imagery
Saturation visible on aerial imagery
Dense riparian and/or wetland vegetation visible on aerial imagery
CNDDB and/or CNPS vegetative community data indicating a concentration of deep-rooted woody
phreatophytes
California Protected Areas and/or Areas of Conservation Emphasis
If an NCCAG polygon, or a portion thereof, included one or multiple of the above characteristics, then it was marked
as a “Probable GDE” for further evaluation and field validation. NCCAG polygons that did not exhibit the above
characteristics (or similar) were tentatively considered “Probable Non-GDEs” for purposes of the desktop study and
would be subject to further review as part of the field study. Areas that appeared to consist primarily of wetland
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 7 Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
vegetation at drainages along the exposed seabed of the Salton Sea where the water level has receded from historic
levels were classified as “Playa Wetland Communities” and were not included as GDEs at this point.
As part of our preliminary desktop GDE assessment, Woodard & Curran selected 15 separate locations for a GDE field
assessment. These locations were selected from various representative NCCAG polygons across the project area
based on apparent habitat type and accessibility for field survey. Refer to Figure 6 (Attachment A) for GDE field
assessment locations.
GDE Field Assessment
Woodard & Curran completed a GDE field assessment study at representative locations throughout the Indio Subbasin.
Fifteen representative locations were originally selected based on geographic position within the project area,
vegetative community/habitat type, land use, topography, and other environmental factors determined via remote
sensing. Prior to field work, Woodard & Curran coordinated with the Indio Subbasin GSAs and other agencies, tribes,
and landowners to review the selected GDE field assessment sites and property owner information, as well as confirm
physical access to the sites. Survey permissions were obtained from the appropriate property owners for 13 field
assessment sites prior to mobilization for the field effort.
The field study was conducted January 11 – 14, 2021. Woodard & Curran Senior Biologist Will Medlin and CVWD
environmental staff (Mr. Luis Sanchez and Mr. Sergio Martinez) worked together to complete the field study. Sites one
(1) through eight (8), ten (10) through twelve (12), and fourteen (14) and fifteen (15) were assessed in the field. Sites
nine (9) and thirteen (13) were not accessible at the time of field deployment and have therefore been eliminated from
this assessment and report.
Field observations were made at NCCAG-mapped seeps, springs, wetlands, and other riparian habitats to document
plant communities, aquatic or semi-aquatic wildlife, indicators of surface and subsurface hydrology, soil-based
evidence of a high-water table, and other relevant ecological and hydrological data. Soils were sampled to an
approximate depth of between 12 – 20 inches (depending on restrictive layer) to determine moisture content and
texture. The soil profile was assessed and classified based on color using a Munsell soil color chart. Photographs were
taken in the four cardinal directions (north, east, south, west) at each GDE field assessment site to document the
general habitat conditions. Field notes and additional photographs were taken of plant species, wildlife, and other
relevant ecological data to support the GDE assessment at each site. Global Positioning System (GPS) points were
also collected using a sub-meter Trimble Geo 7x GPS unit at each GDE field assessment site.
Upon completion of the GDE field assessment, Woodard & Curran refined the preliminary desktop GDE assessment
data and revised the mapping for Probable GDEs and Probable Non-GDEs based on field observations and further
research.
4. RESULTS
Using a combination of GIS desktop study and field assessments, Woodard & Curran attempted to assess 882
NCCAG-mapped polygons (136 NCCAG wetland and 746 NCCAG vegetation) within the project area. During the
desktop assessment, 1,045 individual locations were visually reviewed and a determination of potential GDE status
was made for a point on the landscape within the NCCAG polygon(s). Out of 1,045 assessment locations, 50 points
(5%) were determined to be Probable GDEs. 932 points (89%) were determined to be Probable non-GDEs. 63 points
(6%) were determined to be Playa Wetland Communities. Refer to Figure 7 (Attachment A) for the Preliminary GDE
Assessment map.
Probable GDEs consisted of areas with apparent dense riparian and wetland vegetative communities along mapped
drainage systems with potential for deep-rooted phreatophytes and/or visible, natural surface water flow. These
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 8 Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
Probable GDE clusters comprise hot or cold springs, seeps, and stream channels that convey snowmelt from the
surrounding San Jacinto mountain front. The USGS has studied the Agua Caliente Spring, located in downtown Palm
Springs, and determined that faulting of the basement rock provides a pathway for deep thermal water to rise from an
underlying geothermal reservoir (USGS 2011). The USGS study assessed multiple thermal and non-thermal springs
in Palm and Chino Canyons, determining that the hot springs are sourced from deep thermal water and not the regional
aquifer. Typically, probable GDEs might be identified where monitoring well data for the regional aquifer indicated the
depth to groundwater at 30 feet or less relative to the ground surface. The 30-foot threshold is based on scientific
literature that indicates that groundwater levels extracted to greater than 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) may result
in adverse impacts to ecosystem structure and function (Eamus et al., 2015). It should be noted that the areas within
the Indio Subbasin where Probable GDEs were identified for this study do not have existing groundwater data that was
available for review. Probable GDEs identified herein along the mountain-front may be associated with surface runoff,
snowmelt, or springs and seeps from up-gradient sources.
Probable Non-GDEs consisted of areas that appeared incorrectly mapped based on current land development and
land-use or that otherwise appeared to be dry upland areas, cultivated and/or flooded agricultural land, obvious human-
made ponds, lakes, and other features, channelized drains, and where there were no other indicators of groundwater
presence near the surface. It should be noted that dry washes, arroyos, bajadas, and other ephemeral conveyances
where water only flows in response to heavy precipitation events were not classified as GDEs for purposes of this
study.
Playa Wetland Community included areas of wetland habitat along the Salton Sea exposed seabed (playa) generally
downstream of stream, agricultural drain, or stormwater channel outlets. The receding of the Salton Sea, due to
reduced inflows, is exposing thousands of acres of playa each year. A 2020 Audubon report on Salton Sea wetlands
explains that the irrigation ditches and other drainages “that used to drain directly into the Sea now spread out and
slowly flow and pool on the exposed playa where new vegetation and wetlands now form” (Audubon California 2020).
Irrigation drainage to the Salton Sea was determined to be the major driver of these pockets of vegetation along the
northern seashore. The irrigation drains are fed by collected groundwater from agricultural return flows; as they
discharge to the playa, they can potentially create wetland habitats. The CVMSHCP identifies some of these playa
wetlands as part of the CVSC/Delta Conservation Area, which includes the CVSC, agricultural drains emptying into the
Salton Sea which may contain desert pupfish habitat, and areas along the seashore that contain sensitive natural
communities (CVAG 2007). The CVMSHCP acknowledges that this habitat is sustained largely by agricultural runoff
and outflow in the CVSC, but that maintenance of the drains and the flood control channel periodically modifies the
habitat. .
For the field study, 13 representative locations were assessed for GDE indicators, functions, and values. Of the 13
sites reviewed in the field, one appeared to be a Probable GDE, nine appeared to be Probable Non-GDEs, and three
appeared to be Playa Wetland Communities. The four GDE and Playa Wetland Community sites had deep-rooted
woody riparian or wetland species growing there. Further, two sites (4 and 15) had either standing or flowing water
observed at the surface. Table 2 below describes each of the field assessment sites in more detail.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
Legend±
Figure 2USGS Topography
Indio Groundwater Basin
Coachella Valley Water District
Figure Exported: 5/20/2020 By: wmedlin Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Offices\Atlanta\Wip\Ecology Resources\California\Coachella Valley GSP - Indio Sub-basin\GIS\MXD\2020.05.20_GDE_Draft_Figure2.mxdProject #: 0011492.02
Map Created: May 2020
0 5 102.5 MilesImperial, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, CA
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.
Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources ESRI USGS 7.5 Minute Topography
Indio Groundwater Basin
1 inch = 5 miles
Legend±
Figure 3Coachella Valley Protected Areas
Indio Groundwater Basin
Coachella Valley Water District
Figure Exported: 5/20/2020 By: wmedlin Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Offices\Atlanta\Wip\Ecology Resources\California\Coachella Valley GSP - Indio Sub-basin\GIS\MXD\2020.05.20_GDE_Draft_Figure3.mxdProject #: 0011492.02
Map Created: May 2020
0 5 102.5 MilesImperial, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, CA
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.
Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources ESRI USGS 7.5 Minute Topography
Indio Groundwater Basin
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Boundary
CVMSHCP Conservation Area Boundaries in Indio Basin
1 inch = 5 miles
Legend±
Figure 5Agricultural Drains
Indio Groundwater Basin
Coachella Valley Water District
Figure Exported: 6/12/2020 By: wmedlin Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Offices\Atlanta\Wip\Ecology Resources\California\San Pasqual GSP\GIS\MXD\2020.06.12_GDE_Draft_Figure5.mxdProject #: 0011492.02
Map Created: June 2020
0 5 102.5 MilesImperial, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, CA
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.
Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources BING Aerial Imagery California Natural Diversity Database 2020.
Indio Groundwater Basin
Agricultural Drains 1 inch = 5 miles
Legend±
Figure 6GDE Indicators
Indio Groundwater Basin
Coachella Valley Water District
Figure Exported: 6/12/2020 By: wmedlin Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Offices\Atlanta\Wip\Ecology Resources\California\San Pasqual GSP\GIS\MXD\2020.06.12_GDE_Draft_Figure6.mxdProject #: 0011492.02
Map Created: June 2020
0 5 102.5 MilesImperial, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, CA
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.
Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources Microsoft BING Aerial Imagery CA DWR Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater.
Indio Groundwater Basin
NCCAG (Vegetation)
NCCAG (Wetlands)
1 inch = 5 miles
This page intentionally left blank.
Indio Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Woodard & Curran
(0011492.02) November 2021
ATTACHMENT B: PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG OF GDE FIELD ASSESSMENT SITES
This page intentionally left blank.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 1 View Direction: West Date: January 11, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of confirmed probable groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG 2020).
Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 15.
Photo Number: 2 View Direction: Northwest Date: January 11, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 14.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 3 View Direction: North Date: January 11, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 12.
Photo Number: 4 View Direction: Southwest Date: January 12, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken GDE field assessment site 10.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 5 View Direction: North Date: January 12, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken GDE field assessment site 11.
Photo Number: 6 View Direction: Southwest Date: January 12, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 2.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 7 View Direction: North Date: January 12, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 6.
Photo Number: 8 View Direction: West Date: January 12, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 8.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 9 View Direction: South Date: January 13, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 1.
Photo Number: 10 View Direction: South Date: January 13, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of playa wetland community.
Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 5.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 11 View Direction: East Date: January 13, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of potential incorrectly mapped groundwater dependent ecosystem (NCCAG
2020). Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 7.
Photo Number: 12 View Direction: West Date: January 14, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of playa wetland community.
Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 4.
Indio GDE Field Assessment (0011492.02) Woodard & Curran
June 2021
Photo Number: 13 View Direction: East Date: January 14, 2021
Description: Representative photograph taken of playa wetland community.
Photo taken at GDE field assessment site 3.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 5-A
MUNICIPAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTION FOR 2022 INDIO SUBBASIN
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
MUNICIPAL WATER DEMAND
PROJECTION FOR 2022 INDIO
SUBBASIN ALTERNATIVE PLAN
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
COACHELLA WATER AUTHORITY
DESERT WATER AGENCY
INDIO WATER AUTHORITY
August 2021
2490 Mariner Square Loop, Suite 215
Alameda, CA 94501
www.toddgroundwater.com
In cooperation with:
This page intentionally left blank.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 1 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................3
Coachella Valley Water District ................................................................................................................. 3
Coachella Water Authority ........................................................................................................................ 4
Desert Water Agency ................................................................................................................................ 6
Indio Water Agency ................................................................................................................................... 7
Growth Forecast for Customers outside GSA Domestic Water Service Areas ........................................9
Coachella Valley Water District ................................................................................................................. 9
Desert Water Agency .............................................................................................................................. 10
Housing Unit Forecast by Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 17
Coachella Valley Water District ............................................................................................................... 17
Coachella Water Authority ...................................................................................................................... 18
Desert Water Agency .............................................................................................................................. 19
Indio Water Authority ............................................................................................................................. 20
Housing Unit Forecast for Customers Outside GSA Domestic Water Service Areas ............................. 21
Coachella Valley Water District ............................................................................................................... 21
Desert Water Agency .............................................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX TABLES
Table 1. Coachella Valley Water District—Population .................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Coachella Valley Water District—Households ................................................................................ 3
Table 3. Coachella Valley Water District—Employees .................................................................................. 4
Table 4. Coachella Water Authority—Population ......................................................................................... 4
Table 5. Coachella Water Authority—Households ....................................................................................... 5
Table 6. Coachella Water Authority—Employees ......................................................................................... 5
Table 7. Desert Water Agency—Population ................................................................................................. 6
Table 8. Desert Water Agency—Households ................................................................................................ 6
Table 9. Desert Water Agency—Employees ................................................................................................. 7
Table 10. Indio Water Agency—Population .................................................................................................. 7
Table 11. Indio Water Agency—Households ................................................................................................ 8
Table 12. Indio Water Agency—Employees .................................................................................................. 8
Table 13. CVWD Other Water Systems—Population .................................................................................... 9
Table 14. CVWD Other Water Systems—Households .................................................................................. 9
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 2 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
Table 15. CVWD Other Water Systems—Employees .................................................................................. 10
Table 16. DWA Other Water Systems—Population .................................................................................... 10
Table 17. DWA Other Water Systems—Households .................................................................................. 11
Table 18. DWA Other Water Systems—Employees .................................................................................... 11
Table 19. General Plan Land Uses and Maximum Dwelling Units .............................................................. 13
Table 20. Specific Plan Land Uses and Maximum Dwelling Units ............................................................... 15
Table 21. Coachella Valley Water District—Single Family Housing Units ................................................... 17
Table 22. Coachella Valley Water District—Multiple Family Housing Units ............................................... 17
Table 23. Coachella Water Authority—Single Family ................................................................................. 18
Table 24. Coachella Water Authority—Multiple Family ............................................................................. 18
Table 25. Desert Water Agency—Single Family Housing Units .................................................................. 19
Table 26. Desert Water Agency—Multiple Family Housing Units .............................................................. 19
Table 27. Indio Water Authority—Single Family Housing Units ................................................................. 20
Table 28. Indio Water Authority—Multiple Family Housing Units ............................................................. 20
Table 29. CVWD Other Water Systems—Single Family .............................................................................. 21
Table 30. CVWD Other Water Systems—Multiple Family .......................................................................... 21
Table 31. DWA Other Water Systems—Single Family Housing Units ......................................................... 22
Table 32. DWA Other Water Systems—Multiple Family Housing Units ..................................................... 22
Table 33. Baseline Water Demand Projection Before Conservation .......................................................... 23
Table 34. Baseline Water Demand Projection Before Conservation (Other Water Systems) .................... 23
Table 35. Water Loss Projection by GSA ..................................................................................................... 25
Table 36. Water Loss Projection by GSA (Other Water Systems) ............................................................... 25
Table 37. Passive Conservation Projection (Planning Area) ....................................................................... 27
Table 38. Passive Conservation Projection (Other Water Systems within Planning Area) ......................... 27
Table 39. Outdoor Water Use Adjustment by GSA (Within Planning Area) ............................................... 28
Table 40. Outdoor Water Use Adjustment (Other Water Systems within Planning Area) ......................... 28
Table 41. Water Supplied (Within Planning Area) ...................................................................................... 29
Table 42. Water Supplied (Other Water Systems within Planning Area) ................................................... 29
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 12 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
This page intentionally blank.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 24 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
This page intentionally blank.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 26 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
This page intentionally blank.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update 30 TODD/W&C
Appendix 5-A: Municipal Demand Forecast
This page intentionally blank.
APPENDIX 7-A
1997-2019 OBSERVED VS. SIMULATED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
HYDROGRAPHS
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 7-B
ADDITIONAL FUTURE PLAN SCENARIOS
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-1 TODD/W&C
APPENDIX 7-B – ADDITIONAL FUTURE PLAN SCENARIOS
Scenarios for the Alternative Plan Update were developed based on potential future water supply conditions.
These may change as the result of land development, source substitution projects, or new water supply
projects. Four categories of planning conditions were established – Baseline (No New Projects), Five-Year
Plan, Future Projects, and Expanded Agriculture. For each of the four categories, one Plan scenario assumed
historical hydrology and a second assumed climate change conditions. Each scenario was simulated over a
50-year period consistent with SGMA requirements. However, the planning assumptions were
only projected for the first 25 years to the 2045 planning horizon. Thereafter, growth and project assumptions
were assumed to continue at the same rate for the second 25 years of the simulation.
While extending beyond foreseeable land use and water resource planning projections, the second 25-year
projections allow long-term evaluation of water supply and demand conditions, effectively testing Indio
Subbasin sustainability under long-term hydrologic variability over 50 years.
A total of eight scenarios were analyzed during the planning process. The Baseline and four climate
change scenarios are included in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios. The following
description includes only the four scenarios without climate change.
1. Baseline (No New Projects): No new supply or management projects or changes to historical
hydrology. This scenario is described for comparison purposes only and will never happen, because
new projects are in the process of being implemented. However, a baseline is useful to assess the
other scenarios.
2. Five-Year Plan: Baseline conditions plus supply and management projects included in the GSA
agencies’ five-year capital improvement plans (CIPs).
3. Future Projects: Five-Year Plan conditions plus implementation of additional supply and
management projects that are projected to be completed in the 25-year planning horizon.
4. Expanded Agriculture: Future Projects conditions plus expansion of agriculture resulting in
increased water demands.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-3 TODD/W&C
Figure 1: Baseline (No New Projects) Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals. Colorado River volumes do not sum to total due to
underrun under Baseline scenario with no new projects
assumption.
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: As illustrated in Figure 1, inflows to groundwater include subsurface
inflow, mountain front recharge, surface water runoff that is diverted for replenishment or percolates along
the mountain front or in local channels (minus losses to the Salton Sea), wastewater percolation, and return
flows from use (which include septic system percolation). Total surface water runoff from local watersheds is
estimated based on the 50-year hydrologic period from 1970 to 2019 and simulated into the future using the
MODFLOW model. Runoff inflows are assumed to vary annually, with estimated natural infiltration of
watershed runoff (minus diversions and outflows to the Salton Sea) am ounting to an
annual average of 43,319 AF for the 50-year hydrologic period. Septic system inflow starts at 8,800 AFY in
2020 and decreases to 4,600 AFY by 2045 due to the connection of septic systems to sewers. Wastewater
percolation serves as an inflow to the Subbasin and occurs at five wastewater treatment facility sites (Palm
Springs WWTP, CVWD WRP-2, CVWD WRP-7, CVWD WRP-10, and MSWD Regional WRF). Wastewater
percolation is assumed to provide an average Subbasin inflow of 6,316 AFY in 2020 and ramping up to
18,377 AFY by 2045. Return flows from municipal, agricultural, and golf course demands are based on
estimates of outdoor water use.
Outflows from the Indio Subbasin include drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow. Subsurface
inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are derived from the MODFLOW model.
As shown in Table 2, local supplies used for replenishment include surface water diversions. Under Baseline,
local surface water diversions increase to 6,000 AFY by 2023, all of which is diverted to WWR-GRF
subsurface storage and then recovered for delivery.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-4 TODD/W&C
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Baseline include CVWD’s base entitlement
under the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement, along with transfers where there are agreements in
place. Baseline assumes that diversions under the QSA ramp up from 394,000 AFY in 2020 to 424,000 AFY
between 2027 and 2045 in 5,000 AFY increments. This ramp-up will allow the CVWD to fully utilize available
Colorado River water at its maximum entitlement. The Colorado River supplies used in Baseline include a
15,000 AFY transfer from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) delivered to WWR-GRF
(MWD retains the remaining 5,000 AFY) and 35,000 AFY of SWP transfer with MWD per the 2003 QSA.
Baseline also assumes annual Canal conveyance losses of 5 percent. Under the Baseline scenario, a portion
of available Colorado River supply is not able to be beneficially used without the construction of new projects.
Colorado River supplies are assumed to be used for replenishment and direct use, as follows:
• Colorado River replenishment:
o TEL-GRF: Recharge limited to current recharge of 37,000 AFY
o PD-GRF: Recharge limited to Phase I capacity of 10,000 AFY
o WWR-GRF: Recharge of 15,000 AFY of MWD transfer from 2020 to 2026 (totaling 105,000
AF) and recharge of 35,000 AFY of QSA MWD transfer through the planning horizon.
• Colorado River direct deliveries: Delivery to current agricultural, East Valley golf courses, other
recreation, WRP-7, WRP-10, and MVP direct users at current levels equaling 278,000 AFY, less
reduced agricultural demands due to urban conversion.
SWP Exchange: Average annual SWP Exchange supplies under Baseline are based on the reliability of
SWP deliveries received by CVWD and DWA since 2007 when Federal Judge Wanger overturned the
Biological Opinion authored by USFWS and USBR concerning Delta export pumping operations. This
decision significantly impacted DWR’s ability to convey SWP supplies across the Delta for export. Baseline
applies an average 45 percent reliability to SWP deliveries.
Additionally, MWD’s Advance Delivery account had 353,946 AF in storage as of January 2020. Baseline
assumes that MWD will credit SWP deliveries against the Advance Delivery account at 22,122 AF annually
from 2020-2035 so as not to double count these deliveries. Additional SWP Exchange water is available
through Yuba Accord deliveries and is assumed to have a 10-year average of 651 AFY.
SWP Exchange supplies modeled under Baseline are varied annually based on the historical variability of
SWP Table A deliveries received by the CVWD and DWA. Final SWP allocations between 2007 and 2021
have ranged from a high of 85 percent in 2017 to a low of 5 percent in 2014 and again in 2021. Baseline
applies an annual variability factor that mimics the variability of deliveries associated with different climate
years. The variability factors were developed based on the same water years (1970 to 2019) as local
hydrology.
SWP Exchange water is assumed to be used for replenishment at WWR-GRF and MC-GRF, and the split of
water between these replenishment facilities is to be consistent with the 2004 Settlement Agreement between
DWA, CVWD, and MSWD.
Other Supplies: One additional supply is included under Baseline: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries of 10,563
AFY from 2020 to 2035.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies are currently produced at three locations: Palm Springs
WWTP/DWA WRP, CVWD WRP-7, and CVWD WRP-10. Recycled water supply availability is expected to
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-6 TODD/W&C
Figure 2: Five Year Plan Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals.
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: Surface water hydrology under Five-Year Plan are the same as
Baseline as are return flows and septic system inflow. Wastewater percolation is expected to be reduced due
to an increase in recycled water use. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface
outflow are derived from the MODFLOW model.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under the Five-Year Plan are assumed to remain
the same as under Baseline; however, available supplies will be routed differently due to planned expansions
to replenishment facilities and direct deliveries. Under Five-Year Plan, the PD-GRF is planned to expand to
allow for recharge to increase from 10,000 AFY in 2020 to 25,000 AFY in 2023. Combined replenishment at
WWR-GRF, TEL-GRF, and PD-GRF is stable at 97,000 AFY through 2045. Increases in Colorado River
direct deliveries begin in 2022 and total 29,914 AFY by 2045.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies available under the Five-Year Plan are the same as under
Baseline. SWP Exchange water is assumed to be used for replenishment at the WWR-GRF and MC-GRF,
consistent with the 2004 Settlement Agreement.
Recycled Water: Recycled water availability is expected to increase recycled water production and
deliveries to new non-potable connections. WRP-7 deliveries increase from 2,201 AFY in 2020 to 2,800
AFY in 2025. WRP-10 deliveries increase from 7,783 AFY in 2020 to 14,000 AFY in 2045.
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries remain the same as in Baseline.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-8 TODD/W&C
Figure 3: Future Projects Supply and Demand Flow Chart, 2045
Note: Values in this graphic are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to totals.
Local Inflows, Outflows, and Supplies: Surface water hydrology under Future Projects is the same as
Baseline, as are return flows and septic system inflows. Wastewater percolation is expected to be reduced
due to an increase in recycled water use, along with the transfer of MSWD Regional WRF flows to the Mission
Creek Subbasin. Subsurface inflow, drain flow, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow are derived from
the MODFLOW model.
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Future Projects are assumed to remain the
same as under the Five-Year Plan scenario, but with additional expansions to replenishment facilities and
direct deliveries. Under Future Projects, the TEL-GRF will expand from a capacity of 37,000 AFY in 2020 to
40,000 AFY in 2025. Increases in Colorado River direct deliveries begin in 2022 and total 70,024 AFY by
2045. As available Colorado River supply is fully utilized in the Mid- and East Valley, CVWD will reduce
replenishment at the WWR-GRF. The increase in direct deliveries results in a reduction in replenishment of
CVWD’s 2003 QSA entitlement at WWR-GRF beginning in 2025 to a low of 20,756 AFY in 2040.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies available under Future Projects include the Table A deliveries (45
percent average reliability and varied annually based on water year) assumed under Baseline, with the
addition of the following projects:
• Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF) to increase the reliability of SWP deliveries by 26,500 AFY (59%
of Table A) due to improvements in Delta conveyance; deliveries will vary according to the same
variability factors used for SWP Table A water under Baseline and used for replenishment at WWR-
GRF and MC-GRF.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-11 TODD/W&C
Colorado River: Colorado River water supplies available under Expanded Agriculture are assumed to
remain the same as under the Future Projects, but with additional direct deliveries to the expanded
agricultural areas. Replenishment facility expansions will be the same as in Future Projects. Increases in
Colorado River direct deliveries begin in 2021 and total 99,800 AFY by 2045. As available Colorado River
supply is fully utilized in the Mid- and East Valley, CVWD will reduce replenishment at the GRFs. This results
in a reduction in replenishment of Colorado River water at PD-GRF beginning in 2038 to a low of 18,967
AFY, along with ending QSA deliveries at WWR-GRF in 2037.
SWP Exchange: SWP Exchange supplies are the same as under Future Projects and include Table A
deliveries (45 percent average reliability and varied annually based on water year) along with DCF, Lake
Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project, and Sites Reservoir Project.
Recycled Water: Recycled water supplies are the same as under Future Projects.
Other Supplies: Rosedale-Rio Bravo deliveries remain the same as in Baseline.
Appendix 7-B: Additional Future Plan Scenarios
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 7B-12 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 7-C
ADDITIONAL FUTURE SCENARIO WATER BUDGETS AND MODEL SIMULATIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
Indio Subbasin C-1
Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios TODD / W&C
Appendix 7-C Additional Future Scenario Water Budgets and Model Simulations
As documented in Chapter 7, scenarios for the Alternative Plan were developed based on
potential future water supply conditions. These may change as the result of land development,
source substitution projects, or new water supply projects. Four categories of planning conditions
were established – Baseline (No New Projects), Five-Year Plan, Future Projects, and Expanded
Agriculture. For each of the four categories, one Plan scenario assumed historical hydrology and
a second assumed climate change conditions. Each scenario was simulated over a 50-year period
consistent with SGMA requirements. However, the planning assumptions were only projected
for the first 25 years to the 2045 planning horizon. Thereafter, growth and project assumptions
were assumed to continue at the same rate for the second 25 years of the simulation.
