DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IP 16-213 SADDLEBACK GATEWAY INTERIM OPERATIONS PLAN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

COUNTY OF ORANGE OC COMMUNITY RESOURCES OC PARKS 13042 Old Myford Road, Bldg. 5 Irvine, California 92602

Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 (949) 261-5414

January 2017 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE ...... 1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE AND IMPROVEMENTS ...... 3 1.3.1 Open Field ...... 3 1.3.2 Upper Meadow ...... 3 1.3.3 Oak Woodland Trail Area ...... 3 1.3.4 Trailhead and Trail Staging Area ...... 3 1.3.5 Public Vehicular Access, Parking and Staging ...... 4 1.3.6 Signage ...... 4 1.3.7 Fencing and Gates ...... 4 1.3.8 Waste Receptacles ...... 5 1.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...... 5 1.4.1 Staffing ...... 5 1.4.2 Equipment and Supplies ...... 5 1.4.3 Law and Ordinance Enforcement ...... 5 1.4.4 Fire Prevention/Control ...... 6 1.4.5 Emergency Operations ...... 6 1.5 PUBLIC OUTREACH ...... 7 1.6 PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AND INITIAL STUDY ...... 7 1.7 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 7 1.7.1 Location ...... 7 1.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS...... 9 1.8.1 Lead Agency Approval ...... 9 1.8.2 Reviewing Agencies ...... 9

SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ...... 11 2.1 DETERMINATION ...... 11

SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 12 3.1 ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 12 3.2 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS ANALYSIS ...... 12 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 12 3.3.1 Aesthetics ...... 13 3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...... 16 3.3.3 Air Quality ...... 17 3.3.4 Biological Resources ...... 25 3.3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 35 3.3.6 Geology ...... 40

Chambers Group, Inc. ii 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

3.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 43 3.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 44 3.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 48 3.3.10 Land Use Planning ...... 52 3.3.11 Mineral Resources ...... 53 3.3.12 Noise ...... 53 3.3.13 Population and Housing ...... 58 3.3.14 Public Services ...... 59 3.3.15 Recreation ...... 61 3.3.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 62 3.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 64 3.3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 66

SECTION 4.0 – REFERENCES ...... 68

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B – AIR QUALITY AND NOISE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX D - CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Chambers Group, Inc. iii 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map ...... 2

Figure 2: Existing Features of the Former Silverado Elementary School ...... 8

Figure 3: Proposed Project Land Use ...... 10

Figure 4: Biological Survey Area ...... 26

Figure 5: Vegetation Communities Map ...... 28

Figure 6: Hazardous Materials Sites Locations ...... 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Regional Thresholds of Significance ...... 21

Table 2: Local Thresholds of Significance ...... 22

Table 3: Short-term Regional Emissions from Construction of the Proposed Project ...... 22

Table 4: Short-term Local Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor ...... 23

Table 5: Long-term Emissions from Operation of the Proposed Project ...... 24

Table 6: Existing Noise Level Measurements ...... 54

Table 7: Construction Equipment Emissions and Usage Factors ...... 57

Table 8: Proposed Project Construction Noise Levels ...... 57

Chambers Group, Inc. iv 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

In 1956, Orange Unified School District (District) acquired the Silverado Elementary School property. Due to limited student populations and a tight economy, the elementary school closed in 2009. In June 2010, the County of Orange acquired 20,000 acres of North Irvine Ranch Open Space land from the Irvine Company, including the area surrounding the Silverado Elementary School; this surrounding open space is managed by Orange County Parks (OC Parks). In August 2010, the District contacted the County of Orange regarding purchasing the school property to be used by Orange County Public Libraries and OC Parks. The Orange County Board of Supervisors subsequently approved the purchase of approximately 11.1 gross acres with net useable area of 10.5 acres in May 2013, and the County of Orange acquired the land on May 14, 2014. In 2016, OC Parks drafted the Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan (IOP) for the Saddleback Gateway Project (Project), which consists of reusing and repurposing 10.5 acres of the former Silverado Elementary School for use by OC Public Libraries and OC Parks (Figure 1).

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE

Approximately 10.5 acres of the former Silverado Elementary School will be established as a centrally located facility for the 20,000 acres of former Irvine Ranch Open space OC Parks owns and manages; it will provide a new location for OC Public Libraries to expand its Silverado Branch Library; and it will provide other amenities for the residents of the unincorporated canyon communities and the public. The land use concept for the Saddleback Gateway Project takes advantage of the approximately 10.5- acre former Silverado Elementary School facilities, while proposing to enhance each area for a more diverse group of opportunities for current and future public uses. In support of the proposed uses, OC Parks has prepared an Interim Operations Plan to facilitate public use through the following:

. Guide the management of the facility for safe public access, natural and cultural resources protection, environmental education, and recreation purposes

. Outline the implementation plan for the initial site improvements and the proposed long-term conceptual land use/operational plan – including potential staffing needs

Provide a location for community members and groups to use for indoor and outdoor public events and programs such as community concerts, outdoor movies, and educational events. This document evaluates the implementation of the IOP for the Saddleback Gateway Project. Components associated with the proposed Project are described in detail in Section 1.3. Currently, an adaptive reuse component of the Silverado Elementary School includes the conversion of Buildings A and B into a library (Library of the Canyons) and multipurpose building, respectively, for non-exclusive use and events; this action was evaluated in a separate CEQA document (IP14-273, County of Orange 2014) and, therefore, is not analyzed further in this document.

In addition, although the existing Silverado Children’s Center is located in the northeastern portion of the property, it is not included as a part of the proposed Project because it will continue to operate independently of the Saddleback Gateway Project.

Chambers Group, Inc. 1 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map

Chambers Group, Inc. 2 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE AND IMPROVEMENTS

1.3.1 Open Field

OC Parks plans to partner with other entities to manage various recreational uses of the outdoor facilities based on separate management plans. The existing field located on the north side of the site shall be maintained as an open play area. Park guests can use this area for passive and informal recreational activities.

This open field in the northern area of the site shall serve as an event space area for community special events such as concerts, outdoor movies, and fairs. In addition, smaller events that may require hardscape can take place in the event parking lot area, while the guests can park in the open field area. Additional parking for specific large-scale events, such as the annual Chili Cook-Off, can be provided in off-site location. Special events, such as the annual Chili Cook-Off, that may exceed the existing regular parking capacity will require a Traffic and Parking Management Plan (TPMP), as well as a public property permit issued by OC Parks. A framework for the TPMP is provided in Appendix A.

1.3.2 Upper Meadow

A meandering trail will be constructed through a new native grassland meadow area along the gently sloping hillside to the east of the Library of the Canyons and Multipurpose Building, known as the Upper Meadow, with benches spaced at locations with views to the surrounding open space. An outdoor gathering space is proposed in the lower portion of the Upper Meadow at the former small blacktop play area near the proposed Visitor Center and Multipurpose Building. In addition, new pathways will connect the outdoor patio adjacent to the Multipurpose Building to the Upper Meadow, Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area, and trailheads to the surrounding open space.

1.3.3 Oak Woodland Trail Area

Located in the southern portion of the property, the Oak Woodland Discovery Area will provide a natural play area and environmental education site. The Project involves the maintenance and rehabilitation of an existing system of pathways to provide opportunities for natural play and interaction with indigenous flora and fauna. No new trails will be created. Maintenance and rehabilitation may include trimming of vegetation, grading/smoothing existing trails, and removing dead vegetation. No living trees are proposed for removal. The former informal small amphitheater will be reconstructed with similar materials and within the same footprint to allow for outdoor education programs. Interpretive signage is also proposed as a future addition to this area.

1.3.4 Trailhead and Trail Staging Area

Under the Irvine Ranch Open Space managed access program, the public will have access to a 2.3-mile Mesa Loop Trail that begins from the north end of the property and ascends to the top of the mesa with views to the adjacent Black Star Canyon area to the north and Limestone Canyon Nature Preserve to the south. The trail will travel from the northerly Mesa Loop Trail trailhead southerly along the eastern edge of the open field and continue through the Upper Meadow and Oak Woodland Discovery Area to the Northern Mesa Loop Trail trailhead. The trail may provide mountain biking and equestrian access, although public interest is anticipated to be limited due to the length of the trail.

Chambers Group, Inc. 3 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

1.3.5 Public Vehicular Access, Parking and Staging

Public vehicular access to the Project site will be provided from existing dedicated turn lanes to/from Santiago Canyon Road entry and exit driveways. Day to day vehicular access will remain the same as existing conditions and will be limited to the existing parking lot and turnaround area accessible off the main entry driveway. The main driveway will be used as the vehicle access to the main parking lot for the Library of the Canyons and Multipurpose Building, Visitor Center, and staging area. Additionally, this same driveway will provide access to the event parking lot. The second driveway, located offsite just north of the main driveway, will serve as the vehicle access to the Silverado Children’s Center and the large-animal temporary refuge area. The existing gravel parking area next to the Visitor Center may be capped with decomposed granite.

The proposed Project will contain a variety of parking facility options to accommodate guests and staff. The main parking lot is located in the existing parking area along Santiago Canyon Road. It currently has a capacity of 30 vehicles. Minor patching and resurfacing and striping will occur in the existing main parking area. A new parking/staging area will be designed and installed just south of the existing parking area between the Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area and the Visitor Center (see Figure 3). This staging area will accommodate approximately 20 vehicles and 5 horse-trailers. This secondary parking area can be used for overflow parking reserved for scheduled public access programs to the adjacent trails or for special events. When larger special events take place, the hard court play area to the north of the proposed library will be designed to accommodate additional event parking. This hard court play area was previously used by the school during special events.

1.3.6 Signage

The existing school signage on the property shall be systematically replaced with new signage, starting with the monument sign located near the main entry off Santiago Canyon Road. Sign types proposed shall include:

. Information and regulatory signs

. Interpretive signs

. Way-finding signs

The OC Parks’ Signage and Graphics Master Plan will be used as a guideline for design and implementation of all new signs. All signs shall be prepared, installed, and maintained by OC Parks. Signs shall be focused on visual information – designed to be brief and graphic, using icons and simple language. Additionally, signs shall contain the appropriate contact information for access and emergencies. Currently, the Project proposes the replacement of 5 24”x36” and 12 12”x12” information/regulatory signs (either aluminum or phenolic resin on wood 4”x4” posts), 3 30”x48” interpretive signs (phenolic resin on 4”x4” posts), and 12 24”x24” wayfinding signs (either aluminum or phenolic resin on wood 4”x4” posts).

1.3.7 Fencing and Gates

Existing perimeter fencing will be repaired/replaced as needed, including installing/replacing gates where needed. Gates required for vehicular access/control shall be upgraded to OC Parks’ standards and

Chambers Group, Inc. 4 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California will reflect the rural characteristics of the area. OC Parks will maintain the fencing and gates to a standard needed for appropriate site safety and management requirements.

1.3.8 Waste Receptacles

In general, several new permanent trash containers will be located throughout the proposed Project, designed appropriately for each site area. Because the proposed Project is surrounded by a large wilderness area, the trash containers will be of a design and emptied on a schedule that eliminates any contact by or disturbance to wildlife. OC Parks will provide the trash container services for the Saddleback Gateway, while OC Public Libraries will provide trash services for trash containers found within the library proper, per existing OC Public Libraries/OC Parks Memorandum of Understanding (County of Orange 2013).

1.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The overall site, including the Library of the Canyons and the parking lot, as well as surrounding recreation spaces, will be open during general library/park hours. No lighting changes are proposed for the Project site. Also, meetings and educational programs may be conducted outside the general library/park hours in the Multipurpose Building by OC Parks staff or through an agreement with agencies such as the Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park District (SMRPD) or other entities. Additionally, portions of the park (such as the open field, Upper Meadow, and Oak Woodland Discovery Trail) may be closed for a number of days following heavy precipitation, depending upon quantity of rain received, and at any time when OC Fire Authority officials request use of the site for emergency operations as part of a response to local fire or flooding emergency events. Details on the site’s operations and maintenance practices are provided in the IOP. The Silverado Children’s Center operates under a separate agreement, with separate operating hours.

1.4.1 Staffing

During initial operations, the facility will serve as a field office for OC Parks staff but may not have staff dedicated to the site on a daily basis. Initially, OC Parks staff from Saddleback Operations Group that access the facility as a satellite property also will continue to use Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park as their primary park office. Irvine Ranch Open Space and OC Parks Field Services staff may also utilize the facility as a field office, as needed. In the future, this site may expand to function as a primary office for OC Parks facility staff if operations from adjacent facilities warrant increased staffing.

1.4.2 Equipment and Supplies

Large equipment may be stored temporarily for maintenance projects, emergency incidents, and special and community events (e.g., fire, flood, weed abatement, tree trimming, chipper day, canyon cleanup day, etc.). When possible, locations will be selected that have the least impact on the library operations and vehicle ingress/egress.

1.4.3 Law and Ordinance Enforcement

As requested by Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), OC Parks has agreed to allow the use of a workstation in the OC Parks administrative office space in the Library of the Canyons. The workstation will be used by OCSD deputies to perform administrative work while patrolling in the canyon area.

Chambers Group, Inc. 5 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

All applicable local, state, and federal laws and/or ordinances pertaining to the protection and use of the property, whether originating at the local, regional, state, or federal level, shall be in effect and enforced.

. Park Rangers shall enforce, through the issuance of civil citations, Division 5 of Title 2 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange (Parks, Beaches and Recreational Areas) on OC Parks grounds outside the Library of the Canyons.

. Park rangers shall coordinate and cooperate with federal, state, and other local agencies, as necessary, on the enforcement of the other applicable laws and/or ordinances.