While extending beyond foreseeable land use and water resource planning projections, the
second 25-year projections allow long-term evaluation of water supply and demand conditions,
effectively testing Indio Subbasin sustainability under long-term hydrologic variability over 50
years.
The same suite of projects simulated in the scenarios described in Chapter 7 were also simulated
without Climate Change. These scenarios were simulated using future hydrological conditions
based on the past 50 years of observed hydrological data, in contrast to the climate change
simulations of the past 25 years of observed hydrological data. The results of those simulations,
without climate change, are included here.
The following scenario simulations are shown here:
1.Baseline (No Project): No new supply projects or changes to historical hydrology.
2.Five-Year Plan: Baseline conditions plus supply projects included in the GSA agencies’
five-year capital improvement plans (CIPs), without anticipated climate change
hydrology.
3.Future Projects: Five-Year Plan conditions plus implementation of additional supplies and
facilities that are in the planning phases by GSA agencies, subsequent phases of projects,
and/or GSAs are participating agencies, along without anticipated climate change
hydrology.
4.Expanded Agriculture plus Future Projects: Future Projects conditions plus
significant increases in agriculture resulting in increased agricultural demand, along
without anticipated climate change hydrology.
Indio Subbasin C-2
Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios TODD / W&C
The results are shown in the following figures:
Figure 7-C1 Annual Model Water Budget for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C2 Cumulative Change in Storage for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C3 Total Model Inflow for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C4 Simulated Pumping for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C5 Simulated Drain Flow for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C6 Simulated Salton Sea Net Outflow for Additional Scenarios
Figure 7-C7 Additional Scenarios Hydrographs, West Valley 2020-2069
Figure 7-C8 Additional Scenarios Hydrographs, East Valley 2020-2069
Figure 7-C9 Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045 Five Year Scenario
Figure 7-C10 Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045 Future Projects Scenario
Figure 7-C11 Change in Groundwater Levels, 2009-2045 Expanded Agriculture Scenario
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 9-A
KEY WELL GROUNDWATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPHS WITH MINIMUM THRESHOLDS
This page intentionally left blank.
Note:
Minimum groundwater elevation occured in 1968.
Appendix 9A-1
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
334 - 03S04E17K01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj610
730
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
334 - 03S04E17K01S
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)
Minimum Threshold (feet msl)
Appendix 9A-2
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
756 - 03S04E22A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj550
650
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
756 - 03S04E22A01S
Appendix 9A-3
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
271 - 03S04E34R01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj240
360
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
271 - 03S04E34R01S
Appendix 9A-4
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
337 - 03S05E30G01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj350
450
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
337 - 03S05E30G01S
Appendix 9A-5
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
273 - 04S04E13C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj150
300
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
273 - 04S04E13C01S
Appendix 9A-6
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
274 - 04S04E24D01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj140
240
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
274 - 04S04E24D01S
Appendix 9A-7
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
41 - 04S05E09B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj140
240
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
41 - 04S05E09B01S
Appendix 9A-8
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
350 - 04S05E15R02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj90
190
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
350 - 04S05E15R02S
Appendix 9A-9
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
282 - 04S05E17Q02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj120
220
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
282 - 04S05E17Q02S
Appendix 9A-10
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
29 - 04S05E28F02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj80
180
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
29 - 04S05E28F02S
Appendix 9A-11
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
367 - 04S05E29F01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj100
200
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
367 - 04S05E29F01S
Appendix 9A-12
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
18 - 04S05E35G03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj50
150
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
18 - 04S05E35G03S
Appendix 9A-13
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
56 - 04S06E18R01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj20
120
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
56 - 04S06E18R01S
Appendix 9A-14
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
61 - 04S06E20M02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj0
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
61 - 04S06E20M02S
Appendix 9A-15
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
50 - 04S06E32N02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-110
-10
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
50 - 04S06E32N02S
Appendix 9A-16
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
406 - 04S06E35P01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-50
50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
406 - 04S06E35P01S
Appendix 9A-17
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
70 - 05S05E12H02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj0
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
70 - 05S05E12H02S
Appendix 9A-18
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
94 - 05S06E12N01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-80
20
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
94 - 05S06E12N01S
Appendix 9A-19
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
87 - 05S06E16A02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-50
50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
87 - 05S06E16A02S
Appendix 9A-20
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
104 - 05S06E24G01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-100
0
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
104 - 05S06E24G01S
Appendix 9A-21
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
112 - 05S06E29C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-50
50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
112 - 05S06E29C01S
Appendix 9A-22
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
255 - 05S07E04A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-80
20
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
255 - 05S07E04A01S
Appendix 9A-23
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
165 - 05S07E06B04S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-80
20
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
165 - 05S07E06B04S
Appendix 9A-24
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
511 - 05S07E08Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-90
10
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
511 - 05S07E08Q01S
Appendix 9A-25
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
299 - 05S07E24M04S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-110
-10
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
299 - 05S07E24M04S
Appendix 9A-26
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
535 - 05S07E27L01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-150
-50
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
535 - 05S07E27L01S
Appendix 9A-27
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
146 - 05S07E28E01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-100
0
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
146 - 05S07E28E01S
Appendix 9A-28
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
150 - 05S07E31P01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-120
-20
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
150 - 05S07E31P01S
Appendix 9A-29
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
167 - 05S07E32B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-160
-60
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
167 - 05S07E32B01S
Appendix 9A-30
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
559 - 05S08E33D01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-170
-70
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
559 - 05S08E33D01S
Appendix 9A-31
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
567 - 06S07E02D02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-160
-60
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
567 - 06S07E02D02S
Appendix 9A-32
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
174 - 06S07E06B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-150
-50
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
174 - 06S07E06B01S
Appendix 9A-33
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
190 - 06S07E13M02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-120
-20
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
190 - 06S07E13M02S
Appendix 9A-34
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
183 - 06S07E16A02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-180
-80
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
183 - 06S07E16A02S
Appendix 9A-35
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
582 - 06S07E23F01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-170
-70
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
582 - 06S07E23F01S
Appendix 9A-36
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
587 - 06S07E29B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-180
-80
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
587 - 06S07E29B01S
Appendix 9A-37
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
594 - 06S07E35L02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-180
-80
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
594 - 06S07E35L02S
Appendix 9A-38
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
198 - 06S08E05R02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-110
-10
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
198 - 06S08E05R02S
Appendix 9A-39
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
607 - 06S08E12Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-140
-40
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
607 - 06S08E12Q01S
Appendix 9A-40
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
192 - 06S08E22D02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-180
-80
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
192 - 06S08E22D02S
Appendix 9A-41
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
616 - 06S08E25Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-100
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
616 - 06S08E25Q01S
Appendix 9A-42
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
619 - 06S08E31P01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-100
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
619 - 06S08E31P01S
Appendix 9A-43
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
627 - 06S09E32Q01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-100
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
627 - 06S09E32Q01S
Appendix 9A-44
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
633 - 07S07E02G02S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-180
-80
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
633 - 07S07E02G02S
Appendix 9A-45
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
642 - 07S08E10P01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-210
-110
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
642 - 07S08E10P01S
Appendix 9A-46
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
200 - 07S08E17G01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-100
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
200 - 07S08E17G01S
Appendix 9A-47
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
687 - 07S08E33B01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-220
-120
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
687 - 07S08E33B01S
Appendix 9A-48
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
206 - 07S09E07J01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-250
-150
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
206 - 07S09E07J01S
Appendix 9A-49
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
707 - 07S09E14C01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-200
-100
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
707 - 07S09E14C01S
Appendix 9A-50
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
708 - 07S09E16M03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-270
-170
-260
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
708 - 07S09E16M03S
Appendix 9A-51
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
712 - 07S09E18H01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-270
-170
-260
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
712 - 07S09E18H01S
Appendix 9A-52
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
9 - 07S09E30R01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-220
-120
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
9 - 07S09E30R01S
Appendix 9A-53
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
727 - 08S08E03L01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-230
-130
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
727 - 08S08E03L01S
Appendix 9A-54
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
745 - 08S08E24L01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-270
-170
-260
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
745 - 08S08E24L01S
Appendix 9A-55
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
11 - 08S09E07N03S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-260
-160
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
11 - 08S09E07N03S
Appendix 9A-56
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
750 - 08S09E30A01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-280
-180
-270
-260
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
750 - 08S09E30A01S
Appendix 9A-57
Groundwater Elevation
Hydrograph
754 - 08S09E33N01S
FINAL
Path: T:\Projects\Coachella On-Call SGMA Services 2019 - 75004\Task Order 2 - Alternative Plan Update\GRAPHICS\Chapter_9_Appendix_Hydrographs.gpj-280
-180
-270
-260
-250
-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
Groundwater Elevation (feet msl)1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
754 - 08S09E33N01S
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Tania Flores
From:Behrens, Natascha
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 10:11 AM
To:Planning WebMail; Cheri Flores; Carlos Flores
Subject:Coral Mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper
judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for
information. **
Hello,
I am a La Quinta resident, and I am aware that there is going to be another meeting in a couple
of days to discuss the proposed Coral Mountain surf park. I am not sure how to submit
comments for the meeting, so I hope that by emailing you, I will be successful in having my
voice heard. I sincerely hope that the council decides not to go ahead with these plans. I
understand that such a park might seem like a good draw, and may be exciting, but ultimately,
it is not responsible or sustainable.
The LQ planning website says that "The Planning Division's function is to enhance the well-being
of residents, property owners, businesses, and visitors of the City of La Quinta." Residents come
first in that list, and I take that to mean current and future generations. We cannot think in
short terms. We might be able to build that park, and we might be able to use it for a few years,
but there is a very, very high chance that this project will run out of steam. Not only will the
water and energy usage be immense, there are already competing projects in the Coachella
Valley. The Palm Springs Surf Club is set to open this year in the old Oasis Waterpark/ Knotts'
Soak City/ Wet N' Wild with a team of pro-surfers at the helm. Do we really believe this valley
has enough demand for two large wave pools? The history of how difficult it has been to operate
a waterpark in that location should also be cause for concern. I am 35, and in my lifetime in this
valley, that waterpark has been gone through three different companies and been closed for
years at a time, and it's not even close to as large a project as the proposed Coral Mountain one.
The amount of staff it will take to run such a park is another concern, especially considering how
many businesses are currently struggling to fill their positions. The life guards, custodians, and
customer service representatives must come from the same population of valley residents that
all these current struggling businesses are relying on. Why would people choose to work for this
waterpark, set very far from where many of them live, instead of all those other places,
especially considering that many of those positions will likely be seasonal? Are they planning on
paying significantly more? And if so, how will that impact cost of operation and ticket prices?
Again, we come back to the focus and priorities of the LQ planning division- residents. With the
astronomical costs of construction and operation (especially during a period of insane inflation),
will the entry fees even be affordable for the average resident? Or, even better, will those fees
be competitive with the PS surf club? Are LQ residents even interested in surfing? I grew up in
2
this valley and I have never noticed a large surfing community. Or is this really more for the
seasonal visitors? In that case, will that population be enough to sustain the costs of year-round
operation? Will their couple of hours of happiness be enough to justify the use of land and
resources? After all, they won't be the ones suck with the ruined land and extreme water
shortages.
What draws me to LQ as a long-time Coachella Valley resident is that natural beauty of this
area, and the small town feel. Why not lean in to what already makes us special instead of trying
for a completely artificial and foreign approach. The beach, with its natural waves and natural
beauty is less than two hours away. We have the beauty of the desert and the mountains. We
shouldn't try to be something we aren't-- it is destined to fail.
Please reject these plans. It seems far more likely that, in 10 years time, we will be stuck with a
blighted property and massive losses to our natural resources than that we will somehow forge a
thriving surfing community in the middle of a desert with an aging population.
Sincerely,
Natascha Behrens
she/her
Cathedral City High School
Dance and English Teacher
“Democracy must be reborn in each generation and education is its midwife.” -John Dewey
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information in this e-mail inclusive of any attachment(s) is
covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. It is intended only for the attention and use of the named recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are not authorized to retain, disclose, copy or distribute the message
and/or any of its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify me by return
email and delete this message.
1
Tania Flores
From:Behrens, Natascha
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 10:20 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Written Comments
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper
judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for
information. **
1. Natascha Behrens
2. La Quinta
3.
4. Public Comment
5. Coral Mountain Waterpark Proposal
6. See below...
I sincerely hope that the council decides not to go ahead with these plans. I understand that
such a park might seem like a good draw, and may be exciting, but ultimately, it is not
responsible or sustainable.
The LQ planning website says that "The Planning Division's function is to enhance the well-being
of residents, property owners, businesses, and visitors of the City of La Quinta." Residents come
first in that list, and I take that to mean current and future generations. We cannot think in
short terms. We might be able to build that park, and we might be able to use it for a few years,
but there is a very, very high chance that this project will run out of steam. Not only will the
water and energy usage be immense, there are already competing projects in the Coachella
Valley. The Palm Springs Surf Club is set to open this year in the old Oasis Waterpark/ Knotts'
Soak City/ Wet N' Wild with a team of pro-surfers at the helm. Do we really believe this valley
has enough demand for two large wave pools? The history of how difficult it has been to operate
a waterpark in that location should also be cause for concern. I am 35, and in my lifetime in this
valley, that waterpark has been gone through three different companies and been closed for
years at a time, and it's not even close to as large a project as the proposed Coral Mountain one.
The amount of staff it will take to run such a park is another concern, especially considering how
many businesses are currently struggling to fill their positions. The life guards, custodians, and
customer service representatives must come from the same population of valley residents that
all these current struggling businesses are relying on. Why would people choose to work for this
waterpark, set very far from where many of them live, instead of all those other places,
especially considering that many of those positions will likely be seasonal? Are they planning on
paying significantly more? And if so, how will that impact cost of operation and ticket prices?
Again, we come back to the focus and priorities of the LQ planning division- residents. With the
astronomical costs of construction and operation (especially during a period of insane inflation),
2
will the entry fees even be affordable for the average resident? Or, even better, will those fees
be competitive with the PS surf club? Are LQ residents even interested in surfing? I grew up in
this valley and I have never noticed a large surfing community. Or is this really more for the
seasonal visitors? In that case, will that population be enough to sustain the costs of year-round
operation? Will their couple of hours of happiness be enough to justify the use of land and
resources? After all, they won't be the ones suck with the ruined land and extreme water
shortages.
What draws me to LQ as a long-time Coachella Valley resident is that natural beauty of this
area, and the small town feel. Why not lean in to what already makes us special instead of trying
for a completely artificial and foreign approach. The beach, with its natural waves and natural
beauty is less than two hours away. We have the beauty of the desert and the mountains. We
shouldn't try to be something we aren't-- it is destined to fail.
Please reject these plans. It seems far more likely that, in 10 years time, we will be stuck with a
blighted property and massive losses to our natural resources than that we will somehow forge a
thriving surfing community in the middle of a desert with an aging population.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information in this e-mail inclusive of any attachment(s) is
covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. It is intended only for the attention and use of the named recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are not authorized to retain, disclose, copy or distribute the message
and/or any of its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify me by return
email and delete this message.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:52 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: M Boss
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
I am a Cathedral City resident but am writing this to remind the La Quinta Planning Commission that the water that will
be used forCoral Mountain belongs to everyone in the valley.
It’s not right that a few get to use a lot of water that belongs to everyone. I am planning on living here until I die,
hopefully a longtime away. I would hate to have my tap run dry because relatively few people are surfing in their
backyard.
Please say no to Coral Mountain.
Thank you.
Mariellen Boss
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Take care‐msb
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:43 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral mountain resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Cindy Hayward
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral mountain resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please do not approve the proposed Coral Mountain Resort development. It is not environmentally appropriate for the
land there. The amount of water use needed for the surf park alone is of epic proportion, while adding in all the extra
people living and visiting the resort makes it an insane proposal when we have had drought conditions for years.
Flushing toilets, showers, landscape watering and general living conditions will increase the water use when we are
being asked to limit our water use. Seems like this is a no brainer. I realize tax income coming to the city will increase
but the additional traffic, lights and wear and tear on the streets will be detrimental to our quality of life here. Please
vote no on this project.
Cynthia Hayward
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:24 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Jim Hodge
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
To all concerned: As a resident of the "Gem of the Desert", La Quinta, CA, and of Trilogy at Coral Mountain, I want to
voice my strong opinion against the development of a wave park at Coral Mountain, or any other part of our great city.
Given the situation we are in with the ongoing drought, the continued drain and strain on the Colorado River water
resource, and the overall pessimistic outlook provided by many environmentalists about global warming, energy
resources, and the future needs of humanity, it seems to be absolutely the wrong time to allow such a “business” as a
wave park to be built. I hope and pray that the City Council of this great city will unanimously vote against such actions.
Sincerely,
Jim R. Hodge
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Rik Horoky
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 12:36 PM
To:Tania Flores; consultingplanner@laquinta.gov
Subject:Written Comments for Item No 1 Planning Commission April 26
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
1) Rik Horoky 2) Palm Desert 3) 4) Item No 1 5) Coral Mountain Resort
6) Hello, my name is Rik Horoky and I’m a policy analyst and researcher.
I hope that the council is aware of the absolutely detrimental impacts that this project will have on the environment and
how it will lead to water insecurity for La Quinta residents, and it’s incredibly alarming to me that your Council is still willing
to move forward with a project despite knowing this.
I also hope that the council is aware that economists across the political spectrum have demonstrated time and time again
that flashy economic development projects such as the Coral Mountain Wave Pool fail to actually bring tangible economic
growth to a region. At most, large-scale, one-off projects such as this simply redirect how leisure dollars are spent. This is
a well-documented phenomenon, and some economists believe that projects such as this still move forward regardless of
their impending failure because decision-makers receive personal benefits and favors from contractors and developers.
I believe that La Quinta residents should begin questioning who their City Council members are beholden to if they are
actually considering selling out our water security in favor of building a playground for the rich.
Approving this project would demonstrate your Council’s willingness to act in your own self-interest as opposed to the
interest of your constituents who you are meant to serve.
Please do the right thing and say “no” to the Coral Mountain Wave Pool.
Rik E. Horoky
(he, him)
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:53 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Please Do NOT approve the Coral Mountain Development & Water-Surf Park Project !
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Cynthia Kramer
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:20 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Please Do NOT approve the Coral Mountain Development & Water‐Surf Park Project !
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
April 24, 2022
To the Planning Commission &
The La Quinta City Council,
I am asking as a resident of La Quinta and a concerned citizen of the unique desert we live in with respect of this
environment and the precious water concerns that The Planning Commission ( and City Council ) Vote NO,
Please Do Not to pass the Coral Mountain Residential & Water ‐Surf Park Development Project.
Thankyou,
Cindy Kramer
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:51 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposed to the Coral Mt WATER PARK -SURF PARK development
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Cynthia Kramer
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:08 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposed to the Coral Mt WATER PARK ‐SURF PARK development
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
April 24,2022
To the La Quinta Planning Commission & City Council,
I am a resident and home owner here in La Quinta, Ca.
I am writing to you to be clear that I am NOT in agreement with the Development of The Coral Mountain development
including its water park/ surf park.
Along with many others in our desert we ask for you to NOT Approve this Coral Mountain Development and it’s water
park.
Cindy Kramer
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:42 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Vote No on the Zone Change... Vote No on the Coral Mountain Wave Park Project
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Sylvia Lasser
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:41 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Jon
McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Vote No on the Zone Change... Vote No on the Coral Mountain Wave Park Project
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear City Leaders and City Planning Commissioners,
My name is Sylvia Lasser and I live at La Quinta, CA. I am writing today to urge you to vote no
on the zone change that could allow the Coral Mountain Wave Park project to move forward. I am not against
development, but I am against irresponsible development.
The approval of this project will bring:
A 167 acre wave surf pool
Illuminated by 17 80 foot tall light towers operating 365 days per year until 10pm or later
Noise from wave generation equipment
Noise from a party atmosphere
Noise from music events
Noise from wave announcements every 3 minutes
Operational hours from 7a.m. to 10p.m. every day of the year
Special events four times per year lasting four day each time attracting thousands of visitors each time
The possibility of TUPS permits allowing many more that just the 4 requested events
Up to 600 STVR’s and all the problems that that the City of La Quinta has already encountered with STVR’s
A commercial zone with obtrusive lighting dusk to dawn in perpetuity
All of this will be inserted into an area that is now zoned and consists of a quiet residential area!
This project is not in keeping with the City of La Quinta land use plan for residential development in south La
Quinta
This project is not in keeping with the expectations of the residents of La Quinta and the 2035 General Plan
The wave pool is the size of 12.6 football fields!
It will take 18 million gallons of drinking water from our aquafer to fill it
It will take an additional 250,000 gallons of water per day of our drinking water to keep up with the daily
evaporation rate
2
Unlike a golf course development 100% of the water must be drinking water quality, it cannot use gray water or
recycled water
When watering a golf course according to CVWD 25% of irrigation water eventually is returned to the aquafer
100% of the wave pool water will evaporate into thin air and will need to be constantly replaced
Climate Change is Real!
Reduction in water shipments from the Colorado River to recharge the Coachella Valley aquafer are happening
NOW!
Hotter temperatures in the desert and elsewhere are happening NOW!
Increased wind events in the Desert are happening NOW!
A historic drought is happening NOW!
The Coral Mountain Wave Park project is not sustainable, it is the wrong project, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Say NO to this project and explore more responsible ways to get the tax revenue you desire.
Thank you,
Sylvia Lasser
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:42 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Oppose the Coral Mountain Wave Park Project!
Attachments:wave park statement.docx
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Bob Lasser
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:55 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Oppose the Coral Mountain Wave Park Project!
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hello City Leaders, Planners and Staff,
Please see my attached statement of opposition to the proposed Coral Mountain Surf Park.
Thank you,
Bob Lasser
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from Mail for Windows
Hello City Leaders, Planning Commission and Staff,
My name is Robert Lasser, and I am a resident of La Quinta. I am
against the zone change of La Quinta land, which would allow the
proposed Coral Mountain Wave Park project to move forward.
For more than a year I have attended City Council meetings and
listened to countless La Quinta residents stand before you and express
their outrage and objection to the Coral Mountain Surf Park project.
Why has this project created so much interest and controversy from
your constituents and the citizenry of La Quinta and beyond?
The answer is simple. The proposed Wave Park project is the wrong
project, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and is the wrong way to
increase tax revenue for the city. It just is not a good fit for the
proposed location and is an irresponsible use of a precious natural
resource that is in short supply…. WATER!
The Wave Park bears NO relationship to the development that
had been originally entitled for the Coral Mountain site.
The project is not akin to a low‐ density master‐planned
residential community.
The Wave Park is NOT a residential development community by
any stretch of the imagination. it is instead a commercial, tourist
entertainment venue, which will be dropped in the middle of a
quiet residential zone.
The Wave Park is entirely made up of Short‐ Term Vacation
Rentals and the City of La Quinta and its residents are already
familiar with the many problems associated with STVR’s.
To approve this project, a zoning change from residential to tourism
commercial will be needed. Such a change would allow the introduction
of 17 eighty‐ foot‐ high light stanchions to illuminate the wave park 365
nights of the year. It would allow the introduction of twenty‐five foot
and 40‐foot light poles to illuminate the large‐scale 47,000 square feet
and 60,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses included in the
overall project, illuminating the area from dusk to dawn in perpetuity….
right in the middle of existing quiet residential neighborhoods!
Thousands of residents just like me, chose the Coral Mountain area of
South‐ East La Quinta to buy a home because:
There is no commercial lighting to ruin the beautiful dark sky
nights.
There is no traffic
There is no congestion
There is no commercialism
There are no tourist attractions
There is no noise
The area is strictly zoned for low density residential development… just
like the communities we live in.
All of this along with the stunning natural topography, access to hiking,
the outdoors and un‐parallel desert vista views represents the
attraction to this part of the City of La Quinta.
This area is known by its residents as the “Quiet Zone” and that is
exactly why we live here… to be away from the hustle and bustle,
commercialism, traffic, and noise of the rest of the city!
Thousands of us bought here with the understanding that open space
areas adjacent to Coral Mountain, are zoned for the same type of
future development as currently exists in the area… low density
residential.
As citizens, when purchasing our homes, we relied upon the City’s
2035 General Plan which:
Requires consistent and compatible land use pattern.
Requires development that would preserve and protect the
quiet noise level
Requires development that will preserve and protect light
pollution to the environment.
The General Plan is designed to preserve and protect the quality of
life for La Quinta residents, and as stated in both the Municipal
Code, and Charter of the City of La Quinta, “Its Goals, Policies, and
Programs, are those of the people of La Quinta, and… are not
intended to facilitate the agenda of any outside group, or entity
(aka Developers)!
If that were not enough to disqualify this project from moving forward,
the most aggreges and irresponsible aspect of the proposed wave park
is the indiscriminate waste of more than 312,163,558 gallons of our
precious aquafer water that will be needed every year to fill and
maintain a half‐mile long wave pool and recreational lake located in the
middle of the desert!
Think about that number of a moment. That is a lot of water to waste,
especially when you consider:
We are in a major drought
Our future water supply from the Colorado River is unknown
Our aquafer is already in an over‐draft position
Citizens throughout the state of California are already being asked
to conserve water
Farmers are being paid subsidies to fallow land due to lack of
water
Climatologists predict water scarcity will increase in the future
Cities cannot grow and develop without water
All living creatures including people cannot survive without water
Article after published article state that when it comes to water
allocations from the Colorado River, “now and in the future, it will
not be business as usual.”
I urge you City Planners and City leaders to comply with the will of the
constituents you serve, rather than the request of greedy developers
who only wish to line their pockets with money at the expense of La
Quinta and Coachella Valley citizens. Deny the zone change request
that could allow the Coral Mountain Wave Park project to move
forward.
Kelly Slater summed it up perfectly when he stated in a recent
interview with Surf Magazine when asked about the Lemoore Surf
Ranch:
“I think People are bored with it. The same wave over and over again,
it becomes a little bit monotonous for people because they feel like
they know what they’re going to see ahead of time. I think people like
{prefer} that excitement of what might happen in the ocean; what
wave might come”
The inventor of the artificial wave technology just told you what he
really thinks about it.
Wave Parks have a high failure rate. Seek more responsible and
sustainable ways to increase tax revenue to the City.
I urge you to take responsibility and recognize that water availability
now, and in the future will be unlike the past. Future water availability
is not guaranteed.
Tell the developers the Coral Mountain Wave Park is the wrong project,
in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and is the wrong way to increase
tax revenue for the City.
Just say NO to the zone change and tell the developers to come back
when they have a plan that complies with the existing zoning, tell them
to come back when they have a plan that is compatible with the
surrounding existing neighborhoods.
Tell them to come back with a plan without 17 eighty‐foot‐tall light
towers that will ruin the night sky and change the view of the Coral
Mountains forever. Tell them to present a plan that doesn’t involve
importing thousands of visitors to a quiet residential area on an on‐
going basis for special events.
Tell them to be responsible and present a plan that doesn’t waste
312,163,558 gallons of our precious drinking water, while thousands of
Coachella Valley citizens in the east end of the valley, don’t even have
access to potable drinking water, and the rest of us are being asked to
conserve the water we have.
Send the message loud and clear to the developer that this project
should not be build in La Quinta, it should not be built any where in the
Coachella Valley, it should not even be built anywhere in the Western
United States where water is a problem, because it would be an
irresponsible use of natural resources to do so!
Just Tell Them NO!
Thank you,
Robert Lasser
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:53 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: dawnmclean56
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:31 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave Park
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
I live in Andalusia and my backyard looks along Madison towards Coral Mountain.
I will be directly affected by this project.
This land is zoned for residential use ‐ not commercial.
I will never understand how City Council can be considering approval of this monstrosity in the middle of a quiet, serene
area. There are many other areas in the desert that would be suitable and would not directly affect so many people that
bought in this corner of La Quinta.
Please save our peace and tranquility.┭┮┯┰
Dawn McLean
La Quinta
Sent from my Galaxy
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:38 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Rick Owen
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:34 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
This is certainly the wrong project at this time as we are facing horrendous drought conditions in the valley. This project
will also destroy the beautiful , quiet area that we now live in.
Rick Owen
La Quinta , CA 92253
Cell:
Home:
email:
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:48 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Karen
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 8:41 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave Park
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
This is the wrong project at the wrong time for many, many reasons! There is no question that this should be
unanimously voted down! The local residents are opposed to this project!
We have decided that if this project is approved we will sell our beautiful home in “The Gem of the Desert” and move to
Indian Wells who seems to have a reasonable City Council that is concerned about what it’s residents want!
Karen Owen
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from my iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:49 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave park project
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Susan Rosenberg
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 8:58 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave park project
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
My husband Jess and I strongly oppose the Coral Mountain project. For many reasons.
1. Water misuse: the state of California is in a terrible drought. We are asked to save water everyday. This lake will
allow water to evaporate into thin air in the hot summer months.
2. Light pollution: we chose to live in the community of Trilogy because of the dark night skies. We enjoy the sunsets
and stars at night in the early evening. Permitting outdoor lights for this park up to 10 pm will also disrupt the native
birds and animals.
3. Noise pollution: the machinery needed to create these waves will add a reverberation to the desert floor that is not
normal and will disrupt the native species.
4. This facility will not be used by the vast majority of residents and is of no benefit to the citizens who elected you.
5. At least three wave pools across the country have gone bankrupt and are now closed according to wave pool
magazine.
Please vote NO to this proposed plan.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Jess and Susan Browne Rosenberg
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:44 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: I ask you to reject the Wave Park development
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Rick Roth
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: I ask you to reject the Wave Park development
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Five years ago my wife and I purchased a home in Andalusia across from the proposed Coral Mountain Wave Park. At
the time we purchased, and even now, the parcel in question was zoned low density residential as are all the
surrounding developments. We never would have purchased here if we thought an amusement park with 4 major
tourist events a year would be coming. The proposed project requires rezoning, and this proposed change from
residential to tourist commercial should be rejected. The reasons are many:
(1) inconsistent with current zoning and all nearby neighborhoods;
(2) profligate waste of water during epic drought, with hubris rivaling the arrogant mortals of Greek tragedies;
(3) high risk of business failure with the consequent requirement to remove the half mile lagoon and remediate the land
for a replacement project, all of which makes likely a major cost for the city as well as a default on promised revenues;
(4) light pollution from 80 ft towers in violation of La Quinta policies;
(5) a low level of expected revenues that could just as easily and more reliably be collected from a residential
development with a one‐tenth percent special assessment on homeowners to offset property taxes that begin again
after 2033;
(6) clear environmental degradation due to green house gas emissions;
(7) inadequate and misleading noise assessments that overlook the most harmful low frequencies;
(8) heavy reliance on taxes on transients and short term rentals in a remote corner of La Quinta where the vast majority
for residents oppose those;
(9) high risk, low rewards, both unnecessary because a residential community will be popular and easily marketable with
better financial expectations.
The project proponents seem to believe that their enthusiasm for surfing and tourist attractions outweighs the
environment, the residents, and common sense. Definitely the wrong project for the proposed location.
2
I have decades of experience as a senior business executive (CEO and CTO) as well as a professor at the Naval
Postgraduate School with other faculty positions at Stanford, MIT and Carnegie Mellon University. This project proposal
would at best earn a gentleman’s D grade in any business school. The last time I saw a big project with such
excessive enthusiasm in the presence of such a flawed plan was when HP went ahead with its Itanium chip, one that
would try to make an extreme change in the IT ecosystem. As CTO for Software at that time, I asked “Am I the only
person who thinks this project is nuts?” Silence ensued from all the other decision makers and project backers. Public
assessment of that project showed it lost $40 Billion over the next 10 years, and eventually the fatally weakened
company terminated the chip and ongoing losses.
The Wave Park would be a blunder of similar arrogance in the face of damning evidence. Business prudence as well as
fiduciary duty should compel decision makers to reject this unworthy development.
Please reinforce my belief that La Quinta is and will remain the gem of the Coachella Valley. Let’s end the proposed
project before its likely huge costs show up! Vote NO on the wave park project, please.
Respectfully,
Rick Roth
, LQ 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:29 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave park~ please read! Thank you!
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Samara (Kate) Kathryn Siegfried
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:24 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen
<jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>;
Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave park~ please read! Thank you!
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Thank you for considering our community engagement.
We moved to LaQuinta for the quaintness , small village atmosphere. What we offer in this city is unique to the valley.
The nature of this wave park project, will be in contrast with the natural beauty and quaint village like atmosphere that
so many are drawn to here in La Quinta.
While golf courses use quite a bit of water, which I don’t like as far as sustainability, they serve many in our community
and offer beauty.
By contrast the wave park will be loud, very unattractive and honestly how many people surf? It’s not like California
doesn’t have a lot of coast. This monstrosity and waste of water and noise pollution will only serve a small amount of
folks who wish to surf in the desert.
Seems like an odd use of
land in the desert.
Please think long term in planning and not jump at the next shiny thing whereby turning folks off to our beautiful town.
Thank you for your consideration.
Samara K. Siegfried
La Quinta home owner
‐‐
Kate
Samara (Kate) Kathryn Siegfried
(she, her, hers)
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:50 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Project - Wave Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Diane Steinen
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen
<jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>;
Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Project ‐ Wave Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
If you’re not going to listen to the residents/VOTERS in La Quinta at least listen to the CVWD! They can’t believe the
profound disregard for the LIMITED amount of water in our aquifer. How can residents be asked to stop watering their
vegetable gardens and yards between 10am & 4pm when you want to approve this obscene project that will consume
years worth of our precious water every month!
Please vote against this wave pool project.
Sincerely a very concerned voter,
Diane Steinen
LQ
2
In conclusion, we (Jeff and Cher Van Wagenen) strongly oppose the Wave Coral Mountain development.
Please be advised that we have communicated the above to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Jeff Van Wagenen
Cher Van Wagenen
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:54 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Wave pool
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: James Wade
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Wave pool
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
A few words sufficiently sun up the wave pool proposal.
It would be criminally negligent to pass planning on a project which is so bad for our local area and Californian water
supply.
Water and power supply are already challenged and water supplies are lessening with the terrible drought.
Water saving legislation is being introduced so how can the wave pool even be consisdered? Locals save water whilst a
resort for guests only gorges itself on water usage and power!?
I guess the planning committee needs to seriously check it’s conscience and indeed it’s obligation to the local
community.
Vote no for the wave pool or our area will suffer.
We have power outages now, these will only get worse as climate change increases. The planning committee needs to
be accountable for future power and water shortages if they do not vote using sense.
Do the right thing. Don’t be puppets for corporate greed.
Sent from James iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 12:31 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 12:31 PM
To: Sheila Warren ; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Consulting Planner
<ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Ms. Warren,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as they
consider this application at hearing.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.®
42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101
PALM DESERT, CA. 92211
(760) 341-4800
FAX#: 760-341-4455
E-Mail: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com
From: Sheila Warren
Date: Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:11 PM
To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>, "jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov"
<jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
2
I am strongly opposed to this irresponsible
development here in the desert for a number
of reasons. Using drinking water at a time of
unprecedented drought defies logic. The
Coachella Valley Water District says we have
plenty of water for this project yet puts
restricts on watering our lawns and getting a
glass of water in a restaurant how does that
make sense. We are told we won’t hear any
noise yet I have heard the noise from the
Coachella Festival which is much further
away for the last two weekends. The
amount of energy needed to run this
monster will tax our energy system during
the summer when we need to cool our
houses to survive in the heat. The developer
appears to have no plan however to cool the
water which leaves me to believe that almost
no one will be surfing in this wave pool
between mid April and mid
September. Anyone foolish enough to try it
during that time would probably be entering
bacteria filled water if it isn’t cooled. A
justification for building this white elephant
is all the revenue it will bring it but the
buildout is over 20 years from now by that
point the developer will be long gone and the
technology will be out of date. Kelly Slater’s
fame will have faded and we will be most
likely left with an eyesore where a beautiful
development could have gone. Visions of the
old water park in Palm Springs which sat
disintegrating for so many years comes to
3
mind. So many water parks are already
under development, we have no idea if the
public will even embrace this idea here, do
we really need to bring another one to our
lovely La Quinta in a time of unprecedented
climate change? Finally allowing potentially
all of the houses and casitas in this
development to be STVRs disrupts everything
we love and the reason the majority of us
bought in South La Quinta. The lovely
peaceful nature of this area will be
destroyed, there will be no sense of
community as most of the buyers will be
investors looking to squeeze the most profit
they can from these houses. Who would buy
one of these houses as a primary residence
or true second home knowing the majority of
your neighbors will be partying no stop day
and night? We bought here with the
understanding from the La Quinta
development plan that this area would be
comprised of single family residences and a
golf course not an amusement park for a lot
of surfers that will operate from 7am to
10pm 365 days a year! What is the point of a
well thought out development plan if it be
changed at the whim of some out of state
developers who care only about short term
gains not the people who live here.
Please do the right thing for the citizens of
south La Quinta and vote no on this poorly
thought out project.
4
Sheila Warren
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Tania Flores
From:
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:24 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Proposed surf development
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper
judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for
information. **
To the Commission.
I am strongly requesting that you approve this new project.
1) There is no reason to leave this “dust bowl” property undeveloped.
2) There is dry shrub and dead trees alll over this parcel. It causes a fire hazard.
3) The streets have been developed properly to handle added traffic. The planning commission
has done an excellent job in planning for future growth.
4) We need growth and progressive developments in the City and in this area.
5) Most importantly, the group fighting this project will fight ANY proposed project because
many want no growth. However, their actions continue to have a negative impact in the area.
The golf course if failing and is in bankruptcy, we are lacking commercial growth, a grocery store
and services desperately needed and that vacant land doesn’t serve the community in its current
state.
Please support the growth of our community and approve this project.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 9:31 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 9:30 AM
To:
Cc: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Resort
Ms. Boling,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as they
consider this application at hearing.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Susan Boling
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM
To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>, "jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov"
<jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
I am writing to you to voice my opposition to construction of a wave park in
the Coral Mountain area. I am opposed to the development of a wave park
here in the desert for a number of reasons. My primary concerns are set forth
below.
1) The amount of water that will be needed to create and maintain the wave
park.
2
I have lived in Southern California for over forty years and in La Quinta for
over four years. During that time I have experienced water restrictions
numerous times similar to those now in effect in La Quinta. California
continues to experience record droughts. We are currently being asked to
restrict watering our lawns and restaurants have been told to only provide
water upon request. In the summer given the heat I assume that evaporation
will result in even more water being needed to keep the park functioning. It
defies logic to think that the amount of water required won’t negatively
impact our community.
2) What will happen if the park is not successful.
My understanding is that the wave park is the first phase of the proposed
development and that the planned development will take years to complete.
As has happened with other such parks, if it doesn’t succeed presumably the
developer may have financial difficulties and could at some point could stop
the rest of the development. This could leave the coral mountain area
permanently with what would be an eyesore in our beautiful valley.
3) Noise levels
Currently the Coachella Festival is happening. It is further away from our
community than the park will be and I am still able to hear it. While the
festivals are only three weekends a year the wave park will operate 15 hours
a day, every day. Clearly the impact on our community will be significant.
4) The amount of energy needed to run this park will overload our system
during the summer.
We are asked to limit energy use during peak season-keep thermostats
higher and not use appliances. I am a full time resident so obviously the
ability to cool my home during the summer months and not experience
power outages or shortages is not just important, it’s crucial.
5) Traffic congestion, light pollution and short term rentals are also
concerns.
3
I understand that there are other such parks being considered in the
Coachella Valley. It makes no sense to me to have multiple such facilities in
the area, particularly next to residential communities.
Currently the development of Talus (formerly known as SilverRock) is
underway. It has taken decades for this to move forward. Will our area go
through the same long drawn out process? That would certainly affect the
lifestyle of those of us living in the area.
That being said, I am not opposed to another residential community being
built, only to the wave park. It would be nice to have shops, restaurants,
even a hotel in the area. But the development should blend into the area and
enhance the beauty, not detract from it.
Please do the right thing for the citizens of south La Quinta and vote no on
this proposed development.
Susan Boling
La Quinta
1
Tania Flores
From:Martin Brewer
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 3:08 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Coral Mountain Resort
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper
judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for
information. **
Hello Tania,
Please forward this e-mail to the members of the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Thank you.
My wife and I are homeowners at Trilogy La Quinta. I have been following the progress of this
proposal closely and previously submitted a response to the City to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report, which I found seriously lacking in objectivity.
The main issues here are well known to you and the rest of us who have been following this
process: noise, traffic, light pollution and, most importantly, water. I am concerned about all
four of these matters, and particularly water.
No matter what the developer and the CVWD say, this use of water to develop a wave pool in
the desert given what we now know about our long-term drought conditions is wasteful in the
extreme. I ask you to look past the politics and the financial promises and make the difficult, but
correct, decision and reject this application on that basis if no other.
The continuing efforts to get local governments to approve water-based residential
developments needs to stop. You have the opportunity to be the first, to my knowledge, to take
a step in that direction, a decision that would be a bellwether of change. I hope you will take the
opportunity to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
Martin Brewer
La Quinta
Sent from my iPad
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:49 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave- Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: pcart
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Wave‐ Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
To Whom It May Concern:
Further to our email of April 20, 2022, we have now experienced the Coachella Art & Music Festival for the first time
since moving to La Quinta in September 2020. We were able to hear the bass and drum beat at our home which is 5.3
miles away from that event and therefore we are extremely concerned about the noise that will be emanating from the
proposed Wave Park at Coral Mountain Resort daily. The reverberation that the sound reflection from Coral Mountain
will have for the nearby residential neighborhoods (5.3 miles?) will be intolerable.
We implore you to vote against this proposal for all the reasons stated in our previous email (4‐20‐22) and in this email.
Please forward this email to the members of the Planning Commission as soon as possible.
Please include this email in the City Records for the Coral Mountain Resort Project as well.
Thanking you in advance.
Claudia and John Menser
La Quinta, CA 92253
Claudia Giangola
John Menser
AANW, LLC.
info@aanwinc.com
212/737-3766
917/584-0189
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:42 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: The Wave surf park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Cynthia Ihlenfeld
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: The Wave surf park
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Greetings,
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the surf park at Coral Mountain or any surf park in La
Quinta. Considering our water crisis in CA and around the world, I believe it is unconscionable to consider a surf park or
any new golf courses in the area. In addition, I don’t understand why we need more than one (or any!) in the desert,
considering that Palm Desert has already approved one. I also have significant concerns about the light pollution (I
thought we were proud of our “dark sky” designation) and traffic (it is already impossible to get in and out of PGA West
during three long weekends of Coachella and Stagecoach, the triathlon, biking events, etc.).
Every community in the Coachella Valley should have its own distinct character. La Quinta was distinctive when we
bought our first house here in 2000. We bought here because we loved the views, the quiet and the closeness of
nature. If we wanted festivals, short term rentals and surf parks, we would have bought in Palm Springs. We just
completed construction on our third home in La Quinta, contributing yet another $20,000 to the property tax base. Had
we known about the serious consideration of a surf park, on top of the festivals that we already hated, we never would
have invested here again.
At least one community in the valley should be dedicated to “quiet enjoyment” and neighborhoods where families
can enjoy and build relationships with their neighbors. Why can’t you see that this strategy could differentiate La
Quinta from the other communities in the valley and make it a sought after location with a healthy tax base but
without all the environmental, traffic and security problems that theme parks, festivals and short term rentals bring?
Cynthia Ihlenfeld
LaQuinta
1
Tania Flores
From:Patti Jones
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 3:01 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Written Comments Coral mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
My name is Patricia Jones and I am a resident of La Quinta. Address and my Phone number is
.
I am sending this email as I am opposed to the Coral Mountain Resort. I feel it will not fit in with the communities it
surrounds. It will bring in lots of non‐resident traffic as well as noise and light pollution. We are proudly a night sky city.
This development changes the original zoning. We in California are in a severe drought. I personally conserve water and
have desert landscaping. I love our city and the earth. Love of our city and the environment is more important than
money this resort will profit from. Using precious water, at least the golf courses use recycled water! I will be deeply
disturbed if this passes. Please let your higher Self guide you.
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 1:47 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Development: Oppose
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Suzanne Kahn
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 1:43 PM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen
<jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>;
Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Development: Oppose
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Mayor Evans, Council Members and Planning Committee:
I strongly oppose the development of a wave park and private resort in south La Quinta. I urge you not to approve it.
The bulk of my career was spent working in local government so I have an appreciation of the challenges and financial
burdens you face. If revenue is your driving motivation, then leave the La Quinta General Plan intact and impose
increased mitigation fees on residential development there. California has significant housing and water shortages,
development assessments would be a more thoughtful and consistent response.
As you undoubtedly know, the private wave park would require/waste 18 million gallons of potable water not including
evaporative losses during severe water insecurity across the West. Even CVWD just adopted further restrictions for
residential users (really!). And there are additional negative livability impacts that make a private water‐intensive resort
unsupportable.
Frankly the Desert Sun’s editorial position that all water‐intensive projects not already built should be rejected is the
appropriate, responsible one.
Please reject this project.
Suzanne Kahn
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 8:54 AM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Opposition to the Wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Novak, Philip
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 8:51 AM
To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Bridgett Home Novak
Subject: Opposition to the Wave
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please forward these comments to all members of the La Quinta
Planning Commission and City Council:
I'm Philip Novak of , La Quinta.
I'm not anti-growth. But I do oppose, as I now oppose, irresponsible and conspicuously
consumptive growth.
For the private benefit of 150 wealthy surfers only a fraction of
whom will ever reside in La Quinta, and yes, arguably for the public
benefit of a City naturally attracted to sources of revenue, you, the
members of the LQ Planning Commission, the members of the City
Council of LQ and, the LQ Consulting Planner, now seem all but
poised to do the following:
1. ignore the many blaring climatological and macro- and micro-
ecological indicators brought copiously to your attention by citizens
2
that, at this particular time and place, there could hardly be a
revenue project More Wrong than this one;
2. brazenly violate the La Quintan public's trust and the moral ideals
proclaimed in your oaths of office by colluding in a large "bait-and-
switch" upon Wave-opposing fellow citizens by having promised
them in zoning Laws and 2035 General Plan principles never to do
the very thing you now seem to be ready to do, namely, renege on
those very promises;
3. and, despite Mr. Bauer's laying bare to you the extralegal
conflict-of-interest behind many of the bought-and-paid-for
travesties contained in the DEIR --- and yes, even after having read
through the avalanche of substantive citizen opposition letters and
having heard their 3-minute numerous oral presentations at a
series if City meetings --- you seem strangely, I must say
indecently, poised to allow yourselves to be narcotized into
consent for the zoning change and Plan amendment
developers have requested. But narcotized by what? By the great
John Gamlin's unctuous, no-time-limit reassurances regarding the
Project he's been made President of? (Never ask a barber if you
need a haircut). Or perhaps by the formidably organized and
impassive bulldozing of the City's Consulting Planner who can
respond to 100 opposition letters while truly answering a precious
few? Or perhaps, worst of all, by the Merriwether legal counsel's
no-time-limit streams of prevaricating dismissals of still-unanswered
Opposition arguments.
Please City Officials, don't allow short-term gain considerations to
persuade you to change the zoning and amend the Plan. Please do
your duty to La Quintans, to California, and to the Earth.
Very sincerely yours, Philip Novak
3
‐‐
Philip Novak, Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
Dominican University of California
1
Tania Flores
From:Consulting Planner
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:53 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Fw: Coral Mountain Resort
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Debra Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick
<kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;
Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro
<dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
I own a second home in Trilogy which in reading the reports from the developer on your website, gets really no
consideration. We purchased here for the quiet development. I wonder if the council and city planners have visited the
other surf park that the developers were involved in? Does it sit in the midst of a residential community? It is
inconceivable to me that there will not be a tremendous increase in noise and traffic from what we currently
experience. All the maintenance and equipment needed to run the surf pool, as well as special events, (the proposed 4
events lasting up to 4 days each), occur near the Ave 60 and Madison intersection. I lived on a man made lake and
know the heavy equipment required as well as all the construction workers that will be in and out. And the entire
buildout could go on for over 20 years? My husband works in real estate. Do we really believe this will not negatively
impact the values in the surrounding communities, like Trilogy? I was under the impression that the city of La Quinta
was growing concerned with the number of short term rentals. It goes without saying I feel that we should all be
conserving water in this time of severe drought. I would ask all of you to oppose the development of this
resort. Sincerely, Deb Smith
1
Tania Flores
From:robert arroyo
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:01 PM
To:Tania Flores
Subject:Written Comments: Robert and Sally Arroyo, La Quinta, (760) 564-8126, Agenda Item 1, Coral
Mountain Resort
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Ms. Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary:
Thank you for submitting the following written comments into the City of La Quinta Planning Commission’s packet for the April 26,
2022 continued hearing from April 12, 2022 regarding the Coral Mountain Resort.
Sincerely,
Robert and Sally Arroyo
La Quinta, CA 92253
_____________________________________
Subject: It takes great courage to step back and do the right thing . . .
Dear Commissioners of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission:
As residents of the City of La Quinta who live across the street on 58th and Madison from the proposed Coral Mountain Resort, we
have been following the proceedings very carefully. We have been to all the City of La Quinta meetings regarding this development,
read all the information in the DEIR and EIR, wrote comments and asked questions, researched water resorts, wave basins and
surfing, and read and studied the materials presented by those for and against the proposed development. We greatly appreciate
the City of La Quinta Planning Commission for their time and energy. We appreciated the patience, respect and interest the
Commissioners have shown to not only the opponents of the project but to everyone who spoke. We applaud the questions from
the Commission to the developer; they were insightful, well‐researched and well‐thought out but unfortunately they also raised
even more questions.
More questions? Yes, and yes this process has taken a long time and one would think that all the questions would have been
answered. But for every question answered there are at least two that arise. The many additional questions should be answered
before any progress on this development takes place. Without writing a lengthy dissertation let us just pose two questions as a
sampling of how one question turns into many that have been newly raised:
1) The developer was asked how could the Wave Basin be repurposed in the event that the surf aspect of the park fails. Great
question by the Commission and one that we also wanted to know. The answer was to take out the surf‐making equipment and turn
it into a non‐surfing water feature. Which begs the question, what purpose could it have other than a water feature, particularly
with climate change and in these continued severe drought conditions? What could be done with a huge concrete basin without
water? Could it be removed? At whose expense? Can removal, if needed, be built into any contract or approval?
2
2) All our governments (La Quinta, Riverside County, State of California and U.S.) have set minimum parameters for health, safety
and nuisance. Again, great questions were raised by the Commissioners about decibels, light emissions, traffic, STVRs, water usage,
etc. and the answer most usually given was that the minimum standard allowed by law has been met. Why can’t the Planning
Commission, for the safety and health of their citizenry, ask for greater standards to be met and maintained instead of the minimum
allowed? Precedents have been set for this. Why not try to improve our environment and quality of life, instead of just meeting
minimum standards?
And we could go on, but the point is that despite the seemingly great amount of time spent reviewing this project there are still too
many questions before approval and we see no reason to “rush" into a project this vast and potentially changing forever the entire
makeup of South La Quinta as well as the entire City of La Quinta. We urge the Planning Commission to step back, perhaps query its
residents for questions that we were not able to ask of the developer ourselves and then pose those questions to the developer,
create higher standards to be met, build in tighter controls to the approval process, etc.
We are not against appropriate and reasonable development but please do not be misled. Unrelenting public sentiment is
overwhelmingly against this project, but the developer will tell the City that this is the right project for our City. The Planning
Commission and the City of La Quinta are faced with a difficult decision. To the Planning Commission we say it takes great courage
and guts to say let’s step back, rethink, repose questions, ask for better standards to be met, and even possibly say No. The
developer will no doubt claim that any more delays will be costly and they may be forced to pull out. The City of La Quinta and the
Planning Commission should not be taken for rubber‐stamp fools and shamed into voting on this project still too early in the
process.
To quote Steve Jobs “It’s only by saying NO that you can concentrate on the things that are really important."
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert and Sally Arroyo
La Quinta, CA 92253
From:Scott C
To:Planning WebMail
Subject:Coral Mountain Wave Park
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:30:29 PM
Attachments:Coral Mt Wave Surf Park.pdf
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution
when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Re: Coral Mountain Wave Park Proposal
Listen to your residents. There is major opposition from residents
and those concerned about protecting the integrity of our fragile
desert environment and limited water supply.
Major developers are offering up water-themed projects in this
parched desert region like there’s no tomorrow, even as a
prolonged drought continues across the Southwest, and the
Colorado River reservoirs that replenish area water supply dip to
historic lows.
This property has critical environmental resources and habitat for
the local flora and fauna. Please consider the consequences of how it
will adversely affect the environment and our quality of life.