1.4.4 Fire Prevention/Control

In continuation of existing responsibilities at the site, OC Parks staff will be responsible for performing regular weed abatement to maintain defensible space clearance around the site’s buildings.

1.4.5 Emergency Operations

Large-Animal Temporary Refuge Area

OC Parks staff will maintain the grounds around the evacuation site, perform weed abatement, and make any necessary repairs to infrastructure. Although no construction is proposed at the large-animal evacuation area as part of the proposed Project, the Inter Canyon League (ICL) currently retains an OC Parks permit to open, manage, and close the refuge during emergency incidents and is included as part of the Project operations. The opening of either staging area for temporary refuge must be based on a perceived threat to the Silverado, Modjeska, Black Star, Baker, or Williams canyon communities from fire, flood, or other substantial life-threatening condition. Utilization of the staging area is intended to be on a temporary basis (24-hour maximum). Prior to the opening of either staging area, the ICL shall notify OC Animal Care and confirm with OC Parks staff that the refuge area is available for occupancy and whether any special site limitations will be in effect during the occupancy period. ICL shall ensure the refuge area will be accessed in a manner that does not block or impede traffic to and from the Silverado Children’s Center. The refuge area shall be accessed exclusively from the Silverado Children’s Center driveway (just north of project area); no access to the refuge area is permitted from the library/park entrance and parking lot.

Disaster Incident Command Center

In the event of a major emergency such as a wildland fire, flood, or medical emergency, the site will be available to stage vehicles, equipment, and personnel associated with the incident from OC departments of Fire, Law Enforcement, Public Works, and Animal Control. Emergency operations from this site will be in coordination with the Orange County Emergency Operation Center (EOC).

Emergency Procedures

The site can be made available to be used as a staging area for emergencies such as fire or flooding. Emergency procedures (e.g., emergency access maps; police, fire, and paramedic response, etc.) shall be established and posted within the facility at various locations. Emergency access maps are intended to support emergency response by park rangers and outside emergency medical service (EMS) personnel.

Chambers Group, Inc. 6 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

1.5 PUBLIC OUTREACH

In 2014, OC Parks held two public meetings: the first in August and the second in December. The purpose of these meetings was to update the public on the progress of the Silverado Library relocation project, share the proposed development plan, and reach out to the public to obtain comments and suggestions for future site land uses and events.

1.6 PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AND INITIAL STUDY

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), all “projects” within the State of California are required to undergo environmental review to determine the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project. CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed project and identify possible ways to avoid or minimize significant environmental effects of a project by requiring implementation of mitigation measures or recommending feasible alternatives. CEQA applies to all California governmental agencies at all levels, including local, regional, and state, as well as boards, commissions, and special districts.

The County of Orange (OC Parks), as Lead Agency for the Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA to determine if approval of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the proposed Project.

1.7 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

1.7.1 Location

The Project site consists of the approximately 10.5-acre former Silverado Elementary School site (Figure 2). The Project site is located adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road, approximately a half mile southeast of the Silverado Canyon Road and Santiago Canyon Road intersection in unincorporated Orange County (County). The Project site is easily accessible from Santiago Canyon Road. The site is adjacent to OC Parks-managed Irvine Ranch Open Space (IROS) lands including Black Star Wilderness Park to the north and Limestone Canyon Wilderness Park to the south.

The proposed Project site is approximately 8 miles north of O’Neill Regional Park and approximately 2 miles north of Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park. The Project site is bordered to the west by Santiago Canyon Road and is surrounded on the other three sides by Black Star Wilderness Park, which is a part of the IROS management unit. This portion of Black Star Wilderness Park is encumbered by a conservation easement that requires managed public access and other resource management activities. IROS is managed by OC Parks with supplemental scientific monitoring, maintenance, volunteer, and docent-led access services provided by the Irvine Ranch Conservancy through contractual agreement.

Chambers Group, Inc. 7 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 2: Existing Features of the Former Silverado Elementary School

Chambers Group, Inc. 8 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Aside from its educational purpose, the former Silverado Elementary School site was a favorite gathering place where residents from the local canyons (i.e., Modjeska, Silverado, Black Star, Williams, and Baker) held many social events. As depicted in Figure 3 below, the proposed Project land uses support the site as a community gathering location. Of the approximately 10.5-acre site, the proposed land uses include approximately 1.9 acres for the Open Field, 2.6 acres for the Upper Meadow, 1.8 acres for the Oak Woodland Trail Area, and 2.8 acres for the parking lot and buildings. The remaining approximately 1.4 acres of the Silverado Children’s Center will remain unaffected by the Project. In 2015, the County of Orange (County) opened an approximately 0.3-acre “large-animal temporary refuge” area in the southeast corner of the Project site. This refuge area provides additional options for residents in nearby fire-prone areas to temporarily place large animals during wildfires or other emergency events.

1.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

As required by the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides, to the extent of the information known, a list of agencies that are expected to use this IS/MND in their decision making for issuing any applicable permits and other approvals required to implement the proposed Project.

1.8.1 Lead Agency Approval

This IS/MND will be adopted by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors as to its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA before taking action on the proposed Project. The analysis presented in this IS/MND is intended to provide a full disclosure of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and any mitigation measures identified to reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant.

1.8.2 Reviewing Agencies

Reviewing agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary approval authority over the Project but that may review the IS/MND for adequacy and accuracy. Potential reviewing agencies include the following:

. California Office of Planning and Research

. California Office of Historic Preservation

. Native American Heritage Commission

Chambers Group, Inc. 9 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 3: Proposed Project Land Use

Chambers Group, Inc. 10 20921

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.18 provide a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The evaluation of environmental impacts follows the questions provided in the Checklist provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

3.2 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS ANALYSIS

For each question listed in the IS checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:

. No Impact. A designation of no impact is given when no adverse changes in the environment are expected.

. Less Than Significant. A less than significant impact would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment.

. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A potentially significant (but mitigable) impact would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of mitigation measure(s).

. Potentially Significant. A significant and unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed Project (e.g., the proposed Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the proposed Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.

“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Chambers Group, Inc. 12 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

“Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” Mitigation measures are identified and explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures may be cross-referenced).

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the Program EIR or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier analyses used where they are available for review

b) Which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis

c) The mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed Project for effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated

References and citations have been incorporated into the checklist references to identify information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Source listings and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

The explanation of each issue identifies:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant

3.3.1 Aesthetics

The existing features of the former Silverado Elementary School are shown in Figure 2. The proposed Project site is located within Santiago Canyon east of and along East Santiago Canyon Road for approximately 0.2 mile south of the intersection with Irvine Mesa Road and approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the Silverado Canyon Road intersection. From East Santiago Canyon Road, the viewshed to the east toward the Project site includes the school buildings, shrubs, power poles and lines, and chain link fence along Santiago Canyon Road. From East Santiago Canyon Road, the viewshed to the west includes both vacant and occupied properties bordered by shrubs and a chain link fence. The Project site is located within and at the base of the Irvine Mesa loop trail, with direct views of the Irvine Mesa trail immediately to the north and ridges west of the Project site.

The former Silverado Elementary School buildings and parking lot are approximately 0.1 mile south of Irvine Mesa Road. The existing site contains two driveways that are bordered by a chain link fence. To the south/southeast of the existing parking lot, an additional access road leads to a separate small building adjacent to the former school. The former elementary school buildings can be seen from cars

Chambers Group, Inc. 13 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California driving on East Santiago Canyon Road as well as well as by hikers on the Irvine Mesa loop trail. The Silverado Children’s Center is located northeast behind the former Silverado Elementary School and is at an elevation approximately 20 feet higher than the former school buildings. In addition, two open fields are located within the Project area.

As outlined on the Orange County Scenic Highway Plan, the Project site is located on Silverado Canyon Road, which is a designated viewscape corridor. The Project site is located within OC Parks-managed IROS but is currently designated as Rural Residential in the County’s General Plan. a) Would the project have a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse effect on a scenic vista? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact. The Project site comprises approximately 10.5-acres; and proposed Project components include an open field for passive recreation, introduction of a trail with connections to an existing trail network, a small amphitheater offering opportunities for outdoor education, a visitor center, and updated parking as well as other general site improvements. The County of Orange General Plan states that “one of the roles of open space within the county is to provide areas for outdoor recreation (e.g., parks, beaches, trails) and areas with aesthetics, historic or cultural values” (County of Orange 2005). The Project site is not specifically designated as a scenic vista or an aesthetic resource by the County of Orange.

Construction of the proposed Project would have the potential to affect views of the Project site by introducing small pieces of equipment during construction; however, construction would not require major changes to existing facilities or require substantial earthwork that would dramatically alter the scenic quality of the site. Furthermore, construction impacts would be temporary and cease upon project completion. The Project site is located in a canyon and, therefore, is obscured from many viewer locations by elevated areas surrounding the Project site. Although the Project site is visible from Silverado Canyon Road and other adjacent uses, the proposed Project would not introduce any new structures that would interfere with designated scenic vistas from these locations. Furthermore, the Project site is not specifically identified as a scenic vista, and the proposed Project would introduce elements that would enhance the existing aesthetic character of the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially Potentially Less than Less than No damage scenic resources, including, Significant Significant Significant Impact but not limited to, trees, rock Impact With Mitigation Impact outcroppings, and historic buildings Incorporated within a state scenic highway?

b) Less than significant impact. As described above, construction of the proposed Project would not require major changes to existing facilities or require substantial earthwork that could dramatically alter the scenic quality of the site. No rock outcroppings are present on the Project site; and trail construction/improvements would not substantially alter existing vegetation,

Chambers Group, Inc. 14 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

including trees, on the Project site. As described in Section 3.3.5 a) below, current project design would not impact any historic buildings; and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce any currently unanticipated impacts on historic resources to a level less than significant.

In addition, no designated State scenic highways are located within the vicinity of the Project site. The closest State scenic highway to the Project site is State Route (SR) 91 (approximately 8.5 miles away from the Project site), which is designated as a scenic highway between SR-55 east of the Anaheim City limit (Caltrans 2016). This highway is located approximately 6 miles north of the Project site, and the Project site is not visible from the highway. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially Potentially Less than Less than No degrade the existing visual character or Significant Significant Significant Impact quality of the site and its Impact With Mitigation Impact surroundings? Incorporated

c) Less than significant impact. The Saddleback Gateway Project would utilize project components such as an open field for passive recreation, introduction of a trail with connections to an existing trail network, a small amphitheater offering opportunities for outdoor education, a visitor center, and updated parking as well as other general site improvements. Other general site improvements would occur, including on-site signage placement and repairing existing fencing and gates. Introduction of these Project elements would alter the visual character of the site during construction; however, construction would not require major changes to existing facilities or require substantial earthwork that could dramatically alter the visual character of the Project site. Furthermore, construction impacts would be temporary and cease upon Project completion.

The appearance of the Project elements and improvements would be similar to the existing conditions, as the site is currently developed and the proposed Project would improve the character of the site. Since the Silverado Elementary School has been closed since 2009, the Saddleback Gateway Project would improve conditions at the site and make the site available for passive recreation, educational uses, community events, and other activities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source Potentially Less than Less than No of substantial light or glare which Significant Significant Significant Impact would adversely affect day or Impact With Mitigation Impact nighttime views in the area? Incorporated

d) Less than significant impact. No changes to the existing lighting at the Project site will occur. As a result, no adverse impacts related to light and glare would affect views in the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or

Chambers Group, Inc. 15 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Potentially Less than Less than No Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Significant Significant Significant Impact Farmland of Statewide Importance Impact With Mitigation Impact (Farmland), as shown on the maps Incorporated prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

a) No Impact. The Project site consists of the former Silverado Elementary School site and is surrounded by open space. Neither the Project site nor any of the surrounding area is currently in agricultural production. Review of the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) available online determined that the majority of the proposed Project site is classified as Urban and Built Up Land, while the southernmost portion of the Project site is classified as Other Land. All land surrounding the Project site is classified as Other Land as well. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not impact any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. No impacts would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing Potentially Less than Less than No zoning for agricultural use, or a Significant Significant Significant Impact Williamson Act contract? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

b) No Impact. The Project site is not protected by a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is currently zoned as A1 (SR) – General Agricultural with Sign Restriction. However, the Project site is not in agricultural production; and the use of the Project site for community and recreational activities would be consistent with the permitted uses allowed in this zone. Zoning Code Section 7-9-55.2: Principal Uses Permitted, lists “(c) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (non- commercial)” as facilities allowed under A1(SR) – General Agricultural District with Sign Restriction. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing Potentially Less than Less than No zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest Significant Significant Significant Impact land (as defined in Public Resources Impact With Mitigation Impact Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as Incorporated defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))?

Chambers Group, Inc. 16 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

c) Neither the Project site nor surrounding areas possess any forest land or timberland. Furthermore, the County of Orange does not have a zoning designation for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impacts would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of Potentially Less than Less than No forest land or conversion of forest land Significant Significant Significant Impact to non-forest use? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

d) No Impact. Neither the Project site nor surrounding areas possess any forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur. e) Would the project involve other Potentially Less than Less than No changes in the existing environment Significant Significant Significant Impact which, due to their location or nature, Impact With Mitigation Impact could result in conversion of Farmland, Incorporated to non-agricultural use or conversion forest land to non-forest use?

e) No Impact. The Project site consists of the former Silverado Elementary School site and is surrounded by open space. Neither the Project site nor any of the surrounding area is currently in agricultural production. Similarly, neither the Project site nor surrounding areas possess any forest land or timberland. Therefore, no agricultural resources or forest land or timberland resources are on the Project site or adjacent properties; and implementation of the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur.