One of the hardest challenges about of being a human
being is balancing our altruism and our avarice and
looking at a landscape in terms of what it does for our
pocketbooks, rather than what it does for our hearts and
souls. If you look at this magnificent landscape that you're
proposing to develop, it is truly the art of millions of years
of changes. And who wants to destroy that art piece? Not
me. Behold the Beauty.
I urge you to not approve this ill-conceived project.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter of mutual concern.
Scott Connelly
Re: Coral Mountain Wave Park Proposal
Listen to your residents. There is major opposition from residents and
those concerned about protecting the integrity of our fragile desert
environment and limited water supply.
Major developers are offering up water-themed projects in this
parched desert region like there’s no tomorrow, even as a
prolonged drought continues across the Southwest, and the Colorado
River reservoirs that replenish area water supply dip to historic lows.
This property has critical environmental resources and habitat for the
local flora and fauna. Please consider the consequences of how it will
adversely affect the environment and our quality of life.
One of the hardest challenges about of being a human being
is balancing our altruism and our avarice and looking at a
landscape in terms of what it does for our pocketbooks,
rather than what it does for our hearts and souls. If you look
at this magnificent landscape that you're proposing to
develop, it is truly the art of millions of years of changes.
And who wants to destroy that art piece? Not me. Behold the
Beauty.
I urge you to not approve this ill-conceived project.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter of mutual concern.
Scott Connelly
1
Tania Flores
From:Brenda Fisher
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:24 PM
To:Tania Flores
Cc:jmcmillen@laquinta.gov; Consulting Planner; Linda Evans; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Robert
Radi; Steve Sanchez
Subject:Coral Mountain Surf Resort Public Comment
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hello,
My name is Brenda Fisher. I have lived in the Coachella Valley my whole life and am currently a student studying
Conservation and Ecology and Sustainability.
I am concerned about the private surf park and how it negatively impacts the environment as well as destroying a
cultural heritage site for local Cahuilla tribes. This park is estimated to use over 300 million gallons of water a year which
is unsustainable for a desert let alone an area that is experiencing a droughts. The valley is already exhausting its natural
resources and depleting its aquifer faster than it is being replenished. This project will cause more problems and ignores
our role to sustainably use the valley’s resources and not make this place unlivable for future generations. The surf park
caters to the rich while poorer communities in the valley fight for clean drinking water. We should be saving our water
and supporting all communities in the valley .
This project will also destroy petroglyphs and other important sites for the Cahuilla. We should instead opt for
thoughtful stewardship of Coral Mountain that highlights the recreational, historical, cultural and habitat value of this
area. The interests of the indigenous people of this land should not be ignored any more for short term economic gain
but rather celebrated as we build a community that celebrates this desert.
Please consider how this resource can better serve the community instead of negatively impacting it.
Thank you,
Brenda Fisher
She/Her/Hers
1
Tania Flores
From:bnovak26@comcast.net
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:55 PM
To:Consulting Planner; Planning WebMail
Cc:
Subject:Meriwether
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Hello,
The City/Planning Commission should KILL the Surfpark proposal.
If it is moved forward…for additional consideration…please DEMAND that Meriwether:
1) Dramatically lower or remove all light poles
How ridiculous that they would claim to the Planning Commission that lowering them would reduce their effectiveness!!
You can not let them claim something as serious (and laughable) as that…without demanding that they prove it through
demonstrations.
They can remove them if surfing is limited to day light hours. That will save a lot of electricity, too! And reduce a lot of
the basis for noise complaints as well!
The currently proposed lights WILL be visible over the walls and negatively impact surrounding dark skies and local
residents’ enjoyment of their own backyards!
2) Conduct noise studies at the actual site…with actual local conditions – NOT rely on Lemoore studies
3) Reduce expected trips – There are currently NO traffic lights on Madison between Avenues 58 and 60. This
project is going to be SO big that consultants are proposing two traffic lights…greatly impacting residents of
Andalusia and Trilogy!! They need to redesign things to better fit into the local low‐density, residential feel of
the area. DO NOT ALLOW REZONING of this site to tourist‐commercial!
Thank you,
Bridgett Novak
La Quinta, CA 92253
1
Tania Flores
From:bnovak26@comcast.net
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:44 PM
To:Consulting Planner; Planning WebMail
Cc:
Subject:For City Planning/City Council
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Please include these in the packets for the City Planning Commission and the City Council as they consider the proposal
for a ridiculous Surfpark. Hopefully they will read both entire articles…and realize there is only one choice: Just say No!
https://patch.com/california/palmdesert/s/i87iu/severe‐socal‐water‐restrictions‐ordered‐water‐shortage‐
declared?utm source=alert‐breakingnews&utm medium=email&utm campaign=alert
and
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2022/04/16/coachella‐valley‐cites‐arent‐taking‐drought‐seriously‐
editorial/7322423001/
Thank you,
Bridgett Novak
La Quinta, CA
1
Tania Flores
From:Erika Ramirez-Mayoral
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 5:53 PM
To:Tania Flores; Jon McMillen; Consulting Planner; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez
Subject:La Quinta Planning Commission Public Comment Letter for Denial of Coral Mountain Surf Park for
Attachments:CIRS Ask to Deny Development of Coral Mountain Surf Park.docx.pdf
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Hello Planning Commissioners,
I am submitting the California Institute for Rural Studies public comment letter for today's meeting on the Coral
Mountain Surf Park.
Thank you,
Erika Ramirez‐Mayoral
Coachella Valley Research Project Manager
Doctoral Candidate, Communication, UC San Diego
Lifelong resident of Coachella Valley (La Quinta‐ ).
Apr 26, 2022
Dear La Quinta Planning Commission:
California Institute for Rural Studies has been conducting public interest research
which inspires action for social change to benefit rural communities for over forty
years. We believe that rural Californians need to be seen, heard and understood by
their fellow Californians, the media and politicians, and that these groups and
individuals will work with rural residents to create healthier, more equitable, stronger
communities. This is not what we see happening with regard to the proposed Coral Mountain
Private Surf Resort development. The proposed surf park does not take into account the needs
of existing community members at large beyond the boundaries of the city of La Quinta and the
substantial impacts the communities in the desert will suffer if it is approved. We respectfully
ask you to deny this development.
Throughout the settler history of the desert landscape there has been a pattern to the choices
made by planning agencies that perpetuates a social and physical divide between the “haves”
and the “have-nots.” Approval of development choices such as the Thermal Beach Club and now
the potential approval of the proposed Coral Mountain Surf Park development, continue to
push for the gentrification of rural spaces throughout the desert. .
Proposed surf developments that claim to use less water than the local golf courses do not take
into consideration the water needs of the wider local communities, especially those of the
Eastern Coachella Valley. Although the community of La Quinta might consider itself “separate”
from other cities or even the Eastern Coachella Valley, or the “Gem” of the desert, (despite
sharing mapped boundaries to the unincorporated areas of the east valley) this ignores the
shared infrastructure that the entire desert valley depends on - access to potable water.
As we consider the impacts of climate change and state mandates for development,
we cannot ignore the communities in California who will be most affected by the
expected changes to our climate. The priorities of the state for building affordable and
sustainable communities that can both mitigate and adapt to climate change are not
reflected in the plans for a surf park- in many ways this proposal excludes the need for a
sustainable future for desert communities. These same plans do not address the
region’s most marginalized and vulnerable residents living nearby.
It is important to connect how these proposals impact water use, water sustainability beyond
the immediate La Quinta community as well as beyond the present (short term) moments. All
desert communities are interconnected with water use- both groundwater use (which until the
last couple of years, was used for the over 100 golf courses within the desert areas) and
Colorado River water must be preserved to curb the effects of climate change that desert
communities are already facing. Thank you.
Please feel free to contact me by phone at or via email at
for any further information.
Sincerely,
Erika Ramirez-Mayoral
CIRS Research Project Manager for the Eastern Coachella Valley
Doctoral Candidate, University of California, San Diego
Life-long Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley Resident
1
Tania Flores
From:Malou Reyes
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:12 PM
To:Tania Flores; Consulting Planner
Cc:Mitchell Tsai; Mary Linares; Brandon Young; Hind Baki; Maria Sarmiento; Rebekah Youngblood;
Malou Reyes; Steven Thong
Subject:SWRCC - [City of La Quinta, Coral Mountain Resort] - Comment Letter
Attachments:20220426_CoralMountainResort_CmmtLtr_PC_Signed_Complete.pdf
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Good afternoon,
Attached, please find our comment letter for the Planning Commission meeting regarding the
Coral Mountain Resort in the City of La Quinta.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you,
Malou
‐‐
Malou Reyes
Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: Malou@mitchtsailaw.com
Website: http://www.mitchtsailaw.com
*** Our Office Has Recently Moved. Please Note New Mailing Address ****
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-
mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and
may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail
at Malou@mitchtsailaw.com or by telephone at (626) 381-9248 and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
April 26, 2022
Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary,
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: tflores@laquintaca.gov
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: April 16, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Public Hearing
No. 1; Regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH #2021020310)
Dear Tania Flores and Nicole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest
Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s
(“City” or “Lead Agency”) April 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda
Public Hearing No. 1 regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
(SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”).
This letter reiterates and supplements comments submitted by Southwest Carpenters
on August 5, 2021, March 22 and April 12, 2022 re. Environmental Impact Report
Comments; hereby attached and incorporated by reference as (Exhibit D), (Exhibit
E); and (Exhibit G), respectively.
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 2 of 16
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Southwest Carpenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or
prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to
this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Southwest Carpenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding
the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean
Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who
has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue
timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any
and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000
et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”),
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2,
and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such
notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the
agency’s governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 3 of 16
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and
Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 4 of 16
On May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the
“[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental
Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse
Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule
2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions,
available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-
May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.
hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 5 of 16
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing
Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490,
482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 6 of 16
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000
et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the
implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great
weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for
Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 7 of 16
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
II. EXPERTS
This comment letter includes comments from air quality and greenhouse gas experts
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the FEIR. Their
comments, attachments, and Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) are hereby attached and
incorporated by reference as (Exhibit F).
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. (“Mr. Hagemann”) has over 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, Mr. Hagemann also served as Senior
Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities
undergoing base closer. 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.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 8 of 16
For the past 15 years, Mr. Hagemann has worked as a founding partner with SWAPE
(Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise). At SWAPE, Mr. Hagemann 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.
Mr. Hagemann has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from Humboldt State
University in California and a Masters in Science degree from California State
University Los Angeles in California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (“Dr. Rosenfeld”) is a principal environmental chemist at
SWAPE. Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental
investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts on human health, property,
and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of
environmental contaminants, human health risks, exposure assessment, and ecological
restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from
unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators,
process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other
industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring
and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at
industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk
assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria,
particular matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides,
radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs,
PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS),
unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants, Dr. Rosenfeld
also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as
the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous
emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion
modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified
about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and
has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air
contaminants from industrial sources.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 9 of 16
Dr. Rosenfeld has a Ph.D. in soil chemistry from the University of Washington, M.S.
in environmental science from U.C. Berkeley, and B.A. in environmental studies from
U.C. Santa Barbara.
III. THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS
INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO PROPERLY ANALYZE
AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S POTENTIAL IMPACTS
RELATING TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, HAZARDS AND
HEALTH RISKS
A. Background on Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments
The preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) is often
undertaken in the preparation of CEQA documents to identify hazardous waste issues
that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may
require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup.
Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and
the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM)9 Phase I ESAs are
conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substances
and include:
• A review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that
are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup
activities;
• An inspection;
• Interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and
• Recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.
Phase I ESAs may conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental
conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions.
A REC is defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527
as “the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at the
subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment”10
9 Available at, http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm
10 Ibid.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 10 of 16
If past land uses include RECs, a Phase II ESA must be prepared in order to properly
evaluate the extent of the contamination identified on the Phase I ESA; and mitigate
such impacts; as well as the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the
public.
According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1903 in its
standard practice guidelines for preparing Phase II Environmental Assessments,11 data
gaps in Phase I ESAs indicate a need to prepare a Phase II ESA, even in the absence
of any identified RECs.
Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including
California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels, should be
further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
B. The FEIR Fails to Establish the Existing Conditions for the Project’s
Hazardous Materials, Hazards and Health Risks Impacts
According to CEQA Guidelines, “[a]n EIR must include a description of the physical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. This environmental setting will
normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental
setting shall be no longer than necessary to provide an understanding of the
significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. The purposes of this
requirement is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and
understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-
term impacts” PRC Section 15125(a)
A proper baseline regarding the Project’s hazardous materials, hazards and health risks
should be based on the Project site’s environmental site assessment (“ESA”)
The Project site’s hazards and hazardous materials is explained on the DEIR, the
section indicates that the due-diligence was limited to “record searches on the project
property were performed within multiple database platforms. The resources consulted
included GeoTracker, EnviroStor and the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO).” (DEIR p. 4.8-20)
11 Available at, https://www.astm.org/e1903-19.html
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 11 of 16
However, checking a database is not enough, specially since the site’s former use
include agricultural use, showing a likelihood of potentially hazardous waste. The
DEIR states that:
Portions of the project site previously operated as agricultural land.
Agricultural activities typically include the storage and periodic application
of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Pesticides and herbicides vary
widely in toxicity and persistence in the soil. Pesticides that degrade slowly
over time can leave residues in crops or soil. Residue from agricultural
activities dissipate or decay, allowing the residue to disappear from the
plant or soil. Dissipation rates can range from hours to years, which varies
by the chemical applied and plants affected.
DEIR p. 4.8-20.
CEQA requires a proper environmental baseline. This lack of information regarding
the Project site is a failure to establish the existing setting for the Project. An
inspection is an integral part of standards for performing a Phase I ESA established
by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards.
A Proper Phase I ESA that covers the whole of the Project’s site is required to
properly set the existing conditions for the project, as required under CEQA.
The City must revise the FEIR to properly reflect the findings and conclusions
reflected on a Phase I ESA and to determine whether the former agricultural use
affects the site’s hazardous waste impacts.
C. The DEIR Adopts an Improper Environmental Baseline by Failing to
Evaluate Existing Conditions and the Secondary Impacts Relating to the
Project’s Contaminants of Emerging Concerns
According to CEQA Guidelines, the “EIR shall identify and focus on the significant
environmental effects of the proposed project.” including “any significant
environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people
into the area affected.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a) (emphasis added).) To
illustrate, the statute provides the following example:
“For example the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant direct,
indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating development
in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 12 of 16
wildfire risk areas), including both short-term and long-term conditions,
as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments or in land use
plans, addressing such hazards areas.”
The California Supreme Court addressed these provisions in California Building Industry
Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. In that
case, an industry association challenged an air district’s suggested thresholds for the
analysis of impacts of toxic air contaminants on future project residents. The Court
accepted review to address: “[u]nder what circumstances, if any, does [CEQA] require
an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or
users of a proposed project?” (Id. at 377.)
The Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze
the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project‘s future users or
residents.” (Ibid (emphasis added).) The Court further explained, however, that the
general rule does not apply to effects the project might risk exacerbating. Specifically,
it held:
[W]hen a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental
hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the
potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those
specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment — and not
the environment’s impact on the project —that compels an evaluation of
how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.
(Id. at 377-378 (emphasis in original).)
In reaching its conclusion, the Court looked to both the plain words of the statute as
well as express legislative policy underlying CEQA. For example, the Court began its
analysis by restating the well- known principle guiding interpretation of CEQA:
“afford the most thorough possible protection to the environment that fits reasonably
within the scope of its text.” (Id. at 381.)
The Court also repeatedly noted CEQA’s concern for public health and safety. (See,
e.g., id at 386 (“the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying
CEQA's enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the
statutory scheme. (E.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d)
[emphasizing the need to provide for the public's welfare, health, safety, enjoyment,
and living environment]”).)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 13 of 16
CEQA Guidelines expressly state that “[a]n EIR is an informational document which
will inform the public agency decision makers and the public generally of the
significant effects, and describe reasonable alternative to the project.” PRC §15121(a)
A proper EIR baseline for a should determine whether the Project Site is polluted
with contaminants of emerging concerns (“CEC”). It should further identify as a
significant effect any known potential hazards these contaminants and properly
mitigate them.
By leaving this critical information out, together with the lack of an environmental site
assessment, the FEIR fails to inform the public and decision makers of the Project’s
potential impact’s relating to CEC.
Further, the EIR should fully evaluate and properly mitigate the potential effects of
their exposure to contaminants of emerging concerns arising from the Project.
The Project’s contaminants of emerging concerns impacts’ evaluation are not limited
to the Project site. Since the Project would have the effect of attracting visitors and a
workforce to the Coral Mountain resort and the Wave, the EIR should evaluate the
Project’s potential impacts relating to Coral Mountain Resort customers and
employees’ exposure to contaminants of emerging concerns.
Further, the EIR should evaluate and mitigate potential exposure to the Project’s
construction workers’ occupational exposure to CEC that may occur while building
the Project, including exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”).
Omitting the Project’s construction materials’ exposure to PFAS effectively prevent
the public and decision makers to get an accurate picture of the project’s Health Risks
Impacts.
1. Background On Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (“PFAS”)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are a group of manufactured chemicals
that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of
their useful properties. There are thousands of different PFAS, some of which have
been more widely used and studied than others. Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), for example, are two of the most widely used and
studied chemicals in the PFAS group. PFOA and PFOS have been replaced in the
United States with other PFAS in recent years.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 14 of 16
“Harmful per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are an urgent
public health and environmental issue facing communities across the
United States. PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of
industries in the United States and around the globe since the 1940s, and
they are still being used today.
Because of the duration and breadth of use, PFAS can be found in surface
water, groundwater, soil, and air—from remote rural areas to densely-
populated urban centers. A growing body of scientific evidence shows that
exposure at certain levels to specific PFAS can adversely impact human
health and other living things. Despite these concerns, PFAS are still used
in a wide range of consumer products and industrial applications.” 12
Understanding where PFAS are used and finding safer alternatives is critical. One
common characteristic of concern of PFAS is that many break down very slowly and
can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.
The Green Science Policy Institute’s explains ways to reduce PFAS occupational
exposure by eliminating unnecessary PFAS in building materials.13 The research found
that PFAS are added to roofing materials, paints and coatings, sealants, caulks,
adhesives, fabrics, glass and more. This is because PFAS provides functions such as
weatherproofing; corrosion prevention; and resistance to stains, grease, and water.
While the State of California prohibits the sale and distribution of some food
packaging containing PFAS,14 the regulation is still limited; “Identification of PFAS in
products is a challenge for architects and engineers, one that often requires a certain
amount of proactive action, such as requesting manufacturers to disclose product
ingredients and using that information to choose products for projects.”15
Similar proactive actions are addressed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
12 PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024, p. 1, available at,
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap final-508.pdf
13 Building a Better World Eliminating Unnecessary PFAS in Building Materials. The Green
Science Policy Institute Available at, https://greensciencepolicy.org/docs/pfas-building-
materials-2021.pdf
14 California Assembly Bill No. 1200, amending the State Health and Safety Code, relating to
product safety.
15 “Construction Industry Considers Its Role in Avoiding PFAS” available at,
https://www.enr.com/articles/52233-construction-industry-considers-its-role-in-avoiding-
pfas
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 15 of 16
Every level of government—federal, Tribal, state, and local—needs to
exercise increased and sustained leadership to accelerate progress to clean
up PFAS contamination, prevent new contamination, and make game-
changing breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of PFAS. . . The
risks posed by PFAS demand that the Agency take a whole-of-agency
approach to attack the problem from multiple directions. Focusing only
on remediating legacy contamination, for example, does nothing to
prevent new contamination from occurring. Focusing only on preventing
future contamination fails to minimize risks to human health that exist
today 16
Therefore, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated to properly evaluate the
Project’s impacts relating to contaminants of concern.
IV. CONCLUSION
Southwest Carpenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s FEIR
to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns,
feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
Mary Linares, Esq.
Attorney for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
16 PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024, p. 22, available at,
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap final-508.pdf
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 26, 2022
Page 16 of 16
August 5, 2021 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit D);
March 12, 2022 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Final Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit E);
April 6, 2022 Letter from Hagemann and Rosenfeld to Mitchel M. Tsai re Comments
on the Environmental Impact Reports for the Coral Mountain Resort Project, with
Exhibits (Exhibit F).
April 12, 2022 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Final Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit G).
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
2023 0.6148 3 3649 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
5
1,627.529
5
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
2023 0.6148 3 3648 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
1
1,627.529
1
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.441
2
1,342.441
2
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.440
9
1,342.440
9
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT D
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
August 5, 2021
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310) – Comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Nucole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report
(“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project
(“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 2 of 33
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR
submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v
City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has
objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely
raised by other parties).
Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices
to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 3 of 33
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 4 of 33
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 5 of 33
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 6 of 33
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 7 of 33
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 8 of 33
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry
points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT
NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 9 of 33
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 10 of 33
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require
that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before
being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe
Appropriate Project Alternatives
A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and it
should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives
to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of
the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of
specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020)
NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/
default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020)
Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-
safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 11 of 33
the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San
Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.)
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be
so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could
still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v.
Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives
that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re
Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th
1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying
purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed
Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.)
Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the
nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives
include the “[development of] a high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) that
provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that
attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s
reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3-8.) If this remains a project
objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “high-
quality private wave basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the
tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation
facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project
alternatives can be considered.
E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence
When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously
discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the
DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by
substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.
See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099,
1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining
significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or
thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 12 of 33
(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an
impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing
an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for
a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that
Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain
herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific
timber harvesting project).
1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air
Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a
project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project
complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans),
and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project
emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow
lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so
long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency
“should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for
use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to
consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG
reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and
projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g.,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 13 of 33
projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency
jurisdiction);
(2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based
on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify
measures or a group of measures, including performance standards,
that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-
by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP
progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if
the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above-listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative
results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the
jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and
the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is
not cumulatively considerable.
Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as
it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts
throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See,
e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version
2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no
discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The
use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s
GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 14 of 33
The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality
impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air
pollutant emissions.
Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its
GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service
population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation
between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on
the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7-10). However, the DEIR fails
to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I
Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88
MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions
targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32
and SB 32.
2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality
and GHG Mitigation Measures
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's
significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§
21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any
feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental
effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the
project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental
degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the
impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of
Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall
11 Representing an emissions deduction of 40% from 1990 levels.
12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A).
13 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B).
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 15 of 33
short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation
Measure AQ-2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction
equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4
Final-compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 demands
the use of low-VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does
not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super-Complaint” architectural
be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts.
Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building
shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1-14),
but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency
standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should
apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The
Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1
and Tier 2) for both residential and non-residential buildings. (Cal. Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601).
The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan
area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and
non-residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the
mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures as required by CEQA.
3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design
Features”
The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or
“PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR,
4.1-13 through 4.1-15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5-18 through 4.5-19 (Energy);
DEIR, 4.7-11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s
conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance
rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is
required.
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 16 of 33
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are
presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s
Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and
subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and
Recreation with Substantial Evidence
The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less
than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from
undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on
population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of
Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected
population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population
forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39-40.) La Quinta’s General Plan
Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.),
whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6-6),
raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the
population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 17 of 33
lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern
California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.)
The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have
cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially
the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required
by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative
impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's
incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211
Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).)
The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that
the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact vecause
the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and
because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s
General Plan.” (DEIR, 6-7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new
residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider the
cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending
projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze.
In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of
Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41-42; DEIR, 6-7 through 6-8). The CEQA
Guidelines identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will
include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project
dedicates 23.6 acres of previously-open space to the development of recreational
facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses.
This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the
DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from
analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational
spaces.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 18 of 33
F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS
Plans
Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable
communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080,
sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans
include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any
inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan.
In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which
proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments
to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent
per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035.
In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which
incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS 15, that
will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s
per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16
SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017
Scoping Plan and SB 375.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect
SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed
at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per
capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by
2035. 18
For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental
Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
(“MMRP”) that list project-level environmental mitigation measures that directly
and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s
15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115 (attached as Exhibit D).
16 Id., p. 8, 15, 153, 166.
17 SCAG (Sept 2020) Connect Socal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176
18 Id. At xiii.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 19 of 33
GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local
municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis
that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project-specific
environmental impacts.20
Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency with any of SCAG’s
aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is
consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project-level goals, including:
Land Use and Transportation
• Providing transit fare discounts 21;
• Implementing transit integration strategies 22; and
• Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and
automated vehicle technologies.23
GHG Emissions Goals 24
• Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of
project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as:
o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures
were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
19 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG (April 2012) Regional Transportation Plan 2012 – 20135, fn. 38, p. 77-86
(attached as Exhibit E).
20 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (attached as Exhibit E), p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, fn. 41, p. 115.
21 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”)
AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal
agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental]
as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation
to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]),; see
also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1-8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),; SCAG 2016
RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG-
3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA-1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)).
25 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/
guidelines/Appendix_F.html.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 20 of 33
o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy
consumption, including transportation energy.
o The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
• Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions.
• Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize
GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment;
o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other
materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase
use of renewable energy;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption;
o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
• Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as
vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and
telecommuting programs.
• Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-
occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for
those vehicles;
• Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low
emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 21 of 33
constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging
stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management
through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
Hydrology & Water Quality Goals
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply
requirements, such as:
o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should
promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to
drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather-
based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use,
and installing related water pricing incentives.
o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and
provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed
water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and
should be implemented where feasible.
o Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets,
water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection
and repair.
o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building
codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new
impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of
in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 22 of 33
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater
recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious
surface.
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and
waste discharge requirements, such as:
o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction.
o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater
runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable.
o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and
identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site
erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.
o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial
structures.
o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to
support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or
buildings.
o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for
construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404
permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit).
o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net
loss of impervious surface as a result of the project.
o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels,
detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers
to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where
required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on
new facilities.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 23 of 33
o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the
applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the
operator, the statewide permit applies.
o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter
control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water
quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff
discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as
possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-of-way, not just
later during the facilities design and construction phase.
o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge
permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long-
term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff.
o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as
detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to
control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design
of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of-
way acquisition process.
o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream
receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to
accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without
impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates,
volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in
stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes
induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or
contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological
function of any downstream receiving waters.
o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate,
or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that
accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel.
o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased
runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of
detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 24 of 33
velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian
buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in
peak flow rates from current levels.
o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of
natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff
flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible.
• Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater
Management Act and implementing regulations, such as:
o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply
with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the
Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the
greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of in-
lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent
conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge
as appropriate.
• Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and
local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program, such as:
o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which
requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration
and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 25 of 33
maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at
least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan
flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial
fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid
alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan
boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes
caused by global climate change.
Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
• Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to
reduce unnecessary employee transportation.
• Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board
for coordinating rides.
• Provide a vanpool for employees.
• Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing
strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel.
The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and
carpools/vanpool use, including:
o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that
exceed the requirement.
o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks).
o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.).
o On-site carpooling program.
o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation
options.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 26 of 33
o Parking spaces sold/leased separately.
o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and
shared parking spaces.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of
parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to
accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting areas.
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness
on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public
transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and
publicity about public transportation services.
• Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon
consultation with applicable CTCs.
• Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools
and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles.
• Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or
zero-emission vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the
Lead Agency, including:
o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles.
o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles.
o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing, including parking
spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public
transit.
o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement
ridesharing programs.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 27 of 33
• Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined
feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations.
o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer
ridesharing programs.
o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations
for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes.
o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten
lists, and other mechanisms.
• Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by
public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage
employers to subscribe to or support the program.
• Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and
major destinations.
• Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to
popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers.
• Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services.
• Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle
trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing
employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
• Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities.
• Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use,
including:
o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a
reduced parking fee.
o Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all
single-occupant vehicles.
Utilities & Service Systems
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 28 of 33
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11),
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green
Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following:
o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris
and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.
o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D
diversion.
o Development of indoor recycling program and space.
o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG
region during the construction and implementation of a project.
Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much
as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of
waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-
by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016
RTP/SCS policies can and should be required.
o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling
activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all
large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement
programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from
landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting,
recycling, and conversion technologies.
o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology
facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal,
and cardboard).
o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and
commercial projects.
o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant
businesses.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 29 of 33
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available
recycling services.
o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting
programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the
types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste
recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling
services.
The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures
and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate
what specific project-level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate
consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans.
G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section
CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 –
15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies,
other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and
the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other
authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to
demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain
comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on
a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a).
Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation
efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo
whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required
by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA
is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515.
Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies,
or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR.
The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in
the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public
Resources Code.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 30 of 33
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND
ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or
“charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763,
773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796
fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal.3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 31 of 33
Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s
policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52
Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As
such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law.
B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s
Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals,
policies, and programs including the following:
• Policy LU-2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained;
• Goal LU-3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable
neighborhoods that provide a sense of place;
• Policy LU-5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing,
including affordable housing;
• Policy CIR-1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with
development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public
Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines;
• Policy SC-1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element);
• Policy SC-1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum
consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality
Element);
• Goal H-2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and
provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income
households;
• Goal H-3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system
that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents;
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 32 of 33
• Goal H-5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing
opportunities for all persons;
• Goal AQ-1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air
emissions generated within the City;
• Goal BIO-1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and
preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources
and their habitats;
• Policy WR-1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential
and commercial development projects;
• Goal OS-2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of
natural open space and preservation of open space areas;
• Goal OS-3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic
resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall
quality of life;
• Policy UTL-1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water
consumption rates over “business-as-usual” consumption rates.
The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals,
Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will
have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population,
biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This
discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also
with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts.
The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with
the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above.
Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the
City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
III. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or
prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned
concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 33 of 33
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT E
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 22, 2022
Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary,
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: tflores@laquintaca.gov
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Public Hearing
No. 1; Regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH #2021020310)
Dear Tania Flores and Nicole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest
Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s
(“City” or “Lead Agency”) March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda
Public Hearing No. 1 regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
(SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 2 of 25
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Southwest Carpenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or
prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to
this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Southwest Carpenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding
the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean
Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who
has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue
timely raised by other parties); Including Letter from Mitchell Tsai dated August 5
2021 re. Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments; hereby attached and
incorporated by reference as (Exhibit D).
Moreover, Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any
and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000
et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”),
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2,
and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such
notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the
agency’s governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 25
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 4 of 25
On May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the
“[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3 -99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf .
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 5 of 25
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 6 of 25
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 7 of 25
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
II. NEW INFORMATION THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE
SEVERITY OF THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON PROTECTED
WILDLIFE REQUIRE RECIRCULATION OF THE FEIR
A. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
CEQA requires that a Project’s environmental documents be revised and recirculated
to the public when significant new information is added to an environmental impact
report prior to certification.
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. (See also 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 15088.5.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 8 of 25
Revisions to environmental analysis in an environmental impact report requires
recirculation of the environmental impact report to give the public a meaningful
opportunity to comment. (Gray v. Cty. of Madera (2008)167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1121 –
22.)
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).
Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new
significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation
measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible
project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and
comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
Where an agency " omits an adequate discussion of a project's potential impacts in its
EIR, it cannot afterward 'make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR' through post-
EIR analysis." Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 103 (citing
Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 99, 130 (project information revealed in an errata shortly before project
approval "does not make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR").) To allow otherwise
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 9 of 25
would "deny the public 'an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the [newly
revealed information] and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the
conclusions to be drawn"' from it. Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal. App.5th at 103,
internal citation omitted.
B. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Mitigation
Measures to Reduce the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on
Biological Resources Relating to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
Since circulation of the DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(“CDFW”) comments show for the first time that the Project results in a new and
significantly more severe environmental impact:
“The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular
bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the
potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep a federally
endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a
State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep.
Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP.
The DEIR incorrectly identifies that “this species [PBS] is not
present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (page
231)” (FEIR, p. 2-78)
Specifically, the CDFW explained that the Project’s artificial water sources such as The
Wave, may result in an attractive nuisance, luring the Sheep into the Project Site:
“In the City of La Quinta, existing developments (including
SilverRock, PGA West, and The Quarry at La Quinta) along the
wildland‐urban interface have become attractive nuisances for
sheep because of artificial features that attract sheep, for example
grass and artificial water sources. This results in sheep habituated
to urban environments, and can lead to increased mortality risk
through transmission of disease, ingestion of toxic materials,
vehicle strikes, and drowning in artificial water sources. These
developments are adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in
the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of
the CVMSHCP. As a result of these issues, the MSHCP
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 10 of 25
requirement for building a fence at this interface was triggered and
the City of La Quinta is currently working with the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission to build a sheep fence. CDFW is
concerned that this Project will create similar conditions and
become an attractive nuisance to sheep that currently use Coral
Mountain. Further, once the fence is built to exclude sheep in other
areas of La Quinta the sheep may migrate to this Project site if it
has attractive features. The revised DEIR should identify and
implement specific measures, such as fencing, to keep sheep out of
urban areas and prevent trespass of humans and domestic animals
into adjacent sheep habitat. (emphasis added)” (FEIR, p. 2-79)
In light of this new information, and “[t]o ensure that PBS do not enter the project
site, an 8‐foot high sheep barrier is proposed.” (FEIR, p. 3-6)
The City addressed CDFW’s new information stating that “[t]he project will avoid this
potential impact because the Specific Plan has been modified to include a requirement
to construct an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier/perimeter fence that will be designed to
exclude PBS from the project site” (FEIR, p. 2-73)
Since the Project’s artificial water sources’ significant impact on the Peninsular
bighorn sheep as well as its mitigation measures, including the fence barrier, were not
mentioned on the DEIR and therefore not available to the Public and decisionmakers,
the FEIR should be recirculated.
C. The FEIR Improperly Labels the Peninsular Sheep Barrier Fence
Mitigation Measures as Project Design Feature and General Project
Conditions
The FEIR improperly labels the mitigation measures as Project Design Features, and
General Project Condition, which the FEIR purports will reduce environmental
impacts by preventing the Peninsular bighorn sheep from being attracted to the
Project Site’s artificial water sources. (FEIR, pp. 2-76; 3-6)
The FEIR’s biological resources conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental
impacts below levels of significance rely on the implementation of these project
conditions, and that as such no additional mitigation is required because “[t]his
requirement will be incorporated into the Specific Plan and made enforceable through
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 11 of 25
the project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval.” (FEIR, p. 2-87)
and that they are “made enforceable through the project Development Agreement”
(FEIR 2-80) or “along with the addition of project design features (the sheep
barrier/fence and compliance with adjacency guidelines)” (FEIR 2-83)
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).)
Though they are presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the
Project’s Development Agreement, the fence barrier condition to reduce impacts on
protected wildlife should be properly adopted as mitigation and subject to a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
Therefore, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated once the mitigation measures
are adopted and subject to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 12 of 25
D. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Extensive
Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Biological Resources Impacts, Which
It Improperly Labels as Avoidance and Minimization Measures
In response to CDFW comments, in addition to the barrier fence, the FEIR proposes
a series of mitigation measures mislabeled as “Avoidance and Minimization Measures
and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the project conditions of approval” (FEIR, p.
2-87).
The measures addressing CDFW request include:
“1. A biological survey and assessment of year‐round habitat use by
Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre‐approved
by CDFW, prior to Project approval.
2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses,
and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails
and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of
adjacent natural areas.
3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium
oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be
used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do
not plant non‐native vegetation, including grass, in the development
where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade
bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native
vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the
urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or
through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep.
The Project will use Table 4‐112: Coachella Valley Native Plants
Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a
landscaping planting palette.
4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into
sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II
and PA III including III‐G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1‐8), and PA IV; and
the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure
2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 13 of 25
be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should
be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery
Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not
contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11
centimeters (4.3 inches) or less.
5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be
prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation,
mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon
which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water.
6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges
(Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to
eliminate blue‐tongue and other vector‐borne diseases by providing
deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30
degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current
best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector
control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may
harbor vector species.
7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their
associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the
resort, open space, and low‐density community programs through the use
of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program
should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to
support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program
should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this
species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these
threats. This includes information that explains : (1) why restrictions on
toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of
coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational
activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged.
8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness
assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help
ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site
into adjacent sheep habitat.” (FEIR, p. 2-84)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 14 of 25
Further, “CDFW recommends that inclusion of biological mitigation measures for
sheep that identify funding and resources for enforcing trail use rules which could
include signage, enforcement, public education, and removal of unauthorized trails.
Most of these measures will require enforcement to ensure they are enacted and
properly followed throughout the life of the Project. The trails, rope courses, and
zipline may create an easy and tempting access point for the residents into the open
space areas. Without enforcement of trail use rules within the Project’s open space the
adjacent habitat, Coral Mountain could become saturated with unauthorized trails.
Measures such as leash laws, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for invasive
plants and pets, trail regulations, and fencing requirements require constant
enforcement.” (FEIR, p. 2-82)
Therefore, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated to include these mitigation
measures adopted.
E. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Mitigation
Measures to Reduce the Project’s Significant Impacts on Roosting Bats,
Burrowing Owls, Nesting Birds and other Protected Wildlife.
To further reduce the Project’s impact on the newly provided impacts on wildlife, the
FEIR provided new analyses and mitigation measures to reduce the light and noise
impact on these animals, “[w]ith the implementation of this revised mitigation
measure, potential impacts to bats and other wildlife species are reduced to less than
significant levels.” (FEIR, p. 2-15)
Therefore, “all project lighting will be required to be shielded and directed to avoid
light spillage onto Coral Mountain (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). In addition, the
lighting system analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that there will be no
light spillage outside the Wave Basin planning area, including toward Coral Mountain
or other BLM open space. This is described in more detail in the Light and Glare
Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Final EIR” (FEIR, p. 2-76)
Also, “in order to assure that no impact to wildlife utilizing Coral Mountain occurs
during the construction period, Mitigation Measure BIO‐7 is included. BIO‐7 requires
noise monitoring to occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within
150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. The highest projected operational noise levels
is 64.5 dBA at location P‐10 in the tourist commercial portion of the site next to the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 15 of 25
hotel and Wave Basin (see Table 4.11‐25, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
and Exhibit 4.11‐2, Noise Source and Receiver Locations). Accordingly, the project
will not exceed the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for noise levels at
Coral Mountain.” (FEIR, p. 3-8)
Absent these light and noise mitigation measures, the Project would have a significant
impact on the roosting Bats, burrowing owls and other wildlife. Therefore, in light of
the new mitigation measures adopted to reduce the Project’s Light and Noise impacts
on bats, the FEIR should be recirculated.
III. THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE
IT FAILS TO PROPERLY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE
PROJECT-SPECIFIC WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS PURSUANT TO
STATE AND LOCAL STATUTORY STANDARDS
A. Background on Water Supply Assessments Statutory Requirements
A Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) is an analysis of the availability of water to serve
the project in addition to existing and planned future uses.
In 2001, California legislature passed SB 221 and SB 610, known collectively as the
“show me the water bills” which increased the information requirements for water
supply assessments and ensured that “the water requirements [were] met before
subdivision construction actually [began].” (Wat.Code, § 10910)
SB 221 added additional requirements for water suppliers who use groundwater,
requiring local agencies to demonstrate that a proposed project has sufficient water
supply. (Wat.Code, § 66473.7) and directing cities and counties disapprove projects
when the water supply assessment failed to comply with the statutory requirements
Pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.9; CEQA requires compliance with Water
Code sections 10910 to 10912, originally enacted in 1995 but substantially amended by
SB 610 in 2001.
The above provisions apply broadly to certain CEQA Projects (Wat.Code, §§ 10910,
subd. (a), 10912, subds. (a), (b).) Pursuant to SB 610, these Projects must provide:
1. A detailed description of the available water supply for planned future
uses during certain water year types (Wat.Code, § 10631(g));
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 16 of 25
2. Inclusion of any water supply entitlements for the proposed project
that indicate the amount of water received in previous years.
(Wat.Code, § 10910(d)(1))
3. Requirement for planning officials to identify groundwater as an
existing or planned water source for a proposed project. (Wat.Code, §
10631(b))
Also, the Water Code requires the city or county considering a project to obtain, at the
outset of the CEQA process, a water supply “assessment” from the applicable public
water system. (Wat.Code, § 10910, subd. (b).) The “water supply asse ssment” is then to
be included in any CEQA document the city or county prepares for the project.
(Wat.Code, § 10911, subd. (b).)
In accordance with Water Code Section 10912, as adopted by SB 610, projects subject
to the requirement for a WSA include:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing
more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of
floor space.
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or
industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying
more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet
of floor area.
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified
in Water Code Section 10912.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or
greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit
project.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 17 of 25
B. The Project Violates the California Water Code, CEQA Guidelines and
the ‘Show Me The Water Bills’ Because It Fails to Provide the Required
Water Verification Letter
The DEIR states that “[t]his document provides verification that adequate water supply
for this Project is available, as required by California Government Code Section 66473.7.
[emphasis added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 61) However, adequate does not mean sufficient.
According to the ‘show me the water bills,’ the Project is required to prepare a Water
Supply Verification (“WSV”) letter showing that adequate water supplies will be
available for that project as well as other existing and planned future uses for a projected
20–year period. (Water Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3 and 66473.7)
The California Water Code 10910 requires that a WSA be completed to ensure that
adequate supplies are available to meet the demands of proposed projects. In addition,
the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66473.7) also requires the preparation of
a Water Supply Verification (WSV) for proposed subdivisions.
A verification letter must be prepared pursuant to the statutes, a one-liner at the bottom
of another document would not suffice.
Therefore, the EIR’s omission of the required water verification letter violates the Water
Code and CEQA Guidelines
C. The Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate Because It Violates the
Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape and Irrigation System
Design Criteria Ordinance
The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project is deficient because it fails to
Properly analyze Project-specific water demands as well as mitigate the Project’s
potential impacts to the local and regional water supply
The FEIR fails to properly evaluate the Project’s water demands Pursuant to the
Coachella Valley Water District’s (“CVWD”) Landscape and Irrigation System Design
Criteria Ordinance;9 which provides specific guidelines and requirements that must be
met when estimating a Project’s water demand.
The Project’s Water Supply Assessment specifically states that it failed to determine
whether “the Project is meeting the MAWA established in CVWD’s Landscape
9 Available at, https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/463
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 18 of 25
Ordinance or other applicable regulations; such an analysis is beyond the scope of
this WSA/WSV. [Emphasis Added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 23)
In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, the court
stated that “the FEIR's use of inconsistent supply and demand figures, and its failure
to explain how those figures match up, results in a lack of substantial evidence that
new surface water diversions are likely to supply the project's long-term needs.”
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40
Cal.4th 412; as modified (Apr. 18, 2007)
Concluding that “CEQA entitles the decision makers and the public to a legally
proper procedure and to a clearer, more coherent and consistent explanation of how,
given the competing demands expected to arise for new water supplies, water is to be
provided to the project.”(Ibid at p. 447)
Therefore, the FEIR should be recirculated to properly analyze whether the Project’s
Water Demands Exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance set forth on the
Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria
Ordinance.
1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance is Underestimated Because It Was
Calculated Using an Inaccurate Reference Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor for
Recreational Water Features Within Special Landscape Areas
According to the Coachella Valley Water District’s the Estimated Total Water Use shall
not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (“MAWA”). MAWA is based upon
the area's reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the
landscaped area. Special Landscape Areas, including recreation areas are subject to the
MAWA with an ET AF not to exceed 1. (Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape
and Irrigation System Design Criteria, p. 7)10See also, (California Code of Regulations,
Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 7, Section 491, Subsection mm)
The DEIR states that “Outdoor water feature demand for the Project is based on the
ETWU equation of the CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. The equation uses
the estimated area in square feet, a reference ETo rate of 64.22 inches per year (CVWD
10 Ibid.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 19 of 25
Zone 3), and a Plant Factor of 1.10 for a stationary body of water, and 1.20 for a moving
body of water.” (DEIR, App. M, p. 22)
Since the Wave is a special recreation landscape area, the Reference Evapotranspiration
Adjustment Factor should be limited to 1.
2. The Project’s Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate Because It Fails to
Establish Sufficient Water Supply to Meet the Demand Associated with the
Project
The DEIR states that “[t]his document provides verification that adequate water supply
for this Project is available, as required by California Government Code Section 66473.7.
[emphasis added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 61) However, adequate does not mean sufficient.
According to California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(2), “sufficient water
supply” means the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-
dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with
the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses. In determining
“sufficient water supply,” all of the following factors shall be considered:
“(A) The availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least
20 years.
(B) The applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis
prepared pursuant to Section 10632 of the Water Code that includes
actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water
supply shortages.
(C) The reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector
pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted, or a contract entered into,
by the public water system, as long as that resolution, ordinance, or
contract does not conflict with Section 354 of the Water Code.”
See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
concluding that “without any “facts from which to evaluate the pros and cons of
supplying the [needed] amount of water” to the mine, the EIR was inadequate.” Vineyard
Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429,
as modified (Apr. 18, 2007)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 20 of 25
Under CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of water supply in an environmental document
shall include:
“(1) Sufficient information regarding the project’s proposed water
demand and proposed water supplies to permit the lead agency to evaluate
the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will
need.
(2) An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of
supplying water throughout all phases of the project.
(3) An analysis of circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s
availability, as well as the degree of uncertainty involved. Relevant factors
may include but are not limited to, drought, salt- water intrusion,
regulatory or contractual curtailments, and other reasonably foreseeable
demands on the water supply.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15155,
Subsection f)
In addition to relying on an improper Reference Evapotranspiration Adjustment
Factor; the EIR fails to evaluate and properly account for foreseeable
evapotranspiration on the Project’s water demand.
Specifically, the water demand was calculated without taking into account for annual
loss due to backwash, spilling, or potential refilling of the wave pool uses historical
weather data to account for monthly temperatures, humility, wind, cloud cover, and
solar radiation that affect evapotranspiration.
Therefore, the Project’s Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate
D. The Project’s Water Quality Management Plan is Deficient Because It
Fails to Properly Evaluate Impacts Relating to Percolation; and Instead
Defers Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures for the
Project Site’s Infiltration and Percolation Tests
CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact
report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an
environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing
“[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future
time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an
exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 21 of 25
situations where “measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate
the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one
specified way.” (Id.) Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general
rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each
mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old City Ass’n v.
City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.)
Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to
be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms
but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild
Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred
mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its
management]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or
standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also
Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 442
[generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards];
California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195
[agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for
determining whether mitigation required]; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013)
218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish
specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did
not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would
be achieved]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting
mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring
landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific
performance standard]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131
Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible
delay].)
CEQA's demand for meaningful information “is not satisfied by simply stating
information will be provided in the future.” Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the
Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 723, 131
Before approving a specific plan for an entire development, the decision makers must
be informed of the intended source or sources of water for the project, “what the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 22 of 25
impact will be if supplied from a particular source or possible sources and if that
impact is adverse how it will be addressed.” Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of
Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 206.
According to the EIR, “[n]o percolation tests have been performed at the current time,
therefore, for the purposes of this report a design percolation rate of 1 in/hr was used
in the basin sizing calculations. Prior to the final design submittal, percolation tests will
be performed, and should the 1 inch/hour rate not be achieved, Maxwell drywells will
be proposed to de-water the basins within the required time period as specified by
Riverside County BMP requirements.” (DEIR, App. J.2, p. 2)
The FEIR states that to drain the basin, "the water will be drained into the large
retention basin on-site, which is unlined to allow percolation of the water into the
ground..” (FEIR, App, M.2,p. 3)
Deferring the percolation testing until sometime prior to the final design submittal not
only prevents the proper evaluation and mitigation of the Project’s impact relating to
Percolation, basin draining and de-watering but also, such deferment is impermissible
under CEQA.
Further, the Item is up for Planning Commission recommendation, yet there is no
information available regarding the percolation tests; besides the above -mentioned
deferred mitigation.
Therefore, the Water Quality Plan is inadequate and violates CEQA Guidelines. The
FEIR should be revised to address the impermissible deferment as well as to properly
evaluate the above Project’s impact relating to Percolation, basin draining and de-
watering.
IV. THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS
DEFICIENT
A. The FEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as Design
Modification, Which It Relies On to Eliminate Operation Noise Impacts
Relating to Cable Rollers During Artificial Waves Creation
The FEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for design modification or design
improvement” which the FEIR purports “effectively eliminates the cable roller system
operating noise source activities.” (FEIR, App. K3, p. 3)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 23 of 25
Relying on the cable roller design features, the FEIR concludes in many instances that
the Project’s impacts are less than significant and that no mitigation is required.
According to the FEIR, “[t]he reduce the operation noise source levels from the wave
basin/wave machine, the Surf Ranch modified the cable roller system. This design
modification placed the existing above water cable roller system assembly measured on
April 13, 2020, to an underwater cable roller system assembly that was measured on
August 15, 2021. This design improvement effectively eliminates the cable roller
system operating noise source activities.” (FEIR, App. K3, p. 3)
As discussed above, mislabeling these mitigation measures further violates CEQA
because such measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures
that are fully enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to
ensure that the measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant
environmental effects to the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines §
15091(d).) Therefore, using Project Design Modifications in lieu of mitigation
measures violate CEQA.
Therefore, the FEIR should properly adopt the Wave noise mitigation to ensure noise
levels relating to Waves production are eliminated throughout the entirety of the
Project.
B. The FEIR Adopts an Improper Environmental Baseline by Failing to
Evaluate Existing Biological Resources Conditions at the Project Site
According to PRC Section 15125(a) “An EIR must include a description of the
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. This environmental
setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental
setting shall be no longer than necessary to provide an understanding of the
significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. The purposes of this
requirement is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and
understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-
term impacts”
“Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they
exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 24 of 25
is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced . . . .” CEQA
Guidelines § 15125(a).
In regard to the peninsular bighorn sheep, the FEIR inaccurately states that “the
project does not provide suitable habitat for PBS” (FEIR, p. 3-6) this is further
reiterated from the DEIR’s conclusion that “[t]his species is not present at the site
due to the absence of suitable habitat.” (DEIR, p. 231 )
However, this information is not accurate, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife expressly stated that:
“The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular
bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the
potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep a federally
endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a
State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep.
Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP.
The DEIR incorrectly identifies that “this species [PBS] is not
present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (page
231)” (FEIR, p. 2-78)
Further, the DEIR fails to identify state regulations that are applicable to the Project
including: Natural Community Conservation Protection Act (Fish & G. Code
Sections 2800 et seq.), Lake and Streambed Agreements (Fish & G. Code Section
1600 et seq.); Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700), and CEQA.
By failing to adopt a proper baseline, omitting state regulations and mislabeling of the
mitigation measures, the FEIR fails to inform the public of critical information out
relating to potential environmental impacts.
In order to provide an accurate baseline, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated
with a correct the statement regarding species habitats on the Project Site.
V. CONCLUSION
Southwest Carpenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s FEIR
to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns,
feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 25 of 25
______________________
Mary Linares, Esq.
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
August 5, 2021 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit D);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
2023 0.6148 3 3649 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
5
1,627.529
5
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
2023 0.6148 3 3648 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
1
1,627.529
1
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.441
2
1,342.441
2
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.440
9
1,342.440
9
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT D
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
August 5, 2021
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310) – Comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Nucole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report
(“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project
(“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 2 of 33
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR
submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v
City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has
objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely
raised by other parties).
Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices
to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 3 of 33
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 4 of 33
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 5 of 33
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 6 of 33
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 7 of 33
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 8 of 33
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry
points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT
NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 9 of 33
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 10 of 33
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require
that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before
being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe
Appropriate Project Alternatives
A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and it
should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives
to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of
the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of
specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020)
NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/
default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020)
Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-
safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 11 of 33
the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San
Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.)
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be
so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could
still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v.
Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives
that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re
Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th
1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying
purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed
Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.)
Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the
nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives
include the “[development of] a high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) that
provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that
attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s
reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3-8.) If this remains a project
objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “high-
quality private wave basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the
tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation
facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project
alternatives can be considered.
E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence
When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously
discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the
DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by
substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.
See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099,
1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining
significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or
thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 12 of 33
(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an
impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing
an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for
a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that
Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain
herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific
timber harvesting project).
1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air
Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a
project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project
complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans),
and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project
emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow
lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so
long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency
“should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for
use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to
consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG
reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and
projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g.,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 13 of 33
projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency
jurisdiction);
(2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based
on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify
measures or a group of measures, including performance standards,
that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-
by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP
progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if
the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above-listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative
results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the
jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and
the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is
not cumulatively considerable.
Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as
it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts
throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See,
e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version
2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no
discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The
use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s
GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 14 of 33
The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality
impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air
pollutant emissions.
Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its
GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service
population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation
between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on
the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7-10). However, the DEIR fails
to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I
Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88
MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions
targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32
and SB 32.