3.3.3 Air Quality

The Project site is located within an unincorporated portion of Orange County. The proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), and air quality regulation is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD implements the programs and regulations required by the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Construction and operational air quality modeling was performed through use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. The model output is provided in Appendix B.

Atmospheric Setting

Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographical features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with physical features of the landscape to determine their movement and dispersal and, consequently, their effect on air quality. The combination of topography and inversion layers generally prevents dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB.

Chambers Group, Inc. 17 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

The climate of the SCAB is influenced by the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, which results in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes. Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist due to the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as “high fog,” are a characteristic climate feature. Average temperatures for Tustin Irvine Ranch, which is the nearest monitoring station to the Project site (Western Regional Climate Center2016), range from an average low of 40.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to an average high of 85.2 °F in August. Rainfall averages approximately 12.86 inches a year, with almost all annual rainfall coming from the fringes of mid- latitude storms from late October to early April and summers being almost completely dry.

Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a Project site because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in the SCAB are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer months. Nighttime winds in the SCAB result mainly from the drainage of cool air off the mountains to the east, and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day.

During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems north of the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong winds from the northeast called “Santa Ana winds.” These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour with higher gusts during a Santa Ana wind.

Regulatory Setting

The Project site lies within the SCAB, which is managed by the SCAQMD. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.

Areas are classified under the federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the state standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAB has been designated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for O3 and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, SO2, and NO2. The SCAB is designated as partial nonattainment for lead based on two source-specific monitors in Vernon and in the City of Industry that are both near battery recycling facilities. The 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Los Angeles County provides measures to meet attainment of lead by December 31, 2015.

Chambers Group, Inc. 18 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

The EPA has designated the SCAB as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour average ozone standard. On March 12, 2008, the EPA strengthened its 8-hour “primary” and “secondary” ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). The previous standard, set in 1997, was 0.08 ppm. The SCAQMD, the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB, developed the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that was approved by CARB on September 27, 2007, and provides measures to reduce 8-hour ozone levels to below the federal standard by June 15, 2021.

Additionally, the EPA has designated the SCAB as nonattainment for PM2.5 and PM10. In 1997, the EPA established standards for PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers), which were not implemented until March 2002. PM2.5 is a subset of the PM10 emissions whose standards were developed to complement the PM10 standards that cover a full range of inhalable particle matter. For the PM10 health standards, the annual PM10 standard was revoked by the EPA on October 17, 2006; and the 24-hour average PM10 attainment status was redesignated to attainment (maintenance) on July 26, 2013.

The 2007 AQMP provides measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions to within the federal standard by 2015. On January 25, 2013, the CARB approved the 2012 AQMP that was prepared per the federal Clean Air Act requirements to show attainment of the PM2.5 standard by the revised date of 2014.The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2007 AQMP utilized to reduce PM2.5 emissions in the SCAB. On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 12 µg/m3. The SCAQMD is currently working on the preparation of a new air quality management plan in order to meet the revised PM2.5 standard.

The SCAB has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for O3, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the state ambient air quality standards for CO, SO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility-reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide. The 2007 and 2012 AQMPs provide measures to meet the state standards for O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The control measures in the 2012 AQMP consist of three components: 1) basin-wide and episodic short-term PM2.5 measures; 2) Section 182(e)(5) implementation measures; and 3) transportation control measures. Many of the control measures are not based on command and control regulations but instead focus on incentives, outreach, and education to bring about emissions reductions through voluntary participation and behavioral changes. More broadly, a transition to zero and near-zero emission technologies is necessary to meet 2023 and 2032 air quality standards and 2050 climate goals. Many of the same technologies will address both air quality and climate needs. a) Would the project conflict with or Potentially Less than Less than No obstruct implementation of applicable Significant Significant Significant Impact air quality plan? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

Chambers Group, Inc. 19 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that “New or amended GP [General Plan] Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).

(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations?

Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, it was determined that short-term construction impacts and long-term operations impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional, local, and toxic air contaminant thresholds of significance.

Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.

Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?

Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide consist of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the County of Orange General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The proposed Project consists of development of a Visitor Center that will be located in an existing structure, expansion of the existing parking lot near the proposed Visitor Center, management of the existing Open Field on the northern area of the Project site, development of the Upper Meadow with trails, benches, and outdoor gathering spaces, and reconstruction of the trails and amphitheater in the Oak Woodland Trail Area. The Project site is currently designated Rural Residential on the County’s General Plan Land Use Map and is Zoned A1 –

Chambers Group, Inc. 20 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

General Agriculture. The proposed Project consists of conforming uses within these land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the proposed Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP; therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. b) Would the project violate any air Potentially Less than Less than No quality standard or contribute Significant Significant Significant Impact substantially to an existing or proposed Impact With Mitigation Impact air quality violation? Incorporated

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project area is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. To estimate if the proposed Project may adversely affect the air quality in the region, the SCAQMD has prepared the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) to provide guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts of proposed projects. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the air basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 1.

Table 1: Regional Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day)

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: SCAQMD, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf

Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SCAB. In order to assess local air quality impacts, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the Project-related air emissions in the Project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final LST Methodology (SCAQMD 2008), which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The Project site comprises approximately 10.19 acres; however, portions of the Project site such as the Silverado Children’s Center and the Silverado Branch Library (currently under construction) are not a part of the proposed Project and large portions of the Project site will not be disturbed by the

Chambers Group, Inc. 21 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

proposed Project, so the 5-acre Project site shown in the Look-Up Tables was utilized for this analysis. The Project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 19, which covers Saddleback Valley. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Silverado Children’s Center (daycare facility) located adjacent to the northeast side of the Project site and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site. According to LST Methodology, allowable emissions for any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter thresholds. Table 2 below shows the LSTs for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.

Table 2: Local Thresholds of Significance

Allowable Emissions (pounds/Day)1 Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction 197 1,804 12 8 Operation 197 1,804 3 2 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are Silverado Children’s Center, located adjacent to the Project site, and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, allowable emissions for all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5 acres in Saddleback Valley found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst- look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Construction of the proposed Project would create air emissions primarily from equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. The air emissions from the proposed Project were analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model (see Appendix B). Construction activities would include demolition of the approximately 8,100-square-foot former blacktop play area adjacent to the east side of the proposed Visitor Center; grading of the proposed parking lot expansion, proposed trails, and outdoor gathering areas; and resurfacing and graveling the existing paved parking area and proposed parking lot expansion area. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to start around September 2016 and be completed in approximately four months. Table 3 shows the estimated worst-case summer or winter daily emissions that would be predicted from each phase of construction.

Table 3: Short-term Regional Emissions from Construction of the Proposed Project

Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day1 Activity ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition (blacktop play area) 4.44 46.81 36.98 0.04 2.72 2.24 Grading 3.78 39.06 27.59 0.03 4.96 3.40 Paving (resurfacing and gravel) 2.40 22.46 15.64 0.02 1.43 1.21 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed? No No No No No No 1 Includes implementation of SCAQMD’s Rule 403 fugitive dust minimum requirements, which are anticipated to reduce dust by a minimum of 55 percent. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.

Chambers Group, Inc. 22 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

As shown in Table 3, short-term emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction-related regional emissions would be less than significant for the proposed Project.

The proposed Project’s construction-related air emissions from fugitive dust and on-site diesel emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Silverado Children’s Center (daycare facility) located adjacent to the northeast side of the project site and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site.

The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. In order to determine if any of the analyzed pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the LST Look-Up Tables. Table 4 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated emissions thresholds.

Table 4: Short-term Local Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor

On-site Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day1 Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition (blacktop play area) 45.66 35.03 2.46 2.16 Grading 38.45 26.08 4.75 3.34 Paving (resurfacing and gravel) 22.39 14.82 1.26 1.16 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)2 197 1,804 12 8 Exceed? No No No No 1 Includes implementation of SCAQMD’s Rule 403 fugitive dust minimum requirements, which are anticipated to reduce dust by a minimum of 55 percent. 2 The nearest sensitive receptors are Silverado Children’s Center, located adjacent to the Project site, and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, allowable emissions for all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-Up Tables for 5-acres in Saddleback Valley.

The data provided in Table 4 shows that construction-related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s local air concentration thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction-related local air concentrations would be less than significant for the proposed Project.

Operation of the proposed Project would create air emissions primarily from landscape equipment, consumer products, and from additional vehicle traffic to the Project site. The air emissions from the proposed Project were analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model (see Appendix B) and were based on the operation of an 8.23-acre city park, which is based on the 10.19-acre Project site minus the area utilized for the Silverado Children’s Center, the Silverado Branch Library (currently under construction), and the proposed parking lot area. Table 5 shows

Chambers Group, Inc. 23 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

the estimated worst-case summer or winter daily emissions that would be predicted from each phase of construction.

Table 5: Long-term Emissions from Operation of the Proposed Project

Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day Activity ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources (landscape equipment 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 and consumer products) Mobile Sources (vehicle trips) 0.04 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.02 Total Operational Emissions 10.78 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.02 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters -- 197 1,804 -- 3 2 (82 feet)1 Exceed? No No No No No No 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are Silverado Children’s Center, located adjacent to the Project site, and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, allowable emissions for all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.

As shown in Table 5, long-term operational emissions would not exceed either the SCAQMD regional or local criteria pollutant thresholds. As such, operations-related criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant for the proposed Project.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation. c) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No cumulatively considerable net increase Significant Significant Significant Impact of any criteria pollutant for which the Impact With Mitigation Impact project region is non-attainment under Incorporated an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

c) Less than significant impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the SCAB; however, the greatest source of emissions in the SCAB is from mobile sources. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and, when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the proposed Project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The Project site is out of attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

As discussed above in 3.3.3 (b), the proposed Project does not involve substantially new activities. Instead, the proposed Project would involve re-use of an existing developed site and

Chambers Group, Inc. 24 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

minor construction activities associated with trail enhancements, expansion of a parking area, and other general site improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive Potentially Less than Less than No receptors to substantial pollutant Significant Significant Significant Impact concentrations? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

d) Less than significant impact. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Silverado Children’s Center (daycare facility), located adjacent to the northeast side of the Project site, and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site. As discussed above in 3.3.3(b), the local concentrations of emissions have been calculated for construction and operational activities. The analysis above found that less than significant criteria pollutant concentrations would occur during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project create objectionable Potentially Less than Less than No odors affecting a substantial number of Significant Significant Significant Impact people? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

e) Less than significant impact. Any diesel equipment used during construction of the proposed Project would consist of mobile equipment that would be changing locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Should diesel equipment be required during maintenance at the Project site, it would also change locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Construction and operation at the Project site would not introduce any other objectionable odors. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.4 Biological Resources

Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) conducted a biological literature review as well as a reconnaissance survey on March 15, 2016. Methods are provided in Appendix C. The survey area is shown in Figure 4.

Regulatory Requirements

The following federal/state and local regulatory requirements are listed in this section because the proposed Project has the potential to impact special status habitats or species, or the proposed Project must comply with the regulations based on the project description and proposed Project activities.

Chambers Group, Inc. 25 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 4: Biological Survey Area

Chambers Group, Inc. 26 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Federal and California Endangered Species Acts

Both the federal and California Endangered Species Acts, as well as Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, require consultation with the regulatory agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) for projects that could result in the “take” of a federally or state listed threatened or endangered species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (amended 1972) prohibits the taking of migratory birds (including birds of prey), their nests, or their eggs.

Existing Conditions

Details regarding the biological database searches and biological reconnaissance survey are presented in Appendix C. A summary of the results of species and communities present or assumed present from the biological database searches and biological reconnaissance survey are presented below. The vegetation communities within the Project area are shown in Figure 5.

Vegetation Communities

Vegetation communities located within the Project site consist of Ruderal vegetation, Coast Live Oak Woodland, California Sagebrush Scrub, Non-Native Grassland, and Ornamental Landscaping (Figure 5). Other areas not classified as vegetation communities include Disturbed and Developed. The following sections summarize the characteristics of vegetation observed within the Project area. Principal characteristics of the vegetation on the Project site, list of plant species considered identified in the literature review, and a complete list of plant species observed during the survey are presented in Appendix C. Representative site photographs also are included in Appendix C.

California Sagebrush Scrub

Approximately 2.0 acres of California Sagebrush Scrub occurs within the southern portion of the Project site within the proposed Oak Woodland Trail Area. Plant species observed within the Project site typical of this vegetation community include: California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and deer weed (Acmispon glaber).

Coast Live Oak Woodland

Approximately 1.5 acres of Coast Live Oak Woodland occurs within the southern portion of the Project site within the proposed Oak Woodland Trail Area as well as within the northern portion of the Project area at the Silverado Children’s Center. Plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include: white flowering currant (Ribes indecorum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea).

Chambers Group, Inc. 27 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 5: Vegetation Communities Map

Chambers Group, Inc. 28 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Non-Native Grassland

Approximately 0.7 acre of Non-Native Grassland occurs within the southern portion of the Project site within the proposed Oak Woodland Trail Area as well as within the northern portion of the Project area at the Silverado Children’s Center. Plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include: wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis).

Ruderal

Approximately 6.8 acres of Ruderal vegetation occurs over the majority of the Project site. Ruderal plant species found on the Project site include: non-native tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), non-native lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album), non-native Russian thistle (Salsola australis), non-native red- stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), non-native cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and non-native brome grasses (Bromus sp.).

Ornamental Landscaping

Approximately 1.2 acres of Ornamental Landscaping occurs throughout the Project site. Plant species found on the Project site typical of this community include: ornamental pine (Pinus spp.), birch (Betula spp.), oleander (Nerium oleander), and bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spectabilis).

Sensitive Plants

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (CNPSEI) literature reviews (CDFW 2016a, 2016b) resulted in a list of 13 sensitive plant species that have records of occurrence on or within the vicinity of the Project site. One of the 13 sensitive plant species is federally and/or state listed as an endangered or threatened species. Of those 13 sensitive plant species, only 4 species have a potential to occur on site. These species were not observed on site during the reconnaissance survey. The current California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) listing status for each species is provided after its scientific name.

Due to the presence of low quality suitable habitat within the 0.2 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub on site, the following two species have a moderate potential for occurrence at the Project site and are described in more detail below:

. Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), CRPR 4.2 . many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), CRPR 1B.2

Due to the presence of good quality suitable habitat within the 0.2 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub on site and historical occurrence records within 1 mile, the following two species have a high potential for occurrence at the Project site and are described in more detail below:

. intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), CRPR 1B.2

. intermediate monardella (Monardella hypoleuca subsp. intermedia), CRPR 1B.3

Chambers Group, Inc. 29 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Sensitive Wildlife

The CNDDB literature review resulted in 25 sensitive wildlife species that have records of occurrence on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Five of the 25 sensitive wildlife species are federally and/or state listed as endangered or threatened species. Of those 25 sensitive plant species, only 11 species have a potential to occur on site. The current listing status for each species is provided after its scientific name.

Due to the presence of poor quality habitat within the 0.7 acre of Grasslands on site, the following species have a low potential for occurrence at the Project site:

. California horned-lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), SWL

Due to the presence of low quality habitat within the 0.2 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub on site, and approximately 1.5 acre of Coast Live Oak Woodland on site for Cooper’s hawk, the following eight species have a moderate potential for occurrence at the Project site:

. coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), SSC . coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis), FBCC, SSC . coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), SSC . orangethroat whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), SSC . red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), SSC . San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), SSC . Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), SWL . southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), SWL

Due to the presence of good quality suitable habitat and historical occurrence records within one mile, the following two species have a high potential for occurrence at the Project site and are described in more detail below:

. coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), SSC . coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), FT, SSC

Critical Habitat

Approximately 1.7 acres of critical habitat for arroyo toad occur within the southern portion of the Project site within the proposed Oak Woodland Trail Area.

Wildlife Species Observed on-Site

The Project site supports wildlife species that are characteristic of the Ruderal vegetation community present on the Project site and adjacent natural habitat. The following paragraphs describe the wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance survey. No sensitive wildlife species were observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance survey. Refer to Appendix C, Attachment 2 for the full list of wildlife species observed and detected on the Project site.

Chambers Group, Inc. 30 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Reptiles and Amphibians

One reptile, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), was observed during the reconnaissance survey.

Birds

A total of 23 bird species were observed at the Project site during the reconnaissance survey. Some of the bird species observed include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).

Mammals

One mammal was observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance survey: California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).

Jurisdictional Waters

Definable features for jurisdictional waters were not observed at the time of the survey.

Soils

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Web Soils Survey, the Project site is composed entirely of Myford Sandy Loam with 2 to 9 percent slopes. This alluvium-derived parent material is a moderately well-drained soil type with depth to the water table of more than 80 inches. The available water storage in the profile tends to be very low (approximately 2.9 inches) occupied by primarily nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) water (USDA 2016). a) Would the project have a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse effect, either directly or Significant Significant Significant Impact through habitat modifications, on any Impact With Mitigation Impact species identified as a candidate, Incorporated sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?

a) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. None of the 13 sensitive plant species and none of the 25 sensitive wildlife species were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Habitat conditions are not present on the Project site for 9 of the 13 plant species and 14 of the 25 wildlife species that resulted from the literature search; therefore, these species are considered absent from the Project site at this time; and no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required.

Habitat conditions are present on the Project site within the 0.2 acre of California Sagebrush Scrub located in the northeast corner of the 1.8-acre Oak Woodland Trail Area for four plant species that resulted from the literature search. Of the four plant species, two species,

Chambers Group, Inc. 31 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Plummer’s mariposa lily and many-stemmed dudleya, have a moderate potential to occur. The other two species, intermediate mariposa lily and intermediate monardella, have a high potential to occur within the California Sagebrush Scrub mapped within the Oak Woodland Trail Area within the Project site. Since the California Sagebrush Scrub within the Project area is located only in the Oak Woodland Trail Area, which involves the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing pathways/trails by trimming and removing dead material and other debris, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on California Sagebrush Scrub, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, or on any sensitive species. Impacts would be less than significant.

Ten wildlife species were identified as having either moderate or high potential to occur on the Project site. As identified above, the 0.2-acre California Sagebrush Scrub within the Project area is located only in the 1.8-acre Oak Woodland Trail Area, which involves the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing pathways/trails by trimming and removing dead material and other debris. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on California Sagebrush Scrub, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, or on any sensitive wildlife species. Impacts would be less than significant.

Habitat for the Cooper’s hawk exists within the Oak Woodland community identified on the Project site; however, no substantial adverse effects would occur to this species or its habitat since the Oak Woodland will not be directly impacted (i.e., no substantial tree cutting or complete tree removal is proposed) beyond the existing trails within the habitat. Although no direct impacts to habitat of this species are to take place, indirect impacts such as harassment or noise could affect nesting individuals within this habitat. Nesting individuals are protected, as discussed below.

Many trees and a small number of shrubs were observed on the Project site during the field survey. Therefore, the proposed Project would have the potential to disturb ground-nesting birds and birds nesting in trees within the Project site and surrounding areas, which has potential to result in a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act and would reduce impacts on nesting birds to a level less than significant:

MM BIO-1: In the event that construction of the proposed Project is planned during the nesting bird season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be required within the Project site and adjacent habitat. Work shall be initiated within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey.

MM BIO-2: All active bird nests shall be fenced and/or flagged in all directions at a minimum of 150 feet for passerines, 300 feet for listed species, and 500 feet for raptors. This buffer shall not be disturbed by project activities until the nest becomes inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, and the young are no longer expected to be impacted by the project.

Chambers Group, Inc. 32 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

MM BIO-3: If 10 days have passed since an area has been surveyed, and construction work has not been continuous in that area, then work shall not take place in that area until a new nesting bird survey has been performed.

MM BIO-4: If active nests are observed adjacent to the Project site and an avoidance buffer has been established, it is recommended that a biological monitor be present on site to monitor nesting behaviors in order to assess if the nest buffer is appropriate. If the birds show any sign of stress, the buffer will be increased, and work should be conducted elsewhere until fledging occurs. If necessary, the size of the buffer area may be reduced if the wildlife biologist determines, upon consultation and concurrence from the appropriate agencies, that the construction activity would not be likely to have adverse effects on the particular species. b) Would the project have a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse effect on any riparian habitat Significant Significant Significant Impact or sensitive natural community Impact With Mitigation Impact identified in local or regional plans, Incorporated policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) No Impact. Riparian habitat is not present on the Project site. The isolated coast live oak trees present on site, although sometimes typical of riparian vegetation, do not constitute a cohesive native vegetation community on site and are not expected to support nesting riparian birds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project have a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse effect on federally protected Significant Significant Significant Impact wetlands as defined by Section 404 of Impact With Mitigation Impact the Clean Water Act (including, but not Incorporated limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

c) No Impact. Wetlands are not present on the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impacts would occur.

Chambers Group, Inc. 33 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California d) Would the project interfere Potentially Less than Less than No substantially with the movement of Significant Significant Significant Impact any native resident or migratory fish or Impact With Mitigation Impact wildlife species or with established Incorporated native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

d) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project is located within a developed site. No established native or migratory corridors are located within the proposed Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would it impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any Potentially Less than Less than No local policies or ordinances protecting Significant Significant Significant Impact biological resources, such as a tree Impact With Mitigation Impact preservation policy or ordinance? Incorporated

e) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project is located within an area covered under the Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan (County of Orange 1977) which does have a policy related to tree preservation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-5 would conform with the policy or ordinance protecting trees to a level less than significant.

MM BIO-5: Trees exceeding 5 inches in diameter will be preserved or replaced in conjunction with any grading or construction activity. In situations where development necessitates tree removal, the county may require tree planting (appropriate species of any size) and maintenance (watering as necessary) on the subject property or public right of way on a one-for-one basis. f) Would the project conflict with Potentially Less than Less than No provisions or an adopted Habitat Significant Significant Significant Impact Conservation Plan, Natural Community Impact With Mitigation Impact Conservation Plan, or other approved Incorporated local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

f) No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur.

Chambers Group, Inc. 34 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

3.3.5 Cultural Resources

California Historical Resources Information System Records Search

On March 15, 2016, Chambers Group performed a cultural resources literature review at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), at California State University, Fullerton, in Fullerton, California. The SCCIC is part of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) which houses records for previously recorded cultural resources; the SCCIC retains the records specifically pertaining to the Project site.

The records search and literature review includes the Project site and a 0.25-mile buffer surrounding the Project site. The Project site consists of an approximately 10.5-acre area that comprises the footprint of the former school and grounds of the former Silverado Elementary School. The additional 0.25-mile area surrounding the Project site was included in the cultural resources literature review to assess the overall sensitivity of the area. The available historic maps reviewed included 1902, 1942, 1946, 1947, and 1963, the latter of which depicted the footprint of the Silverado and Modjeska Elementary School.

The records search and literature review resulted in the identification of one previously recorded cultural resource and 12 technical reports within the records search area. The single previously recorded cultural resource identified was not within the Project site, and only 5 of the 12 technical reports encompassed portions of the Project site. In summary, the single previously recorded cultural resource was not identified as being listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or local registries. The Silverado Elementary School campus was constructed in 1956, and the current literature review indicated that the campus has not been previously recorded nor has it been evaluated for inclusion to the CRHR or NRHP.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search

On March 14, 2016, Chambers Group requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). On March 17, 2016, the NAHC provided Chambers Group with the results of the review and a list of Tribal Groups and representatives affiliated with the Project site. A review of the NAHC SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American traditional sites/places within the Project site or the 0.25-mile buffer surrounding it. The NAHC did note that the absence of archaeological features and Native American cultural resources does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level and recommended the County contact the listed Tribal Groups and representatives.

AB 52 Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation

The County is conducting the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Tribal notification and consultation for the proposed Project. The County transmitted AB 52 notification letters to the three Tribal groups within the geographic area (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians) on June 24, 2016. On June 27, 2016, Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, responded with a letter requesting site monitoring and stated, " we would like to request one of our certified Native American Monitor to be on site during any and all ground disturbances (including but not limited to pavement removal, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching) to protect any cultural resources which may be effected during construction or development.” On July 8, 2016, the County responded to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians’ request for monitoring by asking additional documentation and information related to the high

Chambers Group, Inc. 35 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California sensitivity attributed to the site and environs. Shortly, there after the County discussed the monitoring with Mr. Salas, who then asked that a copy of the MND with the Cultural resources and Paleontological resource assessment be provided to him for review during the public review period for any additional comments.

Site Reconnaissance Results

On March 21, 2016, Chambers Group conducted an initial site reconnaissance of the Project site. The purpose of the site visit was to identify any cultural resources previously not recorded within the Project site. No archaeological resources were identified during the survey. The Silverado Elementary School campus was originally built in 1956. The campus is a historic-period built environment cultural resource. For the purposes of this study, notes and photographs of the campus and buildings were collected to assess current conditions and potential impacts associated with the proposed Project activity.

The current surface conditions of the Project site show disturbance from recent disking/vegetation clearing in open fields associated with the campus. This was especially apparent within the northwestern portion of the property that contains recently installed animal corrals for emergency evacuation procedures. The northern portion of the property also consists of former school grounds facilities including sports fields and asphalt-surfaced outdoor activity areas. Additionally, the northwestern portion of the Project site includes the current Silverado Children’s Center (daycare facility). The Children’s Center was first opened in 1989, is still in operation, and consists of modular structures.

Paleontological Research Results

On March 21, 2016, Chambers Group requested a literature search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA). On March 24, 2016, NHMLA responded and indicated that no fossil localities are known within the Project site, but localities are recorded within the general vicinity. More specifically, the response is as follows:

“According to geologic mapping, almost all of the proposed Project site has older Quaternary terrace deposits at the surface. These deposits most often do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in the very uppermost layers but may contain significant vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary deposits at relatively shallow depth. Our closest vertebrate fossil locality from these older Quaternary deposits is LACM 7867, southwest of the proposed Project site in the Orange County Great Park area near the intersection of C Street and 5th Street that produced fossil specimens of pocket gopher, Thomomys, at a depth of 25 feet below the surface. Our next closest vertebrate fossil from these deposits is LACM 7713, further southwest of the proposed Project site on the western side of the Laguna Freeway (Highway 133) at the southern end of the interchange with the San Diego Freeway (I-405), that produced a fossil specimen of ground sloth, Mylodontidae, from unstated shallow depth.

“On the very northeastern and southeastern margins of the proposed Project site there may be exposures of the middle to late Eocene Santiago Formation, and that rock unit probably occurs at unknown depth in the rest of the proposed Project site. We have no fossil vertebrate localities from the Santiago Formation in Orange County, but we have several localities from this rock unit in San Diego County. Our closest vertebrate fossil locality from the Santiago Formation is LACM 5347, situated in San Onofre Canyon east of Interstate 5 that produced fossil specimens

Chambers Group, Inc. 36 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

of the insectivore Sespedectes. Our other Santiago Formation vertebrate fossil localities include LACM 3881, 3883-3884, 3979, 4022, 5346-5347, 6926 and 68102, clustered around Carlsbad that produced a composite fauna of primarily mammals... David J. Golz (1976. Eocene Artiodactyla of Southern California. Los Angeles County Museum Science Bulletin, 26:1-85) published on the LACM specimens of the protoceratid artiodactyl Leptoreodon leptolophus and the camels Protylopus petersoni and Protylopus stocki from our Santiago Formation locality LACM 68102.