2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality
and GHG Mitigation Measures
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's
significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§
21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any
feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental
effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the
project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental
degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the
impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of
Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall
11 Representing an emissions deduction of 40% from 1990 levels.
12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A).
13 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B).
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 15 of 33
short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation
Measure AQ-2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction
equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4
Final-compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 demands
the use of low-VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does
not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super-Complaint” architectural
be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts.
Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building
shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1-14),
but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency
standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should
apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The
Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1
and Tier 2) for both residential and non-residential buildings. (Cal. Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601).
The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan
area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and
non-residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the
mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures as required by CEQA.
3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design
Features”
The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or
“PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR,
4.1-13 through 4.1-15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5-18 through 4.5-19 (Energy);
DEIR, 4.7-11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s
conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance
rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is
required.
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 16 of 33
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are
presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s
Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and
subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and
Recreation with Substantial Evidence
The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less
than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from
undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on
population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of
Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected
population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population
forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39-40.) La Quinta’s General Plan
Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.),
whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6-6),
raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the
population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 17 of 33
lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern
California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.)
The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have
cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially
the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required
by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative
impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's
incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211
Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).)
The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that
the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact vecause
the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and
because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s
General Plan.” (DEIR, 6-7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new
residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider the
cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending
projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze.
In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of
Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41-42; DEIR, 6-7 through 6-8). The CEQA
Guidelines identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will
include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project
dedicates 23.6 acres of previously-open space to the development of recreational
facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses.
This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the
DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from
analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational
spaces.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 18 of 33
F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS
Plans
Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable
communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080,
sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans
include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any
inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan.
In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which
proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments
to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent
per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035.
In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which
incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS 15, that
will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s
per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16
SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017
Scoping Plan and SB 375.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect
SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed
at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per
capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by
2035. 18
For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental
Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
(“MMRP”) that list project-level environmental mitigation measures that directly
and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s
15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115 (attached as Exhibit D).
16 Id., p. 8, 15, 153, 166.
17 SCAG (Sept 2020) Connect Socal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176
18 Id. At xiii.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 19 of 33
GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local
municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis
that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project-specific
environmental impacts.20
Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency with any of SCAG’s
aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is
consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project-level goals, including:
Land Use and Transportation
• Providing transit fare discounts 21;
• Implementing transit integration strategies 22; and
• Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and
automated vehicle technologies.23
GHG Emissions Goals 24
• Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of
project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as:
o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures
were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
19 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG (April 2012) Regional Transportation Plan 2012 – 20135, fn. 38, p. 77-86
(attached as Exhibit E).
20 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (attached as Exhibit E), p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, fn. 41, p. 115.
21 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”)
AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal
agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental]
as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation
to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]),; see
also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1-8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),; SCAG 2016
RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG-
3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA-1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)).
25 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/
guidelines/Appendix_F.html.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 20 of 33
o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy
consumption, including transportation energy.
o The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
• Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions.
• Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize
GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment;
o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other
materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase
use of renewable energy;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption;
o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
• Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as
vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and
telecommuting programs.
• Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-
occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for
those vehicles;
• Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low
emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 21 of 33
constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging
stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management
through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
Hydrology & Water Quality Goals
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply
requirements, such as:
o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should
promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to
drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather-
based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use,
and installing related water pricing incentives.
o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and
provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed
water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and
should be implemented where feasible.
o Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets,
water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection
and repair.
o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building
codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new
impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of
in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 22 of 33
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater
recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious
surface.
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and
waste discharge requirements, such as:
o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction.
o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater
runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable.
o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and
identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site
erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.
o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial
structures.
o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to
support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or
buildings.
o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for
construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404
permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit).
o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net
loss of impervious surface as a result of the project.
o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels,
detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers
to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where
required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on
new facilities.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 23 of 33
o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the
applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the
operator, the statewide permit applies.
o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter
control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water
quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff
discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as
possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-of-way, not just
later during the facilities design and construction phase.
o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge
permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long-
term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff.
o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as
detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to
control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design
of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of-
way acquisition process.
o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream
receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to
accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without
impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates,
volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in
stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes
induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or
contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological
function of any downstream receiving waters.
o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate,
or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that
accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel.
o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased
runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of
detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 24 of 33
velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian
buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in
peak flow rates from current levels.
o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of
natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff
flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible.
• Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater
Management Act and implementing regulations, such as:
o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply
with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the
Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the
greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of in-
lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent
conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge
as appropriate.
• Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and
local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program, such as:
o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which
requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration
and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 25 of 33
maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at
least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan
flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial
fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid
alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan
boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes
caused by global climate change.
Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
• Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to
reduce unnecessary employee transportation.
• Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board
for coordinating rides.
• Provide a vanpool for employees.
• Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing
strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel.
The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and
carpools/vanpool use, including:
o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that
exceed the requirement.
o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks).
o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.).
o On-site carpooling program.
o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation
options.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 26 of 33
o Parking spaces sold/leased separately.
o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and
shared parking spaces.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of
parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to
accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting areas.
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness
on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public
transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and
publicity about public transportation services.
• Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon
consultation with applicable CTCs.
• Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools
and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles.
• Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or
zero-emission vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the
Lead Agency, including:
o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles.
o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles.
o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing, including parking
spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public
transit.
o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement
ridesharing programs.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 27 of 33
• Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined
feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations.
o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer
ridesharing programs.
o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations
for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes.
o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten
lists, and other mechanisms.
• Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by
public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage
employers to subscribe to or support the program.
• Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and
major destinations.
• Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to
popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers.
• Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services.
• Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle
trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing
employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
• Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities.
• Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use,
including:
o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a
reduced parking fee.
o Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all
single-occupant vehicles.
Utilities & Service Systems
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 28 of 33
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11),
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green
Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following:
o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris
and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.
o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D
diversion.
o Development of indoor recycling program and space.
o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG
region during the construction and implementation of a project.
Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much
as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of
waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-
by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016
RTP/SCS policies can and should be required.
o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling
activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all
large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement
programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from
landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting,
recycling, and conversion technologies.
o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology
facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal,
and cardboard).
o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and
commercial projects.
o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant
businesses.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 29 of 33
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available
recycling services.
o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting
programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the
types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste
recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling
services.
The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures
and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate
what specific project-level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate
consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans.
G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section
CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 –
15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies,
other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and
the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other
authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to
demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain
comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on
a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a).
Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation
efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo
whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required
by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA
is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515.
Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies,
or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR.
The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in
the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public
Resources Code.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 30 of 33
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND
ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or
“charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763,
773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796
fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal.3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 31 of 33
Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s
policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52
Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As
such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law.
B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s
Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals,
policies, and programs including the following:
• Policy LU-2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained;
• Goal LU-3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable
neighborhoods that provide a sense of place;
• Policy LU-5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing,
including affordable housing;
• Policy CIR-1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with
development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public
Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines;
• Policy SC-1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element);
• Policy SC-1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum
consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality
Element);
• Goal H-2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and
provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income
households;
• Goal H-3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system
that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents;
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 32 of 33
• Goal H-5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing
opportunities for all persons;
• Goal AQ-1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air
emissions generated within the City;
• Goal BIO-1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and
preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources
and their habitats;
• Policy WR-1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential
and commercial development projects;
• Goal OS-2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of
natural open space and preservation of open space areas;
• Goal OS-3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic
resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall
quality of life;
• Policy UTL-1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water
consumption rates over “business-as-usual” consumption rates.
The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals,
Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will
have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population,
biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This
discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also
with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts.
The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with
the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above.
Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the
City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
III. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or
prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned
concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 33 of 33
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT F
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
April 6, 2022
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Comments on the Coral Mountain Resort Project (SCH No. 2021020310)
Dear Mr. Tsai,
We have reviewed the February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the June 2021
Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”) located in
the City of La Quinta (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development consisting of
600 residential dwelling units, 150 key-resort rooms, 57,000-square-feet (“SF”) of resort-serving
commercial and recreational space, a 16.62-acre artificial Wave Basin, 60,000-SF of commercial space,
and 23.6-acres of open space recreation, on the 120.8-acre site.
Our review concludes that the FEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and
greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and
operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR
should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk and greenhouse gas
impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality Failure to Include PDFs as Mitigation Measures
The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant air quality impacts associated with Project
construction, operation, and special events. Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s Phase I
construction-related NOX emissions, Phase 3 operational VOC emissions, and special event VOC and NOX
emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds (p. 4.1-22, Table 4.2-5; p. 4.1-27,
Table 4.2-7; p. 4.1-30, Table 4.2-9). However, after the implementation of Project Design Features
(“PDFs”) and mitigation, the DEIR concludes that Project emissions would have less-than-significant
impacts (p. 4.1-23, Table 4.2-6; p. 4.1-29, Table 4.2-8; p. 4.1-31, Table 4.2-10).
2
The Project’s air quality analysis is inadequate, as the DEIR and FEIR should have incorporated all PDFs,
as described in the DEIR, as formal mitigation measures (p. 4.1-13 – 4.1-15). According to the
Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that
address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit
process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental
impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a
change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without
understanding the resulting environmental impact.”1
As you can see in the excerpt above, PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be
eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the PDFs described in the DEIR are not formally
included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored,
and enforced on the Project site. As a result, until the PDFs are included as mitigation measures, the
DEIR’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
The DEIR indicates that Project “[b]uildout [is] anticipated to occur in three primary phases over
approximately 4- to 6-years” (p. 82). Thus, by 2026, all three phases of construction would be
operational together. As such, the DEIR should have summed the Project’s operational emissions for
Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 in order to estimate the Project’s total operational air quality impact.
In order to correctly evaluate the Project’s air quality impact, we summed the DEIR’s operational air
quality emissions from all three phases of Project buildout. We found that the Project’s operational VOC
and NOX emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table
below).2
1 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
2 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
4
Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.4
Furthermore, the State of California Department of Justice recommends warehouse projects prepare a
quantitative HRA pursuant to OEHHA and local air district guidelines.5 The OEHHA guidance document
describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA
recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to
nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set
forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under
OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting
more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure
duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual
resident (“MEIR”). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can
reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we
recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure
duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect
the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an updated EIR require the
analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM
emissions for future individual projects.
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk
impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.6 Thus, in accordance with the
most relevant guidance, we recommend that the DEIR and FEIR require the Specific Plan to require
future individual projects to conduct an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing
receptors from construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions
The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) impact after the implementation of mitigation measure (“MM”) GHG-1 (p. 4.7-20). Specifically,
the DEIR states:
“The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project, is shown on
Table 4.7- 8, after implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures as enforceable
PDFs and MM GHG- 1. As shown, Project-related GHG emissions are reduced to 3.62 MTCO2e
per SP per year which is less than the applicable threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year.
While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, would offset the GHG emissions generated
4 “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.
5 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
6 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
5
by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions
elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG
emissions levels of the project itself. Moreover, as the use of carbon credits as mitigation for
GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and
resort community projects, this analysis conservatively considers impacts associated with GHG
emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City
cannot determine with certainty that the project’s GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than
significant level” (p. 4.7-20).
However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, the DEIR’s conclusion
that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an 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.”
As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible
mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1, which requires the Project
Applicant to purchase carbon offsets, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation (p. 4.7-26).
Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion that Project’s GHG emissions would be significant-and-unavoidable is
unsubstantiated. To reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional
feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the following section of
this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should
not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, including updated, accurate air modeling, as well as
incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG
impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we
identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce
the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project
Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures
(“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 7
7 “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.” Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
7
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in
certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider
installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or
better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as
appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA
on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM
emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
- Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher.
- Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines
meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or
CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp
and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp.
- Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the
emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur
content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and
generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the
vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and
expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model,
manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter
reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or
unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on
abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare
facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.
- The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad
construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards
Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways
9
ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and
xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation,
and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies;
ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles;
iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care;
v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network;
vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service;
ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program;
f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing
amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the
regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within
developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and
h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs,
providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;
ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-
matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy
vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools,
secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites;
vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.
i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide
adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles;
j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit;
iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees;
10
iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles,
or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of
electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid
waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and
minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a
minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles
and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options
ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and
v. Educating employees about available alternatives.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as
include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the
Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery 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
11
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.
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
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:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment A
2
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 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.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
• 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.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
3
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted
4
public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned
about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
• 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:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt 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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
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.
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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
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 Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
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.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
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 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, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation
d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA
Rail, Defendants
Case No.: 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., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case Number 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 Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case Number 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
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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In 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 Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 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 Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
EXHIBIT G
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
!Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
!
!VIA E-MAIL
April 12, 2022
Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary,
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: tflores@laquintaca.gov
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Public Hearing
No. 1; Regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH #2021020310)
Dear Tania Flores and Nicole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest
Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s
(“City” or “Lead Agency”) April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda
Public Hearing No. 1 regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
(SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”).
This letter reiterates and supplements comments submitted by Southwest Carpenters
on August 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022 re. Environmental Impact Report Comments;
hereby attached and incorporated by reference as (Exhibit D) and (Exhibit E),
respectively.
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 2 of 14!
!
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Southwest Carpenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or
prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to
this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Southwest Carpenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding
the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean
Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who
has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue
timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any
and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000
et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”),
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2,
and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such
notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the
agency’s governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 3 of 14!
!
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 4 of 14!
!
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
On May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the
“[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
!
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and
Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental
Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse
Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule
2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions,
available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-
May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.!
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.
hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 5 of 14!
!
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
!
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf.
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing
Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490,
482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 6 of 14!
!
I.!THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A.!Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
!
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000
et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the
implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great
weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for
Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 7 of 14!
!
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
II.!EXPERTS
This comment letter includes comments from air quality and greenhouse gas experts
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the FEIR. Their
comments, attachments, and Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) are hereby attached and
incorporated by reference as (Exhibit F).
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. (“Mr. Hagemann”) has over 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
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 8 of 14!
!
Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Mr. Hagemann also served as Senior
Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities
undergoing base closer. 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, Mr. Hagemann has worked as a founding partner with SWAPE
(Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise). At SWAPE, Mr. Hagemann 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.
Mr. Hagemann has a Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from Humboldt State
University in California and a Masters in Science degree from California State
University Los Angeles in California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (“Dr. Rosenfeld”) is a principal environmental chemist at
SWAPE. Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental
investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts on human health, property,
and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of
environmental contaminants, human health risks, exposure assessment, and ecological
restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from
unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators,
process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other
industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring
and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at
industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk
assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria,
particular matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides,
radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs,
PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS),
unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants, Dr. Rosenfeld
also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 9 of 14!
!
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as
the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous
emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion
modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified
about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and
has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air
contaminants from industrial sources.
Dr. Rosenfeld has a Ph.D. in soil chemistry from the University of Washington, M.S.
in environmental science from U.C. Berkeley, and B.A. in environmental studies from
U.C. Santa Barbara.
III.!THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS
DEFICIENT
A.!The FEIR Fails to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s Air
Quality Impacts
1.!The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design
Features”
The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or
“PDFs” which the DEIR purports will “reduce the associated impacts to less than
significant levels” DEIR p. 4.1-23. See also, DEIR pp. 4.1-29, 4.1-31. Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-
8, 4.2-10.
For example, the DEIR states that “[a]fter implementation of PDFs and MM-AQ-3,
project operational-source emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels.”
DEIR p. 4.1-29. And that, “[a]fter implementation of PDFs and MM AQ-3, special
event operational-source emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds
of significance for emissions of any criteria pollutant.” DEIR 4.1-29. Further, the
DEIR states that:
“The VOC emissions generated would therefore exceed SCAQMD
thresholds, and result in significant impacts requiring mitigation.
Through the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, the
overlap of these activities will be prevented, such that it will avoid
simultaneous emissions of these pollutants attributed to these activities
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 10 of 14!
!
and therefore will maintain the peak emissions under the established
thresholds and reduce the associated impacts to less than significant
levels.”
DEIR pp. 4.1-23
Relying on the PDFs, the DEIR concludes in many instances that the Project’s
impacts are less than significant and that no mitigation is required.
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).)
Therefore, the Project’s air quality analysis is inadequate, as the DEIR and FEIR
should have incorporated all PDFs, as described in the DEIR, as formal mitigation
measures. DEIR pp. 4.1-13 – 4.1-15.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 11 of 14!
!
2.!The Project’s Total Operational Air Quality Impacts May Be Grossly
Underestimated
The DEIR improperly calculates the Project’s operational emissions because it fails to
sum the emissions for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 in order to estimate the Project’s
total operational air quality impact.
As experts Matt Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld state, “[i]n order to correctly evaluate
the Project’s air quality impact, we summed the DEIR’s operational air quality
emissions from all three phases of Project buildout. We found that the Project’s
operational VOC and NOX emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of
55 pounds per day (“lbs/day”)” Exhibit F, p. 2.
B.!The FEIR Fails to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s Health
Risk Impacts
The Project violates CEQA because the EIR does not include a quantified health risk
assessment which correlates the Project’s construction and operational toxic air
contaminant (“TAC”) emissions and air pollutants to its impact on human health as
set forth on Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502.
As experts Matt Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld explain, “construction of the
proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through
the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of
approximately 4- to 6-years ([DEIR] p. 82). Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that the
Project would generate approximately 8,932 daily vehicle trips, which would generate
additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to
DPM emissions during Project operation ([DEIR] p. 4.13-43).” Exhibit F, p. 4.
Therefore, the EIR should be revised to include an analysis of health risk impacts
posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions for future
individual projects.
C.!The Project Fails to Properly Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s
Greenhouse Gas Impacts Because the EIR Fails to Describe All Feasible
Mitigation Measures That Can Minimize the Project’s Significant Impacts
Associated with GHG Emissions
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 12 of 14!
!
significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§
21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any
feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental
effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the
project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible” PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081;
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A); and find that ‘specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.” PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B). “A gloomy forecast of environmental
degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the
impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of
Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
According to CEQA Guidelines, “[w]hen an 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.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2).
The DEIR concludes that the Project will have significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions impacts, since “Project implementation would produce GHG emissions
totaling 6.46 MTCO2e per SP per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD screening
threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year” DEIR, p. 4.7-19.
The Project proposes to follow certain regulatory requirements and proposes PDF’s
and GHG mitigation measure MMGHG-1 to further reduce construction and
operational emissions. DEIR, 4.7-20; Concluding that the Project’s impacts associated
with GHG emissions are “significant and unavoidable” DEIR, p. 4.7-20.
However, an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all
available, feasible mitigation is considered and the EIR lacks substantial evidence to
support a finding that no other feasible mitigation existed to mitigate Project’s
significant impacts.
The EIR fails to demonstrate consistency with all the measures and strategies of the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 13 of 14!
!
2020 SCAG RTP/SCS Plan. Thus, the EIR fails to demonstrate that all feasible
mitigation measures were considered. To the extent that the Project fails to comply
with the measures mentioned above, the Project EIR has failed to mitigate GHG
emissions to the extent feasible.
Experts Paul Rosenfeld and Matt Hagemann identify several mitigation measures that
are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions,
including SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation
Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures
(“PMM-GHG-1”).9 Exhibit F, p. 5.
Furthermore, the EIR fails to integrate or consider many GHG reduction measures
outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
August 2010 Report which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has
recognized as a “comprehensive guidance document for quantifying the effectiveness
of GHG mitigation measures.”10
IV.!CONCLUSION
Southwest Carpenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s FEIR
to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns,
feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
!
9!“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.” Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at
https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2019) “Greenhouse Gases, accessed on April 10,
2022, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases. See also “Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission
Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures” California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) August 2010, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/
default-source/ceqa/handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/quantifying-
greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=0
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
April 12, 2022
Page 14 of 14!
!
______________________
Mary Linares, Esq.
Attorney for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
August 5, 2021 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit D);
March 12, 2022 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Final Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit E);
April 6, 2022 Letter from Hagemann and Rosenfeld to Mitchel M. Tsai re Comments
on the Environmental Impact Reports for the Coral Mountain Resort Project, with
Exhibits (Exhibit F).
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
2023 0.6148 3 3649 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
5
1,627.529
5
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
2023 0.6148 3 3648 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
1
1,627.529
1
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.441
2
1,342.441
2
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.440
9
1,342.440
9
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT D
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
August 5, 2021
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310) – Comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Nucole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report
(“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project
(“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 2 of 33
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR
submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v
City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has
objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely
raised by other parties).
Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices
to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 3 of 33
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 4 of 33
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 5 of 33
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 6 of 33
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 7 of 33
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 8 of 33
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry
points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT
NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 9 of 33
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 10 of 33
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require
that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before
being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe
Appropriate Project Alternatives
A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and it
should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives
to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of
the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of
specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020)
NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/
default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020)
Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-
safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 11 of 33
the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San
Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.)
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be
so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could
still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v.
Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives
that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re
Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th
1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying
purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed
Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.)
Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the
nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives
include the “[development of] a high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) that
provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that
attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s
reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3-8.) If this remains a project
objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “high-
quality private wave basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the
tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation
facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project
alternatives can be considered.
E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence
When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously
discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the
DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by
substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.
See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099,
1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining
significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or
thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 12 of 33
(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an
impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing
an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for
a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that
Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain
herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific
timber harvesting project).
1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air
Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a
project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project
complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans),
and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project
emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow
lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so
long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency
“should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for
use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to
consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG
reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and
projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g.,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 13 of 33
projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency
jurisdiction);
(2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based
on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify
measures or a group of measures, including performance standards,
that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-
by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP
progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if
the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above-listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative
results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the
jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and
the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is
not cumulatively considerable.
Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as
it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts
throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See,
e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version
2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no
discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The
use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s
GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 14 of 33
The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality
impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air
pollutant emissions.
Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its
GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service
population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation
between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on
the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7-10). However, the DEIR fails
to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I
Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88
MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions
targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32
and SB 32.
2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality
and GHG Mitigation Measures
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's
significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§
21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any
feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental
effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the
project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental
degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the
impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of
Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall
11 Representing an emissions deduction of 40% from 1990 levels.
12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A).
13 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B).
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 15 of 33
short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation
Measure AQ-2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction
equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4
Final-compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 demands
the use of low-VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does
not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super-Complaint” architectural
be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts.
Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building
shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1-14),
but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency
standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should
apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The
Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1
and Tier 2) for both residential and non-residential buildings. (Cal. Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601).
The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan
area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and
non-residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the
mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures as required by CEQA.
3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design
Features”
The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or
“PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR,
4.1-13 through 4.1-15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5-18 through 4.5-19 (Energy);
DEIR, 4.7-11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s
conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance
rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is
required.
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 16 of 33
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are
presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s
Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and
subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and
Recreation with Substantial Evidence
The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less
than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from
undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on
population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of
Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected
population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population
forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39-40.) La Quinta’s General Plan
Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.),
whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6-6),
raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the
population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 17 of 33
lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern
California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.)
The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have
cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially
the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required
by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative
impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's
incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211
Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).)
The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that
the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact vecause
the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and
because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s
General Plan.” (DEIR, 6-7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new
residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider the
cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending
projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze.
In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of
Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41-42; DEIR, 6-7 through 6-8). The CEQA
Guidelines identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will
include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project
dedicates 23.6 acres of previously-open space to the development of recreational
facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses.
This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the
DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from
analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational
spaces.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 18 of 33
F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS
Plans
Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable
communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080,
sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans
include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any
inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan.
In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which
proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments
to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent
per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035.
In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which
incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS 15, that
will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s
per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16
SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017
Scoping Plan and SB 375.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect
SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed
at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per
capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by
2035. 18
For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental
Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
(“MMRP”) that list project-level environmental mitigation measures that directly
and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s
15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115 (attached as Exhibit D).
16 Id., p. 8, 15, 153, 166.
17 SCAG (Sept 2020) Connect Socal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176
18 Id. At xiii.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 19 of 33
GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local
municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis
that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project-specific
environmental impacts.20
Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency with any of SCAG’s
aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is
consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project-level goals, including:
Land Use and Transportation
• Providing transit fare discounts 21;
• Implementing transit integration strategies 22; and
• Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and
automated vehicle technologies.23
GHG Emissions Goals 24
• Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of
project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as:
o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures
were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
19 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG (April 2012) Regional Transportation Plan 2012 – 20135, fn. 38, p. 77-86
(attached as Exhibit E).
20 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (attached as Exhibit E), p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, fn. 41, p. 115.
21 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”)
AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal
agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental]
as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation
to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]),; see
also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1-8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),; SCAG 2016
RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG-
3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA-1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)).
25 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/
guidelines/Appendix_F.html.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 20 of 33
o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy
consumption, including transportation energy.
o The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
• Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions.
• Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize
GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment;
o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other
materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase
use of renewable energy;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption;
o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
• Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as
vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and
telecommuting programs.
• Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-
occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for
those vehicles;
• Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low
emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 21 of 33
constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging
stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management
through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
Hydrology & Water Quality Goals
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply
requirements, such as:
o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should
promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to
drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather-
based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use,
and installing related water pricing incentives.
o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and
provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed
water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and
should be implemented where feasible.
o Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets,
water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection
and repair.
o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building
codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new
impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of
in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 22 of 33
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater
recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious
surface.
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and
waste discharge requirements, such as:
o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction.
o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater
runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable.
o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and
identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site
erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.
o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial
structures.
o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to
support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or
buildings.
o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for
construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404
permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit).
o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net
loss of impervious surface as a result of the project.
o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels,
detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers
to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where
required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on
new facilities.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 23 of 33
o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the
applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the
operator, the statewide permit applies.
o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter
control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water
quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff
discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as
possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-of-way, not just
later during the facilities design and construction phase.
o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge
permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long-
term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff.
o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as
detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to
control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design
of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of-
way acquisition process.
o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream
receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to
accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without
impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates,
volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in
stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes
induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or
contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological
function of any downstream receiving waters.
o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate,
or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that
accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel.
o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased
runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of
detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 24 of 33
velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian
buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in
peak flow rates from current levels.
o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of
natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff
flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible.
• Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater
Management Act and implementing regulations, such as:
o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply
with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the
Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the
greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of in-
lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent
conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge
as appropriate.
• Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and
local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program, such as:
o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which
requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration
and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 25 of 33
maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at
least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan
flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial
fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid
alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan
boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes
caused by global climate change.
Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
• Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to
reduce unnecessary employee transportation.
• Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board
for coordinating rides.
• Provide a vanpool for employees.
• Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing
strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel.
The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and
carpools/vanpool use, including:
o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that
exceed the requirement.
o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks).
o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.).
o On-site carpooling program.
o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation
options.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 26 of 33
o Parking spaces sold/leased separately.
o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and
shared parking spaces.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of
parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to
accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting areas.
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness
on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public
transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and
publicity about public transportation services.
• Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon
consultation with applicable CTCs.
• Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools
and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles.
• Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or
zero-emission vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the
Lead Agency, including:
o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles.
o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles.
o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing, including parking
spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public
transit.
o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement
ridesharing programs.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 27 of 33
• Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined
feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations.
o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer
ridesharing programs.
o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations
for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes.
o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten
lists, and other mechanisms.
• Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by
public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage
employers to subscribe to or support the program.
• Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and
major destinations.
• Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to
popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers.
• Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services.
• Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle
trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing
employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
• Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities.
• Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use,
including:
o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a
reduced parking fee.
o Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all
single-occupant vehicles.
Utilities & Service Systems
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 28 of 33
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11),
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green
Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following:
o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris
and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.
o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D
diversion.
o Development of indoor recycling program and space.
o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG
region during the construction and implementation of a project.
Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much
as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of
waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-
by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016
RTP/SCS policies can and should be required.
o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling
activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all
large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement
programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from
landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting,
recycling, and conversion technologies.
o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology
facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal,
and cardboard).
o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and
commercial projects.
o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant
businesses.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 29 of 33
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available
recycling services.
o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting
programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the
types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste
recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling
services.
The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures
and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate
what specific project-level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate
consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans.
G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section
CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 –
15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies,
other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and
the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other
authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to
demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain
comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on
a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a).
Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation
efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo
whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required
by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA
is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515.
Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies,
or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR.
The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in
the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public
Resources Code.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 30 of 33
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND
ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or
“charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763,
773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796
fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal.3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 31 of 33
Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s
policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52
Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As
such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law.
B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s
Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals,
policies, and programs including the following:
• Policy LU-2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained;
• Goal LU-3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable
neighborhoods that provide a sense of place;
• Policy LU-5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing,
including affordable housing;
• Policy CIR-1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with
development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public
Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines;
• Policy SC-1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element);
• Policy SC-1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum
consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality
Element);
• Goal H-2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and
provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income
households;
• Goal H-3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system
that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents;
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 32 of 33
• Goal H-5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing
opportunities for all persons;
• Goal AQ-1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air
emissions generated within the City;
• Goal BIO-1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and
preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources
and their habitats;
• Policy WR-1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential
and commercial development projects;
• Goal OS-2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of
natural open space and preservation of open space areas;
• Goal OS-3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic
resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall
quality of life;
• Policy UTL-1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water
consumption rates over “business-as-usual” consumption rates.
The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals,
Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will
have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population,
biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This
discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also
with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts.
The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with
the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above.
Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the
City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
III. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or
prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned
concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 33 of 33
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT E
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 22, 2022
Tania Flores, Planning Commission Secretary,
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: tflores@laquintaca.gov
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Public Hearing
No. 1; Regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH #2021020310)
Dear Tania Flores and Nicole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest
Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s
(“City” or “Lead Agency”) March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda
Public Hearing No. 1 regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”)
(SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 2 of 25
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Southwest Carpenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or
prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to
this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Southwest Carpenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding
the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean
Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who
has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue
timely raised by other parties); Including Letter from Mitchell Tsai dated August 5
2021 re. Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments; hereby attached and
incorporated by reference as (Exhibit D).
Moreover, Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any
and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000
et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”),
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2,
and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such
notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the
agency’s governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 25
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 4 of 25
On May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the
“[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3 -99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf .
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 5 of 25
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 6 of 25
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 7 of 25
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
II. NEW INFORMATION THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE
SEVERITY OF THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON PROTECTED
WILDLIFE REQUIRE RECIRCULATION OF THE FEIR
A. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
CEQA requires that a Project’s environmental documents be revised and recirculated
to the public when significant new information is added to an environmental impact
report prior to certification.
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. (See also 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 15088.5.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 8 of 25
Revisions to environmental analysis in an environmental impact report requires
recirculation of the environmental impact report to give the public a meaningful
opportunity to comment. (Gray v. Cty. of Madera (2008)167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1121 –
22.)
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).
Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new
significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation
measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible
project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and
comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
Where an agency " omits an adequate discussion of a project's potential impacts in its
EIR, it cannot afterward 'make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR' through post-
EIR analysis." Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 103 (citing
Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 99, 130 (project information revealed in an errata shortly before project
approval "does not make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR").) To allow otherwise
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 9 of 25
would "deny the public 'an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the [newly
revealed information] and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the
conclusions to be drawn"' from it. Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal. App.5th at 103,
internal citation omitted.
B. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Mitigation
Measures to Reduce the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on
Biological Resources Relating to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
Since circulation of the DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(“CDFW”) comments show for the first time that the Project results in a new and
significantly more severe environmental impact:
“The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular
bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the
potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep a federally
endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a
State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep.
Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP.
The DEIR incorrectly identifies that “this species [PBS] is not
present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (page
231)” (FEIR, p. 2-78)
Specifically, the CDFW explained that the Project’s artificial water sources such as The
Wave, may result in an attractive nuisance, luring the Sheep into the Project Site:
“In the City of La Quinta, existing developments (including
SilverRock, PGA West, and The Quarry at La Quinta) along the
wildland‐urban interface have become attractive nuisances for
sheep because of artificial features that attract sheep, for example
grass and artificial water sources. This results in sheep habituated
to urban environments, and can lead to increased mortality risk
through transmission of disease, ingestion of toxic materials,
vehicle strikes, and drowning in artificial water sources. These
developments are adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in
the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of
the CVMSHCP. As a result of these issues, the MSHCP
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 10 of 25
requirement for building a fence at this interface was triggered and
the City of La Quinta is currently working with the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission to build a sheep fence. CDFW is
concerned that this Project will create similar conditions and
become an attractive nuisance to sheep that currently use Coral
Mountain. Further, once the fence is built to exclude sheep in other
areas of La Quinta the sheep may migrate to this Project site if it
has attractive features. The revised DEIR should identify and
implement specific measures, such as fencing, to keep sheep out of
urban areas and prevent trespass of humans and domestic animals
into adjacent sheep habitat. (emphasis added)” (FEIR, p. 2-79)
In light of this new information, and “[t]o ensure that PBS do not enter the project
site, an 8‐foot high sheep barrier is proposed.” (FEIR, p. 3-6)
The City addressed CDFW’s new information stating that “[t]he project will avoid this
potential impact because the Specific Plan has been modified to include a requirement
to construct an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier/perimeter fence that will be designed to
exclude PBS from the project site” (FEIR, p. 2-73)
Since the Project’s artificial water sources’ significant impact on the Peninsular
bighorn sheep as well as its mitigation measures, including the fence barrier, were not
mentioned on the DEIR and therefore not available to the Public and decisionmakers,
the FEIR should be recirculated.
C. The FEIR Improperly Labels the Peninsular Sheep Barrier Fence
Mitigation Measures as Project Design Feature and General Project
Conditions
The FEIR improperly labels the mitigation measures as Project Design Features, and
General Project Condition, which the FEIR purports will reduce environmental
impacts by preventing the Peninsular bighorn sheep from being attracted to the
Project Site’s artificial water sources. (FEIR, pp. 2-76; 3-6)
The FEIR’s biological resources conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental
impacts below levels of significance rely on the implementation of these project
conditions, and that as such no additional mitigation is required because “[t]his
requirement will be incorporated into the Specific Plan and made enforceable through
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 11 of 25
the project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval.” (FEIR, p. 2-87)
and that they are “made enforceable through the project Development Agreement”
(FEIR 2-80) or “along with the addition of project design features (the sheep
barrier/fence and compliance with adjacency guidelines)” (FEIR 2-83)
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).)
Though they are presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the
Project’s Development Agreement, the fence barrier condition to reduce impacts on
protected wildlife should be properly adopted as mitigation and subject to a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
Therefore, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated once the mitigation measures
are adopted and subject to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 12 of 25
D. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Extensive
Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Biological Resources Impacts, Which
It Improperly Labels as Avoidance and Minimization Measures
In response to CDFW comments, in addition to the barrier fence, the FEIR proposes
a series of mitigation measures mislabeled as “Avoidance and Minimization Measures
and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the project conditions of approval” (FEIR, p.
2-87).
The measures addressing CDFW request include:
“1. A biological survey and assessment of year‐round habitat use by
Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre‐approved
by CDFW, prior to Project approval.
2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses,
and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails
and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of
adjacent natural areas.
3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium
oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be
used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do
not plant non‐native vegetation, including grass, in the development
where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade
bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native
vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the
urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or
through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep.
The Project will use Table 4‐112: Coachella Valley Native Plants
Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a
landscaping planting palette.
4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into
sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II
and PA III including III‐G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1‐8), and PA IV; and
the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure
2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 13 of 25
be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should
be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery
Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not
contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11
centimeters (4.3 inches) or less.
5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be
prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation,
mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon
which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water.
6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges
(Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to
eliminate blue‐tongue and other vector‐borne diseases by providing
deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30
degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current
best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector
control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may
harbor vector species.
7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their
associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the
resort, open space, and low‐density community programs through the use
of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program
should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to
support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program
should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this
species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these
threats. This includes information that explains : (1) why restrictions on
toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of
coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational
activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged.
8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness
assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help
ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site
into adjacent sheep habitat.” (FEIR, p. 2-84)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 14 of 25
Further, “CDFW recommends that inclusion of biological mitigation measures for
sheep that identify funding and resources for enforcing trail use rules which could
include signage, enforcement, public education, and removal of unauthorized trails.
Most of these measures will require enforcement to ensure they are enacted and
properly followed throughout the life of the Project. The trails, rope courses, and
zipline may create an easy and tempting access point for the residents into the open
space areas. Without enforcement of trail use rules within the Project’s open space the
adjacent habitat, Coral Mountain could become saturated with unauthorized trails.
Measures such as leash laws, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for invasive
plants and pets, trail regulations, and fencing requirements require constant
enforcement.” (FEIR, p. 2-82)
Therefore, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated to include these mitigation
measures adopted.
E. The FEIR Significantly Revises the Project’s DEIR, Adding Mitigation
Measures to Reduce the Project’s Significant Impacts on Roosting Bats,
Burrowing Owls, Nesting Birds and other Protected Wildlife.
To further reduce the Project’s impact on the newly provided impacts on wildlife, the
FEIR provided new analyses and mitigation measures to reduce the light and noise
impact on these animals, “[w]ith the implementation of this revised mitigation
measure, potential impacts to bats and other wildlife species are reduced to less than
significant levels.” (FEIR, p. 2-15)
Therefore, “all project lighting will be required to be shielded and directed to avoid
light spillage onto Coral Mountain (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). In addition, the
lighting system analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that there will be no
light spillage outside the Wave Basin planning area, including toward Coral Mountain
or other BLM open space. This is described in more detail in the Light and Glare
Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Final EIR” (FEIR, p. 2-76)
Also, “in order to assure that no impact to wildlife utilizing Coral Mountain occurs
during the construction period, Mitigation Measure BIO‐7 is included. BIO‐7 requires
noise monitoring to occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within
150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. The highest projected operational noise levels
is 64.5 dBA at location P‐10 in the tourist commercial portion of the site next to the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 15 of 25
hotel and Wave Basin (see Table 4.11‐25, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
and Exhibit 4.11‐2, Noise Source and Receiver Locations). Accordingly, the project
will not exceed the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for noise levels at
Coral Mountain.” (FEIR, p. 3-8)
Absent these light and noise mitigation measures, the Project would have a significant
impact on the roosting Bats, burrowing owls and other wildlife. Therefore, in light of
the new mitigation measures adopted to reduce the Project’s Light and Noise impacts
on bats, the FEIR should be recirculated.
III. THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE
IT FAILS TO PROPERLY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE
PROJECT-SPECIFIC WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS PURSUANT TO
STATE AND LOCAL STATUTORY STANDARDS
A. Background on Water Supply Assessments Statutory Requirements
A Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) is an analysis of the availability of water to serve
the project in addition to existing and planned future uses.
In 2001, California legislature passed SB 221 and SB 610, known collectively as the
“show me the water bills” which increased the information requirements for water
supply assessments and ensured that “the water requirements [were] met before
subdivision construction actually [began].” (Wat.Code, § 10910)
SB 221 added additional requirements for water suppliers who use groundwater,
requiring local agencies to demonstrate that a proposed project has sufficient water
supply. (Wat.Code, § 66473.7) and directing cities and counties disapprove projects
when the water supply assessment failed to comply with the statutory requirements
Pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.9; CEQA requires compliance with Water
Code sections 10910 to 10912, originally enacted in 1995 but substantially amended by
SB 610 in 2001.
The above provisions apply broadly to certain CEQA Projects (Wat.Code, §§ 10910,
subd. (a), 10912, subds. (a), (b).) Pursuant to SB 610, these Projects must provide:
1. A detailed description of the available water supply for planned future
uses during certain water year types (Wat.Code, § 10631(g));
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 16 of 25
2. Inclusion of any water supply entitlements for the proposed project
that indicate the amount of water received in previous years.
(Wat.Code, § 10910(d)(1))
3. Requirement for planning officials to identify groundwater as an
existing or planned water source for a proposed project. (Wat.Code, §
10631(b))
Also, the Water Code requires the city or county considering a project to obtain, at the
outset of the CEQA process, a water supply “assessment” from the applicable public
water system. (Wat.Code, § 10910, subd. (b).) The “water supply asse ssment” is then to
be included in any CEQA document the city or county prepares for the project.
(Wat.Code, § 10911, subd. (b).)
In accordance with Water Code Section 10912, as adopted by SB 610, projects subject
to the requirement for a WSA include:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing
more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of
floor space.
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or
industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying
more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet
of floor area.
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified
in Water Code Section 10912.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or
greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit
project.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 17 of 25
B. The Project Violates the California Water Code, CEQA Guidelines and
the ‘Show Me The Water Bills’ Because It Fails to Provide the Required
Water Verification Letter
The DEIR states that “[t]his document provides verification that adequate water supply
for this Project is available, as required by California Government Code Section 66473.7.
[emphasis added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 61) However, adequate does not mean sufficient.
According to the ‘show me the water bills,’ the Project is required to prepare a Water
Supply Verification (“WSV”) letter showing that adequate water supplies will be
available for that project as well as other existing and planned future uses for a projected
20–year period. (Water Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3 and 66473.7)
The California Water Code 10910 requires that a WSA be completed to ensure that
adequate supplies are available to meet the demands of proposed projects. In addition,
the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66473.7) also requires the preparation of
a Water Supply Verification (WSV) for proposed subdivisions.
A verification letter must be prepared pursuant to the statutes, a one-liner at the bottom
of another document would not suffice.
Therefore, the EIR’s omission of the required water verification letter violates the Water
Code and CEQA Guidelines
C. The Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate Because It Violates the
Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape and Irrigation System
Design Criteria Ordinance
The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project is deficient because it fails to
Properly analyze Project-specific water demands as well as mitigate the Project’s
potential impacts to the local and regional water supply
The FEIR fails to properly evaluate the Project’s water demands Pursuant to the
Coachella Valley Water District’s (“CVWD”) Landscape and Irrigation System Design
Criteria Ordinance;9 which provides specific guidelines and requirements that must be
met when estimating a Project’s water demand.
The Project’s Water Supply Assessment specifically states that it failed to determine
whether “the Project is meeting the MAWA established in CVWD’s Landscape
9 Available at, https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/463
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 18 of 25
Ordinance or other applicable regulations; such an analysis is beyond the scope of
this WSA/WSV. [Emphasis Added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 23)
In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, the court
stated that “the FEIR's use of inconsistent supply and demand figures, and its failure
to explain how those figures match up, results in a lack of substantial evidence that
new surface water diversions are likely to supply the project's long-term needs.”
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40
Cal.4th 412; as modified (Apr. 18, 2007)
Concluding that “CEQA entitles the decision makers and the public to a legally
proper procedure and to a clearer, more coherent and consistent explanation of how,
given the competing demands expected to arise for new water supplies, water is to be
provided to the project.”(Ibid at p. 447)
Therefore, the FEIR should be recirculated to properly analyze whether the Project’s
Water Demands Exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance set forth on the
Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria
Ordinance.
1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance is Underestimated Because It Was
Calculated Using an Inaccurate Reference Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor for
Recreational Water Features Within Special Landscape Areas
According to the Coachella Valley Water District’s the Estimated Total Water Use shall
not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (“MAWA”). MAWA is based upon
the area's reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the
landscaped area. Special Landscape Areas, including recreation areas are subject to the
MAWA with an ET AF not to exceed 1. (Coachella Valley Water District’s Landscape
and Irrigation System Design Criteria, p. 7)10See also, (California Code of Regulations,
Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 7, Section 491, Subsection mm)
The DEIR states that “Outdoor water feature demand for the Project is based on the
ETWU equation of the CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. The equation uses
the estimated area in square feet, a reference ETo rate of 64.22 inches per year (CVWD
10 Ibid.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 19 of 25
Zone 3), and a Plant Factor of 1.10 for a stationary body of water, and 1.20 for a moving
body of water.” (DEIR, App. M, p. 22)
Since the Wave is a special recreation landscape area, the Reference Evapotranspiration
Adjustment Factor should be limited to 1.
2. The Project’s Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate Because It Fails to
Establish Sufficient Water Supply to Meet the Demand Associated with the
Project
The DEIR states that “[t]his document provides verification that adequate water supply
for this Project is available, as required by California Government Code Section 66473.7.
[emphasis added]” (DEIR, App. M, p. 61) However, adequate does not mean sufficient.
According to California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(2), “sufficient water
supply” means the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-
dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with
the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses. In determining
“sufficient water supply,” all of the following factors shall be considered:
“(A) The availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least
20 years.
(B) The applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis
prepared pursuant to Section 10632 of the Water Code that includes
actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water
supply shortages.
(C) The reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector
pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted, or a contract entered into,
by the public water system, as long as that resolution, ordinance, or
contract does not conflict with Section 354 of the Water Code.”
See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
concluding that “without any “facts from which to evaluate the pros and cons of
supplying the [needed] amount of water” to the mine, the EIR was inadequate.” Vineyard
Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 429,
as modified (Apr. 18, 2007)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 20 of 25
Under CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of water supply in an environmental document
shall include:
“(1) Sufficient information regarding the project’s proposed water
demand and proposed water supplies to permit the lead agency to evaluate
the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will
need.
(2) An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of
supplying water throughout all phases of the project.
(3) An analysis of circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s
availability, as well as the degree of uncertainty involved. Relevant factors
may include but are not limited to, drought, salt- water intrusion,
regulatory or contractual curtailments, and other reasonably foreseeable
demands on the water supply.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15155,
Subsection f)
In addition to relying on an improper Reference Evapotranspiration Adjustment
Factor; the EIR fails to evaluate and properly account for foreseeable
evapotranspiration on the Project’s water demand.
Specifically, the water demand was calculated without taking into account for annual
loss due to backwash, spilling, or potential refilling of the wave pool uses historical
weather data to account for monthly temperatures, humility, wind, cloud cover, and
solar radiation that affect evapotranspiration.
Therefore, the Project’s Water Supply Assessment is Inadequate
D. The Project’s Water Quality Management Plan is Deficient Because It
Fails to Properly Evaluate Impacts Relating to Percolation; and Instead
Defers Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures for the
Project Site’s Infiltration and Percolation Tests
CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact
report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an
environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing
“[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future
time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an
exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 21 of 25
situations where “measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate
the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one
specified way.” (Id.) Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general
rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each
mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old City Ass’n v.
City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.)
Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to
be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms
but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild
Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred
mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its
management]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or
standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also
Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 442
[generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards];
California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195
[agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for
determining whether mitigation required]; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013)
218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish
specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did
not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would
be achieved]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting
mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring
landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific
performance standard]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131
Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible
delay].)
CEQA's demand for meaningful information “is not satisfied by simply stating
information will be provided in the future.” Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the
Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 723, 131
Before approving a specific plan for an entire development, the decision makers must
be informed of the intended source or sources of water for the project, “what the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 22 of 25
impact will be if supplied from a particular source or possible sources and if that
impact is adverse how it will be addressed.” Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of
Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 206.
According to the EIR, “[n]o percolation tests have been performed at the current time,
therefore, for the purposes of this report a design percolation rate of 1 in/hr was used
in the basin sizing calculations. Prior to the final design submittal, percolation tests will
be performed, and should the 1 inch/hour rate not be achieved, Maxwell drywells will
be proposed to de-water the basins within the required time period as specified by
Riverside County BMP requirements.” (DEIR, App. J.2, p. 2)
The FEIR states that to drain the basin, "the water will be drained into the large
retention basin on-site, which is unlined to allow percolation of the water into the
ground..” (FEIR, App, M.2,p. 3)
Deferring the percolation testing until sometime prior to the final design submittal not
only prevents the proper evaluation and mitigation of the Project’s impact relating to
Percolation, basin draining and de-watering but also, such deferment is impermissible
under CEQA.
Further, the Item is up for Planning Commission recommendation, yet there is no
information available regarding the percolation tests; besides the above -mentioned
deferred mitigation.
Therefore, the Water Quality Plan is inadequate and violates CEQA Guidelines. The
FEIR should be revised to address the impermissible deferment as well as to properly
evaluate the above Project’s impact relating to Percolation, basin draining and de-
watering.
IV. THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS
DEFICIENT
A. The FEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as Design
Modification, Which It Relies On to Eliminate Operation Noise Impacts
Relating to Cable Rollers During Artificial Waves Creation
The FEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for design modification or design
improvement” which the FEIR purports “effectively eliminates the cable roller system
operating noise source activities.” (FEIR, App. K3, p. 3)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 23 of 25
Relying on the cable roller design features, the FEIR concludes in many instances that
the Project’s impacts are less than significant and that no mitigation is required.
According to the FEIR, “[t]he reduce the operation noise source levels from the wave
basin/wave machine, the Surf Ranch modified the cable roller system. This design
modification placed the existing above water cable roller system assembly measured on
April 13, 2020, to an underwater cable roller system assembly that was measured on
August 15, 2021. This design improvement effectively eliminates the cable roller
system operating noise source activities.” (FEIR, App. K3, p. 3)
As discussed above, mislabeling these mitigation measures further violates CEQA
because such measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures
that are fully enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to
ensure that the measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant
environmental effects to the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines §
15091(d).) Therefore, using Project Design Modifications in lieu of mitigation
measures violate CEQA.
Therefore, the FEIR should properly adopt the Wave noise mitigation to ensure noise
levels relating to Waves production are eliminated throughout the entirety of the
Project.
B. The FEIR Adopts an Improper Environmental Baseline by Failing to
Evaluate Existing Biological Resources Conditions at the Project Site
According to PRC Section 15125(a) “An EIR must include a description of the
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. This environmental
setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental
setting shall be no longer than necessary to provide an understanding of the
significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. The purposes of this
requirement is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and
understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-
term impacts”
“Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they
exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 24 of 25
is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced . . . .” CEQA
Guidelines § 15125(a).
In regard to the peninsular bighorn sheep, the FEIR inaccurately states that “the
project does not provide suitable habitat for PBS” (FEIR, p. 3-6) this is further
reiterated from the DEIR’s conclusion that “[t]his species is not present at the site
due to the absence of suitable habitat.” (DEIR, p. 231 )
However, this information is not accurate, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife expressly stated that:
“The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular
bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the
potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep a federally
endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a
State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep.
Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP.
The DEIR incorrectly identifies that “this species [PBS] is not
present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (page
231)” (FEIR, p. 2-78)
Further, the DEIR fails to identify state regulations that are applicable to the Project
including: Natural Community Conservation Protection Act (Fish & G. Code
Sections 2800 et seq.), Lake and Streambed Agreements (Fish & G. Code Section
1600 et seq.); Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700), and CEQA.
By failing to adopt a proper baseline, omitting state regulations and mislabeling of the
mitigation measures, the FEIR fails to inform the public of critical information out
relating to potential environmental impacts.
In order to provide an accurate baseline, the FEIR should be revised and recirculated
with a correct the statement regarding species habitats on the Project Site.
V. CONCLUSION
Southwest Carpenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s FEIR
to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns,
feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort FEIR
March 22, 2022
Page 25 of 25
______________________
Mary Linares, Esq.
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
August 5, 2021 Letter from Mitchell M. Tsai re. Comments Regarding the Coral
Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit D);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
2023 0.6148 3 3649 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
5
1,627.529
5
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1 8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0 0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0 0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0 0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
2023 0.6148 3 3648 5.6747 0 0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0 0000 1,627.529
1
1,627.529
1
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0 0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4 0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966 8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909 3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2 8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0 0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0 0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20
2024 237.1630 9 5575 15.1043 0 0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170 8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2 0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204 9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2 2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2 2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1 5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1 5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153 8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0 0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0 0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0 0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0 0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9 5610 15.0611 0 0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0 0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160 8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1 9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193 0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2 0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206 9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1 5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149 5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144 8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.441
2
1,342.441
2
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1 8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0 0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658
2022 0.5865 4 0240 5.1546 0 0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0 0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
2023 0.5190 3 2850 4.7678 0 0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0 0000 1,342.440
9
1,342.440
9
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0 0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1 2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0 0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7 9962 19.1834 0 0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0 0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5 8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1 8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2 0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3 8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103 5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103 5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3 0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2 2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1 0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4 5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441 9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7 3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663 9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286 2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3 3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286 2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4 3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417 9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6 9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624 5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1 5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1 0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2 5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1 0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5 0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1 9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0 2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0 0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0 0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0 0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3 0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0 0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0 0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9 5478 14.9642 0 0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117 2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1 5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156 3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1 5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150 8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13 2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10 0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1 0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109 0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1 0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0 0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0 0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0 0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0 0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9 5503 14.9372 0 0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0 0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0 0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1 3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132 5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46 3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147 2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38 8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14 3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1 0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1 0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2 9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45 9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
R t )
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2 5
PM2 5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0 0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0 0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0 0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0 0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0 9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT D
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
August 5, 2021
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov
RE: Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310) – Comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Nucole Sauviat Criste,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or
“Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report
(“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project
(“Project”).