“Grading or shallow excavations in the uppermost few feet of the Quaternary terrace deposits exposed in most of the proposed Project site are unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains. Deeper excavations in that portion of the proposed Project site that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, as well as any excavations in the possible exposures of the Santiago Formation in the proposed Project site, however, may well encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Any substantial excavations in the proposed Project site, therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Sediment samples should also be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed Project site. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.” a) Would the project cause a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse change in the significance of a Significant Significant Significant Impact historical resource as defined in Impact With Mitigation Impact §15064.5? Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the literature search, no known resources are listed on the NRHP or CRHR within or surrounding the Project site. The site visit and additional research found that the Silverado Elementary School campus was built in 1956 and has not been evaluated formally for NRHP or CRHR eligibility. Based on preliminary review, the school site is of historic age and appears to represent a type of architecture that is unique and underrepresented in the area; therefore, in lieu of a formal historical resources evaluation, the campus is considered eligible for CRHR listing for the purposes of this analysis. While the subject property may be determined to lack eligibility when formally evaluated, assuming historical significance for the campus allowed for a more informed analysis regarding potential impacts to historic-period properties.

Despite the assumption of CRHR eligibility, the current IOP for the proposed Project does not propose any modifications to the school site that are irreversible. The Project only proposes repurposing and reusing existing facilities, and no permanent alterations are proposed for the school site as part of this Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of any known or potentially significant historical resources.

Chambers Group, Inc. 37 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California b) Would the project cause a substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse change in the significance of Significant Significant Significant Impact an archaeological resource pursuant to Impact With Mitigation Impact §15064.5? Incorporated

b) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the records search and pedestrian survey, no previously recorded archaeological resources are within the Project site. The records search did indicate one prehistoric archaeological site (lithic scatter) within a 0.25- mile radius of the proposed Project. Based on available data, this site has not been evaluated and is not currently listed on the NRHP, CRHR, or local registries. However, because this site is located outside the Project site, no potential impacts to this resource would be related to the proposed Project.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of any known or potentially present archaeological resources within the Project site. CEQA Section 15064.5 provides the process for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Therefore, adherence to all applicable codes and regulations would result in less than significant impacts. If unknown cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2 would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a level less than significant.

Based on the literature review and NAHC response, no known prehistoric sites or SLFs are within the Project site or surrounding vicinity. The County is taking the lead on AB 52 tribal notification and consultation to address this section. The results of AB 52 will be included in this IS/MND when available. As a result, the proposed Project would not cause “substantial adverse change” in the significance of any known or potentially present Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) within the Project site. Should TCRs be identified during AB 52 consultation, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2 would reduce impacts on TCRs to a level less than significant.

MM CUL-1: The proposed Project does not intend to disturb intact soils that have the potential to encounter previously unknown cultural resources. However, in the event that cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, work in the immediate area must halt until the findings can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the discovery proves to be potentially significant under CEQA, as determined by the qualified archaeologist, additional work (e.g., data recovery) may be required to mitigate the find. Additionally, in the event the find is identified as a tribal cultural resource (e.g., prehistoric, protohistoric, historic Native American site), additional consultation with the appropriate Native American representatives for the area may be required.

Chambers Group, Inc. 38 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California c) Would the project directly or indirectly Potentially Less than Less than No destroy a unique paleontological Significant Significant Significant Impact resource or site or unique geologic Impact With Mitigation Impact feature Incorporated

c) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project would require little to no excavation occurring within native or previously undisturbed soils. In the event that project excavation is proposed within previously undisturbed soils or will encounter deeper intact strata, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a level less than significant.

MM CUL-2: The proposed Project does not intend to disturb intact soils that have the potential for impacting previously unrecorded paleontological resources. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt until the findings can be evaluated by the qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will assess the significance of the find and, if identified significant, will provide guidance to avoid and/or mitigate the find to less than significant levels. d) Would the project disturb any human Potentially Less than Less than No remains, including those interred Significant Significant Significant Impact outside of formal cemeteries? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

d) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the literature review and pedestrian survey, no known cemeteries or burial sites are within proposed Project site or within the surrounding 0.25-mile radius. Based on the IOP for the proposed Project, there is a low likelihood to encounter previously unknown and unrecorded human remains.

As a result, the proposed Project would not cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of any known or potentially present human remains within the Project site. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-4 would reduce impacts on human remains to a level less than significant. Per Mitigation Measure MM CUL-4, the proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 if human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 provides procedures to address the unlikely discovery of human remains. CEQA Section 15064.5 provides the process for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated artifacts. Therefore, adherence to all applicable codes and regulations would result in less than significant impacts.

MM CUL-3: The proposed Project does not intend to disturb intact soils that have the potential to encounter any previously unknown human remains. However, in the event of an

Chambers Group, Inc. 39 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

unanticipated discovery of human remains, per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC, who shall notify the most likely descendant (MLD). Per PRC 5097.98 (a) the MLD must complete the inspection and recommendations of the site within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. If an MLD is not identified or if the recommendations are rejected by the landowner as not feasible for the proposed Project, then the landowner may reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance [PRC 5097.98 (b)].

3.3.6 Geology a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake Potentially Less than Less than No fault, as delineated on the most Significant Significant Significant Impact recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Impact With Mitigation Impact Fault Zoning Map issued by the Incorporated State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

a) i) Less than significant impact. Because southern California is a seismically active region, the potential exists that regional earthquakes would occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. However, review of the County of Orange General Plan Safety Element determined that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or immediately adjacent to known active and potentially active earthquake faults including the Whittier Fault, Elsinore Fault, Elysian Park Fault, and Newport-Inglewood Fault (County of Orange 2014a). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to rupture of a known earthquake fault; and a less than significant impact would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

ii) Less than significant impact. As noted above, Orange County is in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults including the Whittier Fault, Elsinore Fault, Elysian Park Fault, and Newport-Inglewood Fault (County of Orange 2014a). While the Project site is located in a seismically active region, the proposed Project does not include the development of any new structures that would expose people or structures to substantial

Chambers Group, Inc. 40 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would remain unchanged from the existing condition; and impacts would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, Potentially Less than Less than No including liquefaction? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

iii) Less than significant impact. The areas surrounding the Project site are within seismic hazards zones for liquefaction or landslides (CDC 2001). While the Project site is located in a seismically active region and prone to seismically-induced landslides, the proposed Project does not include the development of any new structures that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects within the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would remain unchanged from the existing condition; and impacts would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

iv) Less than significant impact.While the Project site is located in a seismically active region and prone to seismically-induced landslides, the proposed Project does not include the development of any new structures that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects within the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would remain unchanged from the existing condition, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial Potentially Less than Less than No soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would not involve major construction activities on site, as the existing Silverado Elementary School facilities would be used for indoor facilities that would be a part of the Saddleback Gateway Project. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, as the proposed Project mainly involves general site improvements for access, parking, signage, fencing, and trail usage. Furthermore, construction best management practices (BMPs), including erosion and sediment control measures, would be implemented as part of the proposed Project to prevent loss of soils. Typical erosion and sediment control BMPs that would be implemented include but are not limited to the following:

. Temporary sediment control through techniques including silt fencing, fiber rolls, and sandbag or straw bale barriers

Chambers Group, Inc. 41 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

. Tracking control through techniques including stabilized construction roadways and exits/entrance areas and tire washes

. Waste management and materials pollution control including stockpile management; spill prevention and control; and management of solid, hazardous liquid, contaminated soil, concrete, or other wastes

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located in a Potentially Less than Less than No geologic unit or soil that is unstable as Significant Significant Significant Impact a result of the project, and potentially Impact With Mitigation Impact result in on- or off-site landslide, Incorporated lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

c) Less than significant impact. The areas surrounding the Project site are within seismic hazards zones for liquefaction or landslides (CDC 2001). While the Project site is located in a seismically active region and prone to seismically induced landslides, the proposed Project does not include the development of any new structures that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects within the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would remain unchanged from the existing condition; and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on Potentially Less than Less than No expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- Significant Significant Significant Impact 1-B of the Uniform Building Code Impact With Mitigation Impact (1994), creating substantial risks to life Incorporated or property??

d) Less than significant impact. Expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations and roads constructed with improper engineering. While expansive soils are generally located in low-lying areas, especially near river channels, the proposed Project does not include activities that require development of structures that would create a substantial risk to life or property; and impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable Potentially Less than Less than No of adequately supporting the use of Significant Significant Significant Impact septic tanks or alternative wastewater Impact With Mitigation Impact disposal systems where sewers are not Incorporated available for the disposal of wastewater?

e) No Impact. The proposed Project would not introduce new wastewater disposal systems onto the Project site. No impact would occur.

Chambers Group, Inc. 42 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

3.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This section describes the potential global climate change effects from implementation of the proposed Project. Construction greenhouse gas (GHG) emission modeling was performed through use of the CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. The model output is provided in Appendix B. a) Would the project generate Potentially Less than Less than No greenhouse gas emissions, either Significant Significant Significant Impact directly or indirectly, that may have a Impact With Mitigation Impact significant impact on the environment? Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact. Significant legislative and regulatory activities directly and indirectly affect climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California and requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in California that contribute to global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHGs. The CARB Governing Board approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MtCO2e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, annual emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MtCO2e. The CARB Governing Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008 and the First Update to the Scoping Plan in May 2014. The Scoping Plans define a range of programs and activities that would be implemented primarily by state agencies but would also include actions by local government agencies. Primary strategies addressed in the Scoping Plans include new industrial and emission control technologies; alternative energy generation technologies; advanced energy conservation in lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation; reduced-carbon fuels; hybrid and electric vehicles; and other methods of improving vehicle mileage. Local government would have a part in implementing some of these strategies. The Scoping Plans also call for reductions in vehicle-associated GHG emissions through smart growth that would result in reductions in vehicle miles traveled (CARB 2008, 2014).

The CalEEMod model used above to calculate the criteria pollutant emissions was also utilized to calculate the GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project (see Appendix B). The CalEEMod model calculated that construction activities would generate 134.65 MtCO2e and operational activities would generate 46.59 MtCO2e per year. Even though the County of Orange does not have an established threshold for GHGs, this analysis proposes to use the “Tier 3” quantitative threshold for all land use projects as recommended by the SCAQMD (SCAQMD 2010). The SCAQMD proposes that if a project generates GHG emissions below 3,000 MtCO2e, it could be concluded that the project’s GHG contribution is not “cumulatively considerable” and is, therefore, less than significant under CEQA. As such, it could be concluded that the proposed Project’s GHG contribution is not “cumulatively considerable” and is therefore less than significant under CEQA.

Chambers Group, Inc. 43 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California b) Would the project conflict with an Potentially Less than Less than No applicable plan, policy, or regulation Significant Significant Significant Impact adopted for the purpose of reducing Impact With Mitigation Impact the emissions of greenhouse gases? Incorporated

b) Less than significant impact. The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006, requiring that the state’s GHG emissions by 2020 meet the GHG emissions level created in 1990. In order to achieve that target, the SCAQMD developed a Working Group that developed a tiered approach in order to determine if proposed land use projects would contribute to an exceedance of the GHG emissions targets detailed in AB 32. As shown above in Section 1.1.2(a), the GHG emissions generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project would be within the “Tier 3” quantitative threshold for all land use projects, as recommended by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. A less than significant impact would occur.

3.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant Potentially Less than Less than No hazard to the public or the Significant Significant Significant Impact environment through the routine Impact With Mitigation Impact transport, use, or disposal of Incorporated hazardous materials?

a) Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed Project would consist primarily of the installation of the new parking/staging area and trail construction/improvements and would not introduce any new structures. These minimal construction activities would require minimal amount of hazardous materials that would be subject to applicable BMPs. Handling of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of would be carried out according to County, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant Potentially Less than Less than No hazard to the public or the Significant Significant Significant Impact environment through reasonably Impact With Mitigation Impact foreseeable upset and accident Incorporated conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

b) Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.3.8 a) above, any handling of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of would be carried out according to County, state, and federal regulations. The proposed Project would not involve major construction activities, and the limited amount of hazardous materials used during construction activities would be subject to applicable BMPs. Construction of the proposed

Chambers Group, Inc. 44 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Project would consist primarily of the installation of the new parking/staging area and trail construction/improvements that would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous Potentially Less than Less than No emissions or handle hazardous or Significant Significant Significant Impact acutely hazardous materials, Impact With Mitigation Impact substances or waste within one- Incorporated quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

c) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would convert the site from the former Silverado Elementary School to Saddleback Gateway. The Silverado Children’s Center is currently housed in the northern portion of the property and would continue to operate under an annual lease with OC Parks. No other schools are within 0.25 mile of the Project site (Google Earth 2016). The proposed Project would not involve major construction activities, and any impacts associated with the proposed Project would be temporary in nature. The proposed Project would not involve major construction activities, and a limited amount of hazardous materials would be used during construction activities. Any hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of would be subject to County, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, hazardous materials used during construction would not impact the Silverado Children’s Center, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site Potentially Less than Less than No which is included on a list of hazardous Significant Significant Significant Impact materials sites compiled pursuant to Impact With Mitigation Impact Government Code Section 65962.5 Incorporated and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

d) Less than significant impact. As shown in Figure 6, six EPA-regulated facilities and three EnviroStor cleanup sites (DTSC 2016) are located either fully or partially within a 5.0-mile buffer from the Project location. Therefore, the proposed Project is not located on or near a hazardous material site that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 45 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Figure 6: Hazardous Materials Sites Locations

Chambers Group, Inc. 46 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California e) Would the project for a project located Potentially Less than Less than No within an airport land use plan or, Significant Significant Significant Impact where such a plan has not been Impact With Mitigation Impact adopted, within 2 miles of a public Incorporated airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

e) No Impact. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 13 miles southwest of the proposed Project site (Google Maps 2016). Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the Project site. No impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a Potentially Less than Less than No private airstrip, would the project Significant Significant Significant Impact result in a safety hazard for people Impact With Mitigation Impact residing or working in the project area? Incorporated

f) No Impact. As indicated in Section 3.3.8 e), above, the proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the Project site. No impacts would occur. g) Would the project impair Potentially Less than Less than No implementation of or physically Significant Significant Significant Impact interfere with an adopted emergency Impact With Mitigation Impact response plan or emergency Incorporated evacuation plan?

g) Less than significant impact. A 2014 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was developed by the County of Orange and approved by the County of Orange Emergency Management Council. The EOP document details the emergency planning, organization, response policies, and procedures for emergency operations (County of Orange 2014b). The primary County EOC, also known as Loma Ridge EOC, is located at 2644 Santiago Canyon Road at the top of Loma Ridge, approximately 6 miles north of the Project site. Proposed Project activities would occur within the former Silverado Elementary School property and would be consistent with previous uses. Project construction and future activities at the Project site would not interfere with the EOC’s operations. In the event of a major emergency, the site would be available to stage vehicles, equipment, and personnel associated with the incident from fire, law enforcement, public works, and animal control responders. Emergency operations from this site would be coordinated with the Orange County EOC. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 47 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California h) Would the project expose people or Potentially Less than Less than No structures to a significant risk of loss, Significant Significant Significant Impact injury or death involving wild land fires, Impact With Mitigation Impact including where wildlands are adjacent Incorporated to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

h) Less than significant impact. The Project site is mostly surrounded by wilderness areas. Black Star Wilderness Park is located to the north, and Limestone Canyon Wilderness Park is located to the south. As noted in the Orange County General Plan Safety Element, the area is located within High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The County Safety Element outlines implementation programs to promote fire safe practices (County of Orange 2014a). During Project operations and maintenance, fire prevention and control practices would be implemented, including performing regular weed abatement to maintain defensible space clearance around the site’s buildings. Project efforts would abide by the County of Orange Fire Code Ordinance No. 13-014 for Fire Building Codes (OCPW 2013) and County Ordinances of Fire Protection as listed in their Code of Ordinances regarding fire safety and protection for public facilities and parks (County of Orange 2015). Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the risk of exposure involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate water quality Potentially Less than Less than No standards or waste discharge Significant Significant Significant Impact requirements? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact. No waters of the United States or State occur within the Project area. Implementation of the proposed Project would not require substantial construction activities that could impact water quality. The largest construction effort would consist of the creation of the new parking/staging area just south of the existing parking area between the Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area and the Visitor Center. Construction of the new parking/staging area would be subject to BMPs that would prevent impacts to water quality. Introduction of proposed trail facilities would require minimal earthwork and would also be subject to applicable BMPs. Active and passive recreation during operation of the proposed Project would not impact water quality. Passive recreation at the Project site would not require substantial water supplies, and special events to be held at the Project site would be responsible for securing their own water. The new parking/staging area just south of the existing parking area between the Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area and the Visitor Center would be expanded and improved using decomposed granite or other permeable material, so no new impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site. A large amount of pervious land would remain on the Project site; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, nor will it violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 48 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California b) Would the project substantially Potentially Less than Less than No deplete groundwater supplies or Significant Significant Significant Impact interfere substantially with Impact With Mitigation Impact groundwater recharge such that there Incorporated would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would convert a portion of the former Silverado Elementary School site to a community park offering opportunities for passive recreation and would not construct any new residential, commercial, office, or other uses requiring substantial groundwater supplies. Passive recreation at the Project site would not require substantial water supplies, and special events to be held at the Project site would be responsible for securing their own water. The new parking/staging area just south of the existing parking area between the Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area and the Visitor Center would be expanded and improved using decomposed granite or other permeable material, so no new impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site. The use of the former Silverado Elementary School site as a community park would utilize existing structures, facilities, and open space on the Project site. Since the amount of impervious area at the Project site would not increase, the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. In addition, a large amount of pervious land would remain on the Project site; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter Potentially Less than Less than No the existing drainage pattern of the Significant Significant Significant Impact site or area, including through the Impact With Mitigation Impact alteration of the course of a stream or Incorporated river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

c) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project site is not located within, or near, the course of a stream or river. The use of the former Silverado Elementary School site as a community park would offer opportunities for active and passive recreation and would not require substantial earthwork that would alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site. The new parking/staging area just south of the existing parking area between the Oak Woodland Discovery Trail area and the Visitor Center would constitute a small portion of the Project site and would be designed to be consistent with the existing drainage pattern. Similarly, trail and walkway modifications associated with the proposed Project would require minimal earthwork and would be designed to be consistent with the existing drainage pattern. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage

Chambers Group, Inc. 49 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project substantially alter Potentially Less than Less than No the existing drainage pattern of the Significant Significant Significant Impact site or area, including through the Impact With Mitigation Impact alteration of the course of a stream or Incorporated river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

d) Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.3.9 c) above, use of the former Silverado Elementary School site as a community park offers opportunities for active and passive recreation and would not require substantial earthwork that would alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project create or contribute Potentially Less than Less than No runoff water which would exceed the Significant Significant Significant Impact capacity of existing or planned Impact With Mitigation Impact stormwater drainage systems or Incorporated provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

e) Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.3.9 d) above, implementation of the proposed Project would not generate substantial amounts of runoff and, therefore, would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As described in Section 3.3.9 a) above, construction of the proposed Project would be subject to BMPs that would prevent impacts to water quality; and active and passive recreation during operation of the proposed Project would not impact water quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise Potentially Less than Less than No substantially degrade water quality? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

f) No Impact. As described in Section 3.3.9 a) above, implementation of the proposed Project would be subject to BMPs that would prevent impacts to water quality; and active and passive recreation during operation of the proposed Project would not impact water quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and no impacts could occur.

Chambers Group, Inc. 50 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California g) Would the project place housing within Potentially Less than Less than No a 100-year flood hazard area as Significant Significant Significant Impact mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Impact With Mitigation Impact Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map Incorporated or other flood hazard delineation map?

g) No Impact. The proposed Project would convert the former Silverado Elementary School site to a community park offering opportunities for active and passive recreation and would not construct any new housing. Furthermore, review of mapping data available at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center determined that the Project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain as identified by the FEMA Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA 2016). The Project site is located in an area categorized as Zone X, which is assigned to locations determined to have minimal potential to be subjected to flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area. No impacts would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100- Potentially Less than Less than No year flood hazard area structures, Significant Significant Significant Impact which would impede or redirect flood Impact With Mitigation Impact flows? Incorporated

h) No Impact. As described in Section 3.3.9 g) above, the proposed Project is not located within the 100-year floodplain as identified by the FEMA Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur. i) Would the project expose people or Potentially Less than Less than No structures to a significant risk of loss, Significant Significant Significant Impact injury, or death involving flooding, Impact With Mitigation Impact including flooding as a result of the Incorporated failure of a levee or dam?

i) No Impact. The proposed Project is not located adjacent to any levees or dams holding water. The nearest water body is Irvine Lake, located approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project site. In the event that water levels would rise at Irvine Lake, it is unlikely that this would result in flooding at the Project site due to the distance of 3 miles and hills that exist on both sites. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No impacts would occur. j) Would the project cause or expose Potentially Less than Less than No people and structures to inundation by Significant Significant Significant Impact seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

j) Less than significant impact. The nearest water body is Irvine Lake, located approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project site. In the event of a seiche occurring at Irvine Lake, it is

Chambers Group, Inc. 51 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

unlikely that this would result in flooding at the Project site due to the distance of 3 miles and hills that exist on both sites. Similarly, the proposed Project is located approximately 24 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. The proposed Project is located within a canyon and, therefore, could be subject to mudflow from surrounding higher elevations. However, the proposed Project is limited to use of the former Silverado Elementary School site as a community park and would not construct housing that would create a new potential impact associated with mudflow. Therefore, impacts related to mudflow would remain unchanged from the existing condition, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.10 Land Use Planning

The Project site is currently designated as Rural Residential on the County’s General Plan Land Use Map and is Zoned A1(SR) – General Agricultural with Sign Restriction. The property also has a land use overlay of Rural Residential on the Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan. The Project will maintain the current designation. a) Would the project physically divide an Potentially Less than Less than No established community? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

a) No Impact. The proposed Project would convert a portion of the former Silverado Elementary School site to a community park offering opportunities for passive recreation. All Project components would be implemented on the former Silverado Elementary School site and would not physically impact any adjacent properties. Similarly, the proposed Project would not result in any changes to the existing roadway network nor would it introduce any new roadways. Furthermore, the proposed Project would improve community cohesion by creating a permanent community park for local canyon residents to use as a “gathering hub.” In addition to providing opportunities for passive recreation, the proposed Project would be capable of hosting community events such as concerts, outdoor movies, farmers’ markets, county fairs, and sports activities. The opportunity would also exist to expand event programming at the park to include private parties. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and would actually improve community cohesion. No impacts would occur. b) Would the project conflict with any Potentially Less than Less than No applicable land use plan, policy, or Significant Significant Significant Impact regulation of an agency with Impact With Mitigation Impact jurisdiction over the project (including, Incorporated but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would occur within the existing former Silverado Elementary School property. Site operations would remain consistent with previous

Chambers Group, Inc. 52 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

designations and uses. As indicated in Section 3.3.2 b), the Project site is currently zoned as A1 (SR) -General Agricultural with Sign Restriction and is not in agricultural production. Zoning Code Section 7-9-55.2: Principal Uses Permitted, lists “(c) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (non- commercial)” as facilities allowed under A1(SR) – General Agricultural with Sign Restriction. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation; and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any Potentially Less than Less than No applicable habitat conservation plan or Significant Significant Significant Impact natural community conservation plan? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

c) No impact. As described in Section 3.3.4 f) above, the proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of any Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any NCCP/HCP; no impacts would occur.

3.3.11 Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of Potentially Less than Less than No availability of a known mineral Significant Significant Significant Impact resource that would be of value to the Impact With Mitigation Impact region and the residents of the state? Incorporated

a) No Impact. Review of the Resources Element of the General Plan determined that no significant mineral deposits are known to exist on the Project site or surrounding properties (County of Orange 2014d). No impacts would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of Potentially Less than Less than No availability of a locally important Significant Significant Significant Impact mineral resource recovery site Impact With Mitigation Impact delineated on a local general plan, Incorporated specific plan other land use plan?

b) No Impact. The Project site is currently designated as Rural Residential on the County’s General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned as A1 (SR) – General Agricultural with Sign Restriction and is not used for mineral resource extraction. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not located adjacent to a property currently designated or used for mineral resource extraction. No impacts would occur.

3.3.12 Noise

This section describes the existing noise setting and potential noise and vibration effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Construction noise modeling was performed through use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.1. The model output is

Chambers Group, Inc. 53 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California provided in Appendix B along with the noise measurement printouts and a photo index of the noise measurements.

Environmental Setting

The proposed Project site is located within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange. The primary source of noise within the study area is from vehicles travelling on Santiago Canyon Road. In order to determine the existing noise levels, two short-term ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the proposed Project between 11:24 a.m. and 11:59 a.m. on Friday, July 22, 2016. The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 6 and the noise measurement printouts are provided in Appendix B.

Table 6: Existing Noise Level Measurements

Start Time and Duration Primary Noise Site Description Noise Levels of Measurement Sources Located approximately 10 feet north of the Vehicles on 11:24 a.m. 51.8 dBA Leq northwest corner of the administrative building Santiago Canyon (15:00) 62.0 dBA Lmax for Silverado Children’s Center. Road Located in front of the home at 7432 Santiago Vehicles on 11:44 a.m. 61.2 dBA Leq Canyon Road and approximately 60 feet east of Santiago Canyon (15:00) 81.9 dBA Lmax Santiago Canyon Road centerline. Road Source: Larson-Davis Model 831 precision sound level meter programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in “A” weighted form.

County of Orange Noise Standards

For construction activities within unincorporated Orange County, Section 7-1-822 of the Municipal Code has established a restriction of time when construction activities may occur between the weekday hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays.

For operational activities within unincorporated Orange County, Section 4-6-5 of the Municipal Code limits exterior noise impacts to the nearby residential uses to 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and to 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Section 4-6-7(c) of the Municipal Code exempts all activities conducted on any public park or playground from the noise standards detailed in Section 4-6-5. Since the proposed Project would consist of developing a park for OC Parks, all operational noise would be exempt from the noise standards in the Municipal Code. a) Would the project result in exposure of Potentially Less than Less than No persons to or generation of noise Significant Significant Significant Impact levels in excess of standards Impact With Mitigation Impact established in the local general plan or Incorporated noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

a) Less than significant impact. Construction activities would include demolition of the approximately 8,100-square-foot former blacktop play area adjacent to the east side of the proposed Visitor Center, grading of the proposed parking lot expansion, proposed trails, and

Chambers Group, Inc. 54 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

outdoor gathering areas, and resurfacing and graveling the existing paved parking area and proposed parking lot expansion area. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to start around September 2016 and be completed in approximately four months. Construction activities will be limited to the allowable construction times provided in Section 7-1-822 of the County of Orange Municipal Code, which restricts construction activities from occurring between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays.

The long-term operation of the proposed Project would consist of the operation of a public park and Visitor Center. Noise sources associated with the operation of the proposed Project would typically be limited to landscaping maintenance equipment, vehicles operating in the parking lot, and children playing in the park areas. Since the proposed Project would consist of the operation of a public park, all operational noise generated by the proposed Project would be exempt per Section 4-6-7(c) of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people to noise levels in excess of established standards, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in exposure of Potentially Less than Less than No persons to or generate excessive Significant Significant Significant Impact groundborne vibration or groundborne Impact With Mitigation Impact noise levels? Incorporated

b) No Impact. The proposed Project consists of minimal earthwork and would not result in groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels that would be considered excessive. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial permanent increase in Significant Significant Significant Impact ambient noise levels in the project Impact With Mitigation Impact vicinity above levels existing without Incorporated the project?

c) Less than significant impact. As stated previously in Section 3.3.12 a), the ongoing operation of the proposed Project would consist of the operation of a public park and Visitor Center. Noise sources associated with the operation of the proposed Project would typically be limited to landscaping maintenance equipment, vehicles operating in the parking lot, and children playing in the park areas. These noise sources would be intermittent and would typically create noise levels lower than the current ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity (i.e., 61.2 dB at nearest homes to west). Furthermore, operational activities to occur within the proposed Project boundaries are consistent with past uses on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 55 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California d) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial temporary or periodic Significant Significant Significant Impact increase in ambient noise levels in the Impact With Mitigation Impact project vicinity above levels existing Incorporated without the project?

d) Less than significant impact. As stated previously in Section 3.3.12 a), construction activities will be limited to the allowable construction times provided in Section 7-1-822 of the County of Orange Municipal Code, which restricts construction activities from occurring between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. However, the County construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities; and, even with adherence to the County standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby off-site workers. In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits for noise exposure have been utilized. The use of a significance threshold using an OSHA standard is considered conservative. The OSHA standard limits noise exposure of workers to 90 decibels (dB) or less over eight continuous hours or 105 dB or less over one continuous hour, and this standard has been utilized to analyze the construction noise impacts to the off-site workers.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) compiled noise level data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table 7 below provides a list of the construction equipment measured, along with the associated measured noise emissions and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day. From this acquired data, FHWA developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM, which uses the Spec 721.560 maximum sound level (Lmax) at 50 feet, has been used to calculate the construction equipment noise emissions (see Appendix B).

The anticipated construction phases and construction equipment that will be operational during each phase were obtained from the CalEEMod model run calculated in Section 3.3.3, Air Quality. Each piece of equipment was placed at the minimum distance that construction activities would occur at the nearest sensitive receptors that include the Silverado Children’s Center (daycare facility) located adjacent to the northeast side of the Project site and single-family homes located as near as 150 feet west of the Project site, and the results are shown below in Table 8.

Chambers Group, Inc. 56 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Table 7: Construction Equipment Emissions and Usage Factors

Acoustical Use Spec 721.560 Lmax @ Actual Measured Lmax @ Equipment Factor1 (Percent) 50 Feet2 (dBA, slow3) 50 feet4 (dBA, slow) Backhoe 40 80 78 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 Concrete Pump 20 82 81 Concrete Saw 20 90 90 Crane 16 85 81 Dozer 40 85 82 Dump Truck 40 84 76 Excavator 40 85 81 Flatbed Truck 40 84 74 Front End Loader 40 80 79 Generator 50 82 81 Gradall 40 85 83 Mounted Impact Hammer 20 90 90 Paver 50 85 77 Roller 20 85 80 Tractor 40 84 N/A Welder/Torch 40 73 74 1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the Roadway Construction Noise Model program. 3 The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125-second increments. 4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s. Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006.

Table 8: Proposed Project Construction Noise Levels

Nearest Home Silverado Children’s Center Equipment Construction Noise Construction Noise Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Level (dBA Leq) Level (dBA Leq) Demolition (blacktop 400 67 340 68 play area) Grading 240 70 50 80 Paving (resurfacing and 150 69 75 73 gravel) Source: RCNM Version 1.1.

Table 8 shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the grading phase of construction, with a noise level as high as 70 dBA equivalent sound level (Leq) at the nearest

Chambers Group, Inc. 57 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

homes and 80 dBA Leq at the Silverado Children’s Center. Table 8 shows that noise levels from each phase of construction activities would be within the 90 dB threshold detailed above. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed Project. e) For a project located within an airport Potentially Less than Less than No land use plan or, where such a plan has Significant Significant Significant Impact not been adopted, within 2 miles of a Impact With Mitigation Impact public airport or public use airport, Incorporated would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

e) No Impact. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 13 miles southwest of the Project location (Google Maps 2016). The proposed Project site is not within an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the proposed Project site to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a Potentially Less than Less than No private airstrip, would the project Significant Significant Significant Impact expose people residing or working in Impact With Mitigation Impact the project area to excessive noise Incorporated levels?

f) No Impact. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 13 miles southwest of the Project location (Google Maps 2016). The proposed Project site is not within an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the proposed Project site to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

3.3.13 Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial Potentially Less than Less than No population growth in an area, either Significant Significant Significant Impact directly (for example, by proposing Impact With Mitigation Impact new homes and businesses) or Incorporated indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

a) No Impact. The proposed Project would convert the former Silverado Elementary School site to a community park offering opportunities for active and passive recreation. The proposed Project would not construct new housing or new roads that could induce future growth. No impacts would occur.

Chambers Group, Inc. 58 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California b) Would the project displace substantial Potentially Less than Less than No numbers of existing housing, Significant Significant Significant Impact necessitating the construction of Impact With Mitigation Impact replacement housing elsewhere? Incorporated

b) No Impact. The former Silverado Elementary School site on which the proposed Project would be implemented does not include any housing. Similarly, there is no housing surrounding the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project displace substantial Potentially Less than Less than No numbers of people, necessitating the Significant Significant Significant Impact construction of replacement housing Impact With Mitigation Impact elsewhere? Incorporated

c) No Impact. The former Silverado Elementary School site on which the proposed Project would be implemented does not include any housing. Similarly, there is no housing surrounding the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur.

3.3.14 Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial Potentially Less than Less than No adverse physical impacts associated Significant Significant Significant Impact with the provision of new or physically Impact With Mitigation Impact altered governmental facilities, need Incorporated for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any or the public services: i. Fire protection?

a) i) Less than significant impact. The Orange County Fire Authority Station #15 and Orange County Fire Authority Station #14 are located east of the Project site approximately 0.5 mile and 2.8 miles, respectively (Google Maps 2016). The proposed Project consists of utilizing the previous Silverado Elementary School site and does not include the development of any new structures that would increase demand for fire protection services at the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 59 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California ii. Police protection? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

ii) Less than significant impact. In addition to the County’s primary EOC, the Lake Forest Community Policing Center is approximately 5.5 miles south/southeast of the Project site (Google Maps 2016). The proposed Project consists of utilizing a portion of the previous Silverado Elementary School site and does not include the development of any new structures that would create a substantial impact or interfere with police protection services, and impacts would be less than significant. iii. Schools? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

iii) Less than significant impact. The former Silverado Elementary School was closed in 2009. At present, the Silverado Children’s Center, currently located in the northern portion of the approximately 10.5-acre property, would continue to operate separately under an annual lease with the County. The uses of the proposed Project would include an updated parking area, a visitor center, open field, a trailhead, and trails, as well as other general site improvements. No additional development of new structures would be included in this proposed Project that would induce population growth necessitating additional school services; impacts would be less than significant. iv. Parks? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

iv) No Impact.The proposed Project site is located adjacent to the OC Parks-managed IROS and is also close to O’Neill Regional Park and Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park. The Project site is easily accessible from Santiago Canyon Road. The site is adjacent to OC Parks-managed open space lands consisting of Black Star Wilderness Park to the north and Limestone Canyon Wilderness Park to the south. The proposed Project would utilize a portion of the previous Silverado Elementary School site to create Saddleback Gateway, which includes the addition of a trailhead and trails. No additional development of new structures would be part of the proposed Project, and the Project would not cause significant environmental impacts to nearby parks or parks within the Project site. The proposed Project would improve park services within Orange County. No impacts would occur. v. Other public facilities? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact

Chambers Group, Inc. 60 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Incorporated

v) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project consists of repurposing the former Silverado Elementary School and reuse of the facility and surrounding area. The proposed Project would not increase the demands of fire services and police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. The proposed Project would not induce growth requiring the extension of existing services or creation of new services, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.15 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of Potentially Less than Less than No existing neighborhood and regional Significant Significant Significant Impact parks or other recreational facilities Impact With Mitigation Impact such that substantial physical Incorporated deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

a) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would convert a portion of the former Silverado Elementary School site to a community park offering opportunities for both active and passive recreation activities. By offering additional opportunities for active and passive recreation within Orange County, the proposed Project would potentially reduce use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, thereby reducing future physical deterioration of these facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational Potentially Less than Less than No facilities or require the construction or Significant Significant Significant Impact expansion of recreational facilities Impact With Mitigation Impact which might have an adverse effect on Incorporated the environment?

b) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project involves use of a portion of the former Silverado Elementary School site as a community park offering opportunities for active and passive recreation. Potential impacts associated with this use are evaluated throughout the IS/MND; and mitigation measures are provided, when appropriate. Refer to the environmental sections within this IS/MND for an analysis of specific impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures identified within this IS/MND would reduce all potential impacts on the environment to a level less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 61 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

3.3.16 Transportation/Traffic a) Would the project conflict with an Potentially Less than Less than No applicable plan, ordinance, or policy Significant Significant Significant Impact establishing measures of effectiveness Impact With Mitigation Impact for the performance of the circulation Incorporated system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

a) Less than significant impact. The Project site is accessible from Santiago Canyon Road, the main access road in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Public vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from existing dedicated turn lanes to/from the Santiago Canyon Road entry and exit driveway. During construction, impacts to the road would be temporary in nature and would not significantly impact the road, highways, or mass transit, as no public transit routes are available to or from the Project site (OCTA 2014).

During operation of the park, special events may occur up to four times per year that may result in high traffic volume over the course of the special event. To minimize impacts to traffic, each special event will adhere to a Traffic and Parking Management Plan created for the specific event. Each TPMP will provide at a minimum the information included in the TPMP framework (Appendix A), including methods to minimize the amount of traffic created by the event and methods to maintain the flow of traffic. Emergency vehicle access along Santiago Canyon Road will not be deterred during special events. Due to the temporary nature of special events, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system; and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an Potentially Less than Less than No applicable congestion management Significant Significant Significant Impact plan, including, but not limited to level Impact With Mitigation Impact of service standard and travel demand Incorporated measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with applicable congestion management plans. While the construction of the proposed Project would utilize public roads to access the site for minimal transport of materials, impacts would be temporary in nature and would not significantly impact the level of service and travel demands on the road during construction. The proposed Project general or regular operation would not increase

Chambers Group, Inc. 62 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

vehicle miles traveled, as the areas surrounding the Project site consist of parks and open spaces; and traffic to the Project site is not expected to increase beyond traffic levels previously experienced at the site due to school operations. Special events may occur up to four times per year that may result in high traffic volume and increase in congestion over the course of the special event. To minimize impacts to traffic, each special event will adhere to a Traffic and Parking Management Plan created for the specific event. Each TPMP will provide at a minimum the information included in the TPMP framework (Appendix A), including methods to minimize the amount of traffic created by the event and methods to maintain the flow of traffic. Emergency vehicle access along Santiago Canyon Road will not be deterred during special events. Due to the temporary nature of special events, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a change in Potentially Less than Less than No air traffic patterns, including either an Significant Significant Significant Impact increase in traffic levels or a change in Impact With Mitigation Impact location that results in substantial Incorporated safety risks?

c) No Impact. The proposed Project would not interfere with any air traffic patterns. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 13 miles southwest of the Project location (Google Maps 2016). No impact would occur. d) Would the project substantially Potentially Less than Less than No increase hazards due to a design Significant Significant Significant Impact feature (e.g., sharp curves or Impact With Mitigation Impact dangerous intersections) or Incorporated incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) No Impact. The proposed Project does not include any changes to the road and would not increase hazards due to a design feature. The proposed Project involves utilizing the existing former Silverado Elementary School facilities. Earthwork activities during construction would be minimal with utilization of equipment for compatible use. Site access would remain the same. No impact would occur. e) Would the project result in inadequate Potentially Less than Less than No emergency access? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

e) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would be located on the former Silverado Elementary School site. Access to the site would utilize the Santiago Canyon Road entrance; and the proposed Project is not expected to interfere with access to emergency services, including interfering with operations at Loma Ridge Emergency Operations Center (EOC). As previously identified, special events would not deter emergency vehicle access along Santiago Canyon Road. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chambers Group, Inc. 63 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California f) Would the project result in conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with adopted policies, plans or Significant Significant Significant Impact programs regarding public transit, Impact With Mitigation Impact bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or Incorporated otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

f) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would not involve the use or modification of public transit or bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as no public transit routes are available to or from the Project site (OCTA 2014). Santiago Canyon Road would be used as the main entrance and exit of the Project site, and impacts of use during the proposed Project would be minimal. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project exceed wastewater Potentially Less than Less than No treatment requirements of the Significant Significant Significant Impact applicable Regional Water Quality Impact With Mitigation Impact Control Board? Incorporated

a) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would utilize existing site facilities within the former Silverado Elementary School site that would adequately serve park patrons. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not require the use of additional wastewater treatment facilities. No impact would occur. b) Would the project require or result in Potentially Less than Less than No the construction of new water or Significant Significant Significant Impact wastewater treatment facilities or Impact With Mitigation Impact expansion of existing facilities, the Incorporated construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project involves the reuse of existing facilities and would not consist of expansion of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities that would require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The proposed Project would use water and wastewater facilities already present at the site, and no increase use of the facilities beyond that which was already planned for the site would result. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project require or result in Potentially Less than Less than No the construction of new stormwater Significant Significant Significant Impact drainage facilities or expansion of Impact With Mitigation Impact existing facilities, the construction of Incorporated which could cause significant environmental effects?

Chambers Group, Inc. 64 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

c) No Impact. The proposed Project would not consist of expanded or new development that would require the need for expanded stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental effects. No impact would occur. d) Would the project have sufficient Potentially Less than Less than No water supplies available to serve the Significant Significant Significant Impact project from existing entitlements and Impact With Mitigation Impact resources, or are new or expanded Incorporated entitlements needed?

d) No Impact. The proposed Project would not require new or expanded entitlements. The proposed Project consists of reuse of existing facilities that would adequately serve park patrons. No impact would occur. e) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No determination by the wastewater Significant Significant Significant Impact treatment provider which serves or Impact With Mitigation Impact may serve the project that it has Incorporated adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

e) No Impact. The proposed Project would take place within the former Silverado Elementary School site and involves reuse of the previous Silverado Elementary School facilities. The proposed Project would not require the use of additional wastewater treatment facilities. No impact would occur. f) Would the project be served by a Potentially Less than Less than No landfill with sufficient permitted Significant Significant Significant Impact capacity to accommodate the projects Impact With Mitigation Impact solid waste disposal needs? Incorporated

f) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would dispose of any construction materials at a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs. The landfill that will most likely be used for solid waste disposal would be Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located approximately 15.5 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Solid waste that may be collected during operation and maintenance includes weeding of landscape vegetation and clearing of trash from trash receptacles in the park facilities, and impacts to landfill capacity would be less than significant. g) Would the project comply with federal, Potentially Less than Less than No state and local statutes and regulations Significant Significant Significant Impact related to solid waste? Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Chambers Group, Inc. 65 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

g) No Impact. The proposed Project would generate solid waste that would need to be disposed of at a landfill; however, the proposed Project would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur.

3.3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to Potentially Less than Less than No degrade the quality of the Significant Significant Significant Impact environment, substantially reduce the Impact With Mitigation Impact habitat of a fish or wildlife species, Incorporated cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

a) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Section 3.3.4, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would reduce all impacts associated with biological resources to a level less than significant. As described in Section 3.3.5, no impacts on cultural resources are anticipated, but implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant should unanticipated resources be discovered. b) Does the project have impacts that are Potentially Less than Less than No individually limited, but cumulatively Significant Significant Significant Impact considerable? (“Cumulatively Impact With Mitigation Impact considerable” means that the Incorporated incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

b) Less than significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project would occur within the former Silverado Elementary School property, which is part of the 3rd District of the 7- Year Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Under the CIP, the following projects are anticipated to occur within the fiscal years of 2016 to 2019 (OCPW 2015).

. 2017/2018: Santiago Canyon Rd. Roadway Improvements Segment 2. Irvine Lake Entrance to Silverado Canyon Rd.

. 2018/2019: Santiago Canyon Rd. Roadway Improvements Segment 3. Silverado Canyon Rd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd.

Chambers Group, Inc. 66 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

. 2020/2021: Santiago Canyon Road Passing Lanes. Silverado Canyon Rd. to Modjeska Canyon Rd.

The evaluation of the proposed Project has determined that the Project would not result in any significant impacts on existing environmental resources. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 would reduce impacts associated with biological resources and cultural resources to a level less than significant. The remaining environmental categories did not identify any significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that could contribute to cumulative impacts resulting from past, present, or future projects. c) Does the project have environmental Potentially Less than Less than No effects which will cause substantial Significant Significant Significant Impact adverse effects on human beings, Impact With Mitigation Impact either directly or indirectly? Incorporated

c) Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Project would result in temporary increases in noise, air emissions, and traffic during the short construction period of the proposed Project. The temporary increases are associated with construction equipment and construction employee commutes, but these increases are not continuous and would not persist once construction is completed. In addition, BMPs would be implemented to avoid or further minimize any potential impacts, where practicable. Impacts would be less than significant. When construction is completed, the proposed Project would enhance the quality of the environment for humans by improving the use of the site for passive and active recreation.

Chambers Group, Inc. 67 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

SECTION 4.0 – REFERENCES

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. (eds) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, California.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2008 Original AB32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document. Accessed February 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm.

2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Accessed February 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_sco ping_plan.pdf

California Department of Conservation (CDC) 2001 Seismic Hazard Zones. El Toro Quadrangle. Accessed May 2016. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2016a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx

2016b California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2016 Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed May 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.

County of Orange 1977 Silverado-Modjeska Specific Plan

2005 Scenic Highway Plan. Orange County, California.

2013 Memorandum of Understanding: Silverado Branch Library (Orange County Parks and Orange County Public Libraries). June 17, 2013.

2014a Safety Element. Fault Map and Fire Severity Hazard Zones Map. County of Orange General Plan.

2014b Emergency Operations Plan. County of Orange. May 2014. Available at: http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda06_24_2014_files/images/O00214- 000956E.PDF

Chambers Group, Inc. 68 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

2014c Resources Element. Wildlife Habitat Areas – Generalized Map. County of Orange General Plan.

2014d Resources Element. Orange County Mineral Resources – Generalized Map. County of Orange General Plan.

2015 Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange. Accessed May 2016. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/orange_county/codes/code_of_ordinances

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2016 EnviroStor Database. Accessed April 2016. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2016 Flood Map. Accessed April 2016. https://msc.fema.gov/portal

Google Earth 2016 Accessed May 2016. https://earth.google.com.

Google Maps 2016 Accessed May 2016. https://www.google.com/maps.

Gray, John and David Bramlet 1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, California.

Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil 1995 California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

National Park Service 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. 48 Federal Regulation 44716-42.

Orange County Public Works (OCPW) 2013 Community Development. Fire Code – California Fire Code. Ordinance No. 13-014.

2015 7-Year Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan 3rd District.

Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) 2014 OCTA System Map. Accessed May 2016. http://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and- Schedules/System-Map/

Sawyer J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society Press.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook

2008 Final LST Methodology

Chambers Group, Inc. 69 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan IP 16-213 Orange County, California

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2016 Soil Conservation Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2016 Tustin Irvine Ranch, California (049087) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Accessed May 2016. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9087

Chambers Group, Inc. 70 20921

TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGEMENT AND PARKING TRAFFIC

–

A APPENDIX

P A G E 1

TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AT SADDLEBACK GATEWAY

OVERVIEW This Traffic and Parking Management Plan is intended to serve as a framework for managing the traffic and parking associated with special events that may be held at Saddleback Gateway (see attached Figure 1 – Vicinity Map).

Special events are distinct from the regular activities and events that will occur at Saddleback Gateway. Regular activities and events can be accommodated within Saddleback Gateway planned parking capacity. These regular activities and events can be managed without any special traffic and parking management requirements, similar to the way they are currently managed at OC Parks’ existing parks through the use of standard operating procedures. Special events, with a greater number of attendees and vehicles than regular events, will require a traffic and parking management plan.

While special events likely will be held at Saddleback Gateway after the park opens in 2016/17, the type of events and the method of programming, scheduling and managing them are not known at this time. Because of these unknowns, two tiers of Special Events types have been established, based on the number of expected attendees. These tiers are the basis for developing this Traffic and Parking Management Plan. OC Parks anticipates entering into a partnership agreement with a third-party organization to manage the events, subject to conditions established by OC Parks.

The Traffic and Parking Management Plan will be included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for Saddleback Gateway’s Interim Operational Plan. Once implemented, the Traffic and Parking Management Plan will be periodically reviewed by the OC Parks and, if necessary, revised based upon actual use and attendance at Special Events held at Saddleback Gateway.

BACKGROUND

Existing OC Parks Historic and Urban Regional Parks

Regular Activities and Events

OC Parks operates a variety of facilities: regional trails, nature preserves, wilderness parks, historic parks and urban regional parks. Historic parks, through the preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings and grounds, enable the public to enjoy the park either on an impromptu basis, as part of regular park activities, or through scheduled tours and interpretative programs. Urban regional parks provide recreational space and facilities to enable the public to enjoy traditional park activities, such as picnicking, exercising, playing sports and observing nature. These regular and traditional park activities are supplemented by events that are conducted by OC Parks or by private organizations or individuals. Examples of OC Parks events include concerts in the park, holiday celebrations and various activity days (e.g., sport, nature, dog, horses, fishing, paleontology, etc.); examples of private-party events include farmer’s markets, athletic competitions and charity benefits. All of these events are programmed, scheduled and permitted in a manner so as to not substantially conflict with regular park activities and

P A G E 2 normal traffic levels, and to ensure that parking can be accommodated on site or, where legally permissible, on adjacent streets.

Holidays and Special Events

Attendance is high at some of OC Parks’ facilities on certain annual holidays, such as Easter and Mothers Day, and at historic parks for some special occasions, such as holiday tree-lighting ceremonies.

Additionally, OC Parks occasionally permits special events that generate attendance that exceeds the on- site parking capacity of a park. These special events, such as the Orange County Cross Country Championships held annually at Irvine Regional Park, are very limited in number and are permitted only when the event organizer provides suitable off-site parking and, when necessary, shuttle service.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan

Saddleback Gateway is being planned as a community facility consistent with the description and uses identified in the Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan. The site is located approximately half- mile south of the intersection of Santiago Canyon Road and Silverado Canyon Road. The Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan permits library and traditional park uses, as well as a variety of associated cultural, entertainment and educational uses.

OC Parks Facilities and Saddleback Gateway

OC Parks operates a variety of facilities: regional trails, nature preserves, wilderness parks, historic parks and urban regional parks. Saddleback Gateway will feature two main remodeled buildings to be used as the local community library and multipurpose rooms for community gatherings, along with a public parking lot. Additionally, there will be an open field for passive and informal recreational uses, an upper meadow that contains a meandering trail within native grasslands, an oak woodland trail area that will provide for a trail, natural play area and informal educational space, and trailheads and staging areas for access to the 2.3-mile Mesa Loop Trail.

Saddleback Gateway

Vehicular Access and Parking

Vehicular access to Saddleback Gateway will be at the entrance off Santiago Canyon Road. Santiago Canyon Road is a two-lane divided arterial with left turn channelization at Saddleback Gateway entrance. The northbound lane provides right turn channelization into Saddleback Gateway. Forty-one permanent parking spaces (see attached Figure 2 – Potential On-Site Parking) will be provided within Saddleback Gateway, located in the main surface lot adjacent to the library and multipurpose buildings.

Park Trip Generation

Trip generation for events is dependent on the type of events scheduled, the expected attendance and the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of the arriving vehicles. Using historical data for either regular or special events held at the other OC Parks venues of this size and character, a generalized AVO of 2.5 persons per vehicle has been derived. For example, an event attracting 2,500 attendees would generate 1,000 arrivals and departures (in 1,000 vehicles).

P A G E 3

Regular Activities and Events

As described above, Saddleback Gateway will have the operational characteristics of both a local library and community park.

Saddleback Gateway will have traditional park amenities, such as picnic and turf areas, tot lots, recreation fields, pathways and trails including a smaller trail within the project and a longer one that extends for 2.3-miles outside the project site. Regular park activities associated with these amenities include: picnicking, exercising, casual sports, riding bicycles, walking, enjoying nature, reading, etc. Parking for these regular park activities will be accommodated within the 41 spaces located within the on-site main permanent parking lot (see attached Figure 2 - Potential On-Site Parking).

Regular events (as opposed to regular activities above) at Saddleback Gateway will be programmed, scheduled, permitted and conducted as they currently are at existing OC Parks’ urban regional and historic parks (see above description). These events are expected to occur almost exclusively on weekends and will be managed in a manner so as to not substantially conflict with regular park activities and normal traffic levels, and to ensure that parking can be accommodated on site.

Regular Events versus Special Events

Saddleback Gateway offers a unique venue for local community events. The Open Field area will function as a special events center, complemented by adjacent hardtop area. The overall grounds can be used for events as well, or they can be used in tandem with events being held onsite.

Approximately 273 on-site parking spaces, including both the permanent (41 spaces) and the temporary overflow (estimated 232 additional spaces), are proposed to be provided within the Saddleback Gateway site (see attached Figure 2 - Potential On-Site Parking). Consequently, regular smaller local events (e.g., community meetings, outdoor educational programs, and loop trail guided hikes, or other events with fewer than 580 expected attendees) that use these on-site parking spaces can be accommodated without the need for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan.

Special events similar to those held in other urban regional parks (e.g., concerts in the park, 5K runs, large activity days, etc.), and/or other events on a similar scale, will require a Traffic and Parking Management Plan. To determine when an event, or multiple events on the same day, will be classified as a special events and thus require a Traffic and Parking Management Plan, a threshold for regular events must be established.

Based on the above generalized AVO rates for regular events, ample parking will be available within Saddleback Gateway to accommodate regular events (in addition to regular park activities) below a threshold of 580 attendees per day, either per event or, cumulatively, per multiple same-day events. For example, a 5K charity walk-a-thon with 300 attendees and a car club show attracting 500 attendees, both held on the same day, would not fall below the 580-attendee threshold.

Beyond the 580-attendee threshold, an event or multiple same-day events would be classified as a special event or special events and will require a Traffic and Parking Management Plan (Figure 3 – Potential Off- Site