The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of
the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project
would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel
plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet
of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses,
and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a
general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist
Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a
previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a
tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development
agreement with the Project applicant.
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 2 of 33
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR
submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v
City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has
objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely
raised by other parties).
Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices
to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project.
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 3 of 33
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of
workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of
vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic
benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action
Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-
the-High-Road.pdf
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-
Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 4 of 33
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.
As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at
https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-
Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 5 of 33
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory
guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 6 of 33
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage
when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines §
15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”
specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve
these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing
the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 7 of 33
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact
Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen
significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice
has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public
agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant
to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in
order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information.
CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental
setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant
new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental
impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public
notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the
agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report
disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have
been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and
governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new
information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency
is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental
impact report.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 8 of 33
C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry
points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT
NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 9 of 33
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 10 of 33
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness
and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention
measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment),
policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of
sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no
more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands
lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable
local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require
that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before
being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe
Appropriate Project Alternatives
A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and it
should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives
to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of
the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of
specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020)
NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/
default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020)
Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-
safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 11 of 33
the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San
Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.)
While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be
so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could
still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v.
Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives
that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re
Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th
1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying
purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed
Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.)
Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the
nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives
include the “[development of] a high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) that
provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that
attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s
reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3-8.) If this remains a project
objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “high-
quality private wave basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the
tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation
facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project
alternatives can be considered.
E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence
When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously
discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the
DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by
substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.
See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099,
1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining
significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or
thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 12 of 33
(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an
impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing
an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for
a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that
Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain
herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific
timber harvesting project).
1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air
Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a
project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project
complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans),
and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project
emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow
lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so
long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency
“should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for
use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).
CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to
consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG
reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and
projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g.,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 13 of 33
projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency
jurisdiction);
(2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based
on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify
measures or a group of measures, including performance standards,
that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-
by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP
progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if
the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above-listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative
results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the
jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and
the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is
not cumulatively considerable.
Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as
it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts
throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See,
e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version
2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no
discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The
use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s
GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 14 of 33
The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality
impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air
pollutant emissions.
Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its
GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service
population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation
between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on
the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7-10). However, the DEIR fails
to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I
Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88
MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions
targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32
and SB 32.
2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality
and GHG Mitigation Measures
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's
significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§
21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any
feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental
effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the
project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental
degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the
impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of
Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall
11 Representing an emissions deduction of 40% from 1990 levels.
12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A).
13 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B).
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 15 of 33
short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation
Measure AQ-2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction
equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4
Final-compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 demands
the use of low-VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does
not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super-Complaint” architectural
be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts.
Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building
shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1-14),
but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency
standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should
apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The
Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1
and Tier 2) for both residential and non-residential buildings. (Cal. Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601).
The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan
area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and
non-residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the
mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures as required by CEQA.
3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design
Features”
The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or
“PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR,
4.1-13 through 4.1-15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5-18 through 4.5-19 (Energy);
DEIR, 4.7-11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s
conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance
rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is
required.
However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation
measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and
mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.”
(Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.)
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 16 of 33
When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance
determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no
significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there
were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at
652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(1).])
By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by
failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its
findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village
Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035
[quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d
506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such
measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully
enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the
measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to
the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are
presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s
Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and
subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA.
4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and
Recreation with Substantial Evidence
The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less
than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from
undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on
population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of
Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected
population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population
forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39-40.) La Quinta’s General Plan
Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.),
whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6-6),
raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the
population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 17 of 33
lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern
California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.)
The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have
cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially
the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required
by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative
impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's
incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211
Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).)
The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that
the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact vecause
the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and
because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s
General Plan.” (DEIR, 6-7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new
residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider the
cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending
projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze.
In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of
Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41-42; DEIR, 6-7 through 6-8). The CEQA
Guidelines identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will
include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project
dedicates 23.6 acres of previously-open space to the development of recreational
facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses.
This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the
DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from
analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational
spaces.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 18 of 33
F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS
Plans
Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable
communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080,
sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans
include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any
inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan.
In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which
proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments
to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent
per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035.
In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which
incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS 15, that
will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s
per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16
SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017
Scoping Plan and SB 375.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect
SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed
at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per
capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by
2035. 18
For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental
Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
(“MMRP”) that list project-level environmental mitigation measures that directly
and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s
15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115 (attached as Exhibit D).
16 Id., p. 8, 15, 153, 166.
17 SCAG (Sept 2020) Connect Socal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176
18 Id. At xiii.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 19 of 33
GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local
municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis
that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project-specific
environmental impacts.20
Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency with any of SCAG’s
aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is
consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project-level goals, including:
Land Use and Transportation
• Providing transit fare discounts 21;
• Implementing transit integration strategies 22; and
• Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and
automated vehicle technologies.23
GHG Emissions Goals 24
• Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of
project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as:
o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures
were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
19 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG (April 2012) Regional Transportation Plan 2012 – 20135, fn. 38, p. 77-86
(attached as Exhibit E).
20 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (attached as Exhibit E), p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, fn. 41, p. 115.
21 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”)
AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal
agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental]
as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation
to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]),; see
also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1-8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),; SCAG 2016
RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG-
3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA-1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)).
25 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/
guidelines/Appendix_F.html.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 20 of 33
o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy
consumption, including transportation energy.
o The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
• Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions.
• Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize
GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment;
o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other
materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase
use of renewable energy;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption;
o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
• Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as
vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and
telecommuting programs.
• Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-
occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for
those vehicles;
• Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low
emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 21 of 33
constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging
stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management
through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
Hydrology & Water Quality Goals
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply
requirements, such as:
o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should
promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to
drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather-
based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use,
and installing related water pricing incentives.
o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and
provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed
water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and
should be implemented where feasible.
o Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets,
water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection
and repair.
o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building
codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new
impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of
in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 22 of 33
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater
recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious
surface.
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set
by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and
waste discharge requirements, such as:
o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction.
o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater
runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable.
o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and
identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site
erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.
o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial
structures.
o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to
support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or
buildings.
o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for
construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404
permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit).
o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net
loss of impervious surface as a result of the project.
o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels,
detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers
to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where
required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on
new facilities.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 23 of 33
o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the
applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the
operator, the statewide permit applies.
o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter
control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water
quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff
discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as
possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-of-way, not just
later during the facilities design and construction phase.
o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge
permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long-
term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff.
o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as
detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to
control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design
of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of-
way acquisition process.
o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream
receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to
accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without
impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates,
volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in
stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes
induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or
contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological
function of any downstream receiving waters.
o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate,
or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that
accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel.
o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased
runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of
detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 24 of 33
velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian
buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in
peak flow rates from current levels.
o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of
natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff
flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible.
• Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater
Management Act and implementing regulations, such as:
o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement
monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure
proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and
minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on
groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply
with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the
Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing
urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the
greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of in-
lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent
conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge
as appropriate.
• Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and
local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program, such as:
o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which
requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration
and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 25 of 33
maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at
least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan
flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial
fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid
alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan
boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes
caused by global climate change.
Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
• Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to
reduce unnecessary employee transportation.
• Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board
for coordinating rides.
• Provide a vanpool for employees.
• Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing
strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel.
The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and
carpools/vanpool use, including:
o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that
exceed the requirement.
o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks).
o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.).
o On-site carpooling program.
o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation
options.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 26 of 33
o Parking spaces sold/leased separately.
o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and
shared parking spaces.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of
parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to
accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting areas.
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness
on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public
transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and
publicity about public transportation services.
• Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon
consultation with applicable CTCs.
• Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools
and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles.
• Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or
zero-emission vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the
Lead Agency, including:
o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles.
o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles.
o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing, including parking
spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public
transit.
o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement
ridesharing programs.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 27 of 33
• Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined
feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations.
o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer
ridesharing programs.
o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations
for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes.
o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten
lists, and other mechanisms.
• Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by
public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage
employers to subscribe to or support the program.
• Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and
major destinations.
• Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to
popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers.
• Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services.
• Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle
trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing
employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
• Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities.
• Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use,
including:
o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a
reduced parking fee.
o Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all
single-occupant vehicles.
Utilities & Service Systems
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 28 of 33
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11),
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green
Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following:
o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris
and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.
o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D
diversion.
o Development of indoor recycling program and space.
o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG
region during the construction and implementation of a project.
Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much
as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of
waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-
by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016
RTP/SCS policies can and should be required.
o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling
activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all
large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement
programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from
landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting,
recycling, and conversion technologies.
o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology
facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal,
and cardboard).
o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and
commercial projects.
o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant
businesses.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 29 of 33
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available
recycling services.
o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting
programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the
types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste
recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling
services.
The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures
and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate
what specific project-level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate
consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans.
G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section
CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 –
15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies,
other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and
the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other
authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to
demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain
comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on
a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a).
Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation
efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo
whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required
by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA
is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515.
Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies,
or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR.
The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in
the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public
Resources Code.
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 30 of 33
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND
ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or
“charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763,
773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796
fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal.3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 31 of 33
Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s
policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52
Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As
such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law.
B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s
Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals,
policies, and programs including the following:
• Policy LU-2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained;
• Goal LU-3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable
neighborhoods that provide a sense of place;
• Policy LU-5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing,
including affordable housing;
• Policy CIR-1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with
development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public
Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines;
• Policy SC-1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element);
• Policy SC-1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum
consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality
Element);
• Goal H-2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and
provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income
households;
• Goal H-3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system
that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents;
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 32 of 33
• Goal H-5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing
opportunities for all persons;
• Goal AQ-1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air
emissions generated within the City;
• Goal BIO-1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and
preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources
and their habitats;
• Policy WR-1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential
and commercial development projects;
• Goal OS-2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of
natural open space and preservation of open space areas;
• Goal OS-3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic
resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall
quality of life;
• Policy UTL-1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water
consumption rates over “business-as-usual” consumption rates.
The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals,
Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will
have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population,
biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This
discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also
with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts.
The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with
the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above.
Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the
City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
III. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or
prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned
concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR
August 5, 2021
Page 33 of 33
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C);
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
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
April 6, 2022
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Comments on the Coral Mountain Resort Project (SCH No. 2021020310)
Dear Mr. Tsai,
We have reviewed the February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the June 2021
Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”) located in
the City of La Quinta (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development consisting of
600 residential dwelling units, 150 key-resort rooms, 57,000-square-feet (“SF”) of resort-serving
commercial and recreational space, a 16.62-acre artificial Wave Basin, 60,000-SF of commercial space,
and 23.6-acres of open space recreation, on the 120.8-acre site.
Our review concludes that the FEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and
greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and
operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR
should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk and greenhouse gas
impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality Failure to Include PDFs as Mitigation Measures
The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant air quality impacts associated with Project
construction, operation, and special events. Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s Phase I
construction-related NOX emissions, Phase 3 operational VOC emissions, and special event VOC and NOX
emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds (p. 4.1-22, Table 4.2-5; p. 4.1-27,
Table 4.2-7; p. 4.1-30, Table 4.2-9). However, after the implementation of Project Design Features
(“PDFs”) and mitigation, the DEIR concludes that Project emissions would have less-than-significant
impacts (p. 4.1-23, Table 4.2-6; p. 4.1-29, Table 4.2-8; p. 4.1-31, Table 4.2-10).
2
The Project’s air quality analysis is inadequate, as the DEIR and FEIR should have incorporated all PDFs,
as described in the DEIR, as formal mitigation measures (p. 4.1-13 – 4.1-15). According to the
Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that
address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit
process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental
impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a
change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without
understanding the resulting environmental impact.”1
As you can see in the excerpt above, PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be
eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the PDFs described in the DEIR are not formally
included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored,
and enforced on the Project site. As a result, until the PDFs are included as mitigation measures, the
DEIR’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
The DEIR indicates that Project “[b]uildout [is] anticipated to occur in three primary phases over
approximately 4- to 6-years” (p. 82). Thus, by 2026, all three phases of construction would be
operational together. As such, the DEIR should have summed the Project’s operational emissions for
Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 in order to estimate the Project’s total operational air quality impact.
In order to correctly evaluate the Project’s air quality impact, we summed the DEIR’s operational air
quality emissions from all three phases of Project buildout. We found that the Project’s operational VOC
and NOX emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table
below).2
1 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
2 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
4
Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.4
Furthermore, the State of California Department of Justice recommends warehouse projects prepare a
quantitative HRA pursuant to OEHHA and local air district guidelines.5 The OEHHA guidance document
describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA
recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to
nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set
forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under
OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting
more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure
duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual
resident (“MEIR”). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can
reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we
recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure
duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect
the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an updated EIR require the
analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM
emissions for future individual projects.
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk
impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.6 Thus, in accordance with the
most relevant guidance, we recommend that the DEIR and FEIR require the Specific Plan to require
future individual projects to conduct an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing
receptors from construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions
The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) impact after the implementation of mitigation measure (“MM”) GHG-1 (p. 4.7-20). Specifically,
the DEIR states:
“The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project, is shown on
Table 4.7- 8, after implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures as enforceable
PDFs and MM GHG- 1. As shown, Project-related GHG emissions are reduced to 3.62 MTCO2e
per SP per year which is less than the applicable threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year.
While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, would offset the GHG emissions generated
4 “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.
5 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
6 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
5
by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions
elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG
emissions levels of the project itself. Moreover, as the use of carbon credits as mitigation for
GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and
resort community projects, this analysis conservatively considers impacts associated with GHG
emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City
cannot determine with certainty that the project’s GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than
significant level” (p. 4.7-20).
However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, the DEIR’s conclusion
that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an 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.”
As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible
mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1, which requires the Project
Applicant to purchase carbon offsets, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation (p. 4.7-26).
Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion that Project’s GHG emissions would be significant-and-unavoidable is
unsubstantiated. To reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional
feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the following section of
this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should
not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, including updated, accurate air modeling, as well as
incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG
impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we
identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce
the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project
Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures
(“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 7
7 “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.” Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
7
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in
certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider
installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or
better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as
appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA
on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM
emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
- Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher.
- Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines
meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or
CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp
and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp.
- Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the
emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur
content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and
generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the
vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and
expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model,
manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter
reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or
unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on
abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare
facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.
- The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad
construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards
Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways
9
ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible;
xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and
xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation,
and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies;
ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles;
iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care;
v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network;
vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service;
ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program;
f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing
amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the
regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within
developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and
h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs,
providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;
ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-
matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy
vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools,
secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites;
vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.
i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide
adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles;
j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit;
iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees;
10
iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles,
or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of
electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for
electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid
waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and
minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a
minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles
and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options
ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and
v. Educating employees about available alternatives.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as
include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the
Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery 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
11
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.
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
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:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment A
2
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 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.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
• 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.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
3
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted
4
public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned
about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
• 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:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt 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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
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.
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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
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 Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
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.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
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 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, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation
d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA
Rail, Defendants
Case No.: 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., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case Number 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 Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case Number 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
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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In 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 Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 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 Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
Hear no Evil -continued
Now information that Planning and the Commission need to know
S. Brower 26/2
To mxn up !1•re VIZ(22 Preeenb2tcwi
-Wayes and Surf Imve Low NequencV Noi3e Comporlu-I s thult wture rkot sludiem] in the GLx JI F.'{ountain EIR
• Law Fmgim y Nome wed c. ItE�d in tl7p Surf end Wave P.94CS Pilper tyy Shane Char -bars noLeO Chat Qpwecrmerit amtharjties should -ewiew Surf Parrs with aau5m
• The Z IP only resorted on OBA aud+ole rrols$ and mit dBC low •1roquency and pmsiiblm imaw bla ra�*
There is m ways to knows If the unstWieO Coral Mountain Surf Wave Paw wil' generate Low Frequerr-} Name tllHt cuuld aFfeci humans and wildlife adversely
■ The EIR rpFipdg tr, Lie rarimiil7ed dLIR tO mis rrawr 5Iljniflrant impact Iniorma ion pet 381509$,S
&eiour Anr11A,O(&2P Wz
Sound Expert Comments from Aptir V, M2
7brpy L, 5mred Ex , =nHmntad b Cwrnissicn #mi! -
New pulleys and synthetic wheRls rnake fie VLrave Mwhine rnuch qui r and any IQw 7ewen ncciw will be negated
7h�: q.tenk gvgr #ha FuWIq 24drasv vVV.,Qrn- TibN K ka;-Md tl 0.3 r*iL9 r k-P kh4
rnDv mL-M of the siad and sn Inucase In ralsa kw4s. from the rylu-hanlral eqdfipM z rt bLilldhng,;.
As. no slid mams [hrDtLph `halaporL who tramithro =W and mrhl nAers Is tloartfaudlh6r-
HowaMar, tihrm. hp" aarh urA.a awnr, the prYrrar4 nni.q imrer; iS 51rhplftha Inp��nS *f
w;W { rem each waw kn the lappm. boar a parlW of 53 mlri.UL kart waw L,,YB 4 wire
1L�T�i� s�+s t�✓+M►+KLl�1TJ4lhf�7rlSrvC�f�•Z{i3�7{•.1�=y1�5+S}�•=L'�4�l:K�li R�iKh'�+t-!{yLy]k71��:ti ;�
But turf and Mves have low FnEguency cam porrents Mat were na[ studiad or repartM on In try Cora; Mountaln R rt P IS
'A" aUN 12 +v. "c pwo i rAm l :, ■ M Dorm
Ycnw L went on to describe rluilee rneAsumments - that they rnpaaurnd eararything.
Willi wrldt rrvater?
Tho ExistlrAj Noiso I_AY6- %%as"rnorLts sectbar, m 1he Draft E1R identified [hat tra Mccola [I meter was used for Mal. stiuCy.
So whai Sound MEIET was used in ifle 10perotiarOl Nolse sEction for the Surf Wave Poal at Lemonre?
Furthermore, unDw the Existing Nprw aiudyr In ;he EIFCa the Iacklu$0er dewripaion cn hgw the 5cund muter5 Were p13L,ed aFound ttie
wave pool in Lerno re - no dray'irk�, n4 disMnre hetwLpn each metF-r (unfy 12 ft fn-ym snl,rae pr>nl wmi mP.ntioned)and marra._.urilikB
to Tmflic Nair Study which lays = measuring sites exactly on a map, meter type (nvre Fl"o4c 1.,.rrvta 6'k-,oal1D II We What was
carlcd'or ... mcssV wDrk) anld dots Ipri for each mcclyor Used.
.:.
i• i �'ti i' RR.
+mil-L-PI-1� 5 - r.:i `I I '�� S.: �'� •.r
_i
�
F+ Y
-
-F
i•
-
_
-
--
-
-
_
iirzr • it
�
�1
ii••
4•
�
�n r
- ,J I
_
_
Lc i 142 SLi
PLO
ICJ 1 #
r•..."' .!
4_
4
.'
4__c
II_
Rah■lanl
l�J•frn'
W�j��r
�1lAJ�
fit
u
IParidPn'i$ch.&i•+IIvmicdjq u -f-a
I 5-03 5L5
Sd!J
l,..I —.r.r4A"r'l ir..
U
La u0M.-h SON' Wr}Nrti". 53M 62S GL7
QE
U
Lu:cWs dKvY. cl Md4ml'iL crJ 5d E%rrt
dcJrvvw m ral a'rsl,r'r%k#1 caa'x
W
LauLwduu'Jww 36c=J'a m!51V.�m. r Sid
M
crdl43ihv3-SG
La � Ls d}ufh d3%:'M Av ariadc rml%m4
--
L3
oarrararlFcfrain Yr£acdre iUh. yL} 5!L
bF5
LA
LnvcLrdanry*£cn*2zIDuU Y..clFora'A u7 is
Asa
i WO Q 9! {4-vL-..i I
L7
L*=urd i n �aLr MA M1 iGr V hLeartaan>!0
3F!
5!1
hhi
dry e—,?r tm{'.
I ararrdIa rrk IF.f%eK rn r .71 ini A
I
L'J
Lacmk dtn Jana %SL rardraI C}zrrF•U. I:0,
�Lw 2"'k i ti#rarlLc�3tl7' Frs.
�2
i- 7
14.
LLv49kd{ri
dr�l7vac Ccd Y1'ti1 kr4carJllrr.
WIt' FI+.F r Inrr
r,r, 411d1dY •L .b., q, vr�rar"'Z k rda 1`,L"{ of r.��kjv� 6&rr . sr.
i e:Fm'-rVc� W1*0cI 'O-. I—WvMI ra5-3lc
Know thts..inely 3 sound rnattr raadi.F1gS.Wq9URpAffO out 01 oWht 8 tnta: dps€ dbod irl the EIRfnrthe Lpmoarp-
r easuroments. Ilrlharn erg tho othiv 5 f.ound meter readings' Whatwsre those meding5__..-naybe highr -'tee
don't knuo Bs it is nut 7-i thl9 aF:�iit SR ur ,appendix K-
Vubrse, bw daM Logs teak are autpul Syr the $nund Metgr are nat. supplir� In the Appendix K.
CiNyr a Sande 112. PYr+L m&gmirement wa3 tl;ed corre5pondiniq to the 75,7 d9A Leq, that tl- y stake 11:5 11he worst
reading tar niclse. How d-a we know. -,where - the sound meter data logs? The Planning Carrmis,,�+on needs :10
know this aria so W ula public before $R ouriflcatlon.
water from each wavy in thao- lame. Lmmr o perroy or -U rnIrrjhrs, ten w3m eveWm were
maiarmmd atL4&tdMagnt IK=konson Apnl 13, PROD. TnenAaronco r ha lawnlGv-inprtthat 9 col pf B readi s, where arFL tl'e FesV
dudrgFcak%ya,b&evprdy,1heW-aocbzP1n Ew c-W;-n c&A Irrclsr2ngngfmrrasz,sd&AIq*i-�eld
at the lbig an, 73a rA L., an the liftWard tawnr and M) de,; L,, noar the rahlo- rcilor;> OUM. dFIA CHY!
iUW-M nrn. i L URB,14J04!
brut tX Lxdc in*wu)i c r,Lm mi3c iTp Rr Am&3b
Tc degrihe ibe wom-wu gfereMe x#k lewd oar-ditrrroi} dw 1-klreil fefef"te rP.rlir: level
dexrlhlrg ea[h peak wave 4oiie eymi of 75.7 dElA L.., at a Onar o? & P ket it used. This
lefere -ma neiie Inmi Rely ueerstathe eivadled rkAe reMs from toe waw haai.Vwaw
rrae[hirbe seffvityr at sFt Coral Mour4sin lFecif c Sri srr+ce• it o-ily r yes The ACtIIAI wbue agent.
In addttt,nrIrpprDvaddo-Ups Flan ferthapmjtv. Fbwaplacrdahe -olble rallersysrenurderthat
warier surraw to aliminato gals nciso sourm Tho w--.w haslnjwaw ma,[F.lno aetwlos wall ba
lnaiterll to the da a hears d MCI a.rm `o b1m p_m- with na Flannee notti ne adtiuitxs
0.Nrm---Aora Wk P928r+# `�
We measured iewery ttirrg...
Jif YhO of maybe
deperids om %Yhat gDurx.l me1pr w.-A usim in Lemi)l om to mlk3r.t Sn[jrri Power L&Oyels MW -are Used to gLrlerate� dBA arw] dBC
Since the Qperat mEJ Naive Sian of the Draft.EJFI doesn't stake 4wnat sound rrAEL!LF or class IM4 vlan urmd at L�maa-e. are we
to M&UMf3 it wW. ins S^ft do Piccolo II meter that was clad in tro Exlsling Noise L II Uea% lremer-1ts In the Draft E lR?
If we assurre it is JNo Piccolo II far Lor 1Jem Surl Pool Onera,.9onal Nciso Collection, dear..--yas it measurs deIA and d8C.,.
h�jr since the I ernooFe Siud� was onllr oche using d&k ; 3Mswd the dt3A butter. or.1he metro, sm bell — onh/ a -raw dBC
non-pefceftlGe meosure1 enil cou10 be mprarked 10 Krsu..Th3ir fore no LIK Ievnis Iik� what La Cvlryra requite 3 For Traffic strrdi-as.
MnremvFff, a good I. -Ow Frequency Noise study nnig171 use a 02m I ineter Yrhk t_ is more Ser-sitive 1n Low Fregriarr.�
memuremer�9 and the Low Frequell y Noise SCLpJy mAgrll aia:i bps struoiuretl differeritly vAth Bourne Meter pla ert ar-oWr+d the
Lemmire vftm turf PW1
" OW* -Ary atL%ALL4ffkk" by wmmW"kKEG cdd=rpCmWw cf&.m mtcokFgmmry*fqamm4A r9ca m*imAFrm r 4%. AMrt
2y..'-V-W--14-0%F-**#V#4 rh fsb kk%m}MWWT tvir, 11a f hftml� +'Mora b43*mma er*pd% mN!u Ana 111� ■ -Om a aM&W cMpc mri�y�n
Woompm do HPi rwe W Wn n wa idwdWW ar mWoyr&FWm1 ].M v d4d,cmm {ho+R M+bkwYW i me.?.*R d, m"e�rrwL
BrU rcgrv%
U,31&A35di Fk udia3uR Ing
aor2w+44N06DIRLON5uy ftww
Z �,walasafu�m
L• 4 �n1�
��qA fNM
eft
11 the} used Me Soft d8 Piccolo JIa Ingle dBQrusfing, but it will be Ilmlred as no perceni,las are reported and were pod plocemcnf is unkr -rt
Don 1t�e fcr 'Ch, don't worm} about Lowy VroqumLy Noise. --you can't hEmr it --- it's jLnt nottl-ere_ t1Tongr R rr1�gf't to Moro -as it can advarmly affwt t uman3 anj
wildlife men in die jnLgydlxle rargee
o. viuw, -ApNC aft 2M PsAb8
The Noise Study in line Coral Mountain EIR is derieiant
TrRre is a new Sign:fcarik Najge Impact with rho unstudied Low FrapgUonc� Naiso that Gan aliim' himans and wildilda al% emoly
The ;oral Mountain EIR needs to be rac*;jjUeR:. pux SS 7.50E-OZ
'I hank You.
9.14rrwo�- Avid M DM2RMip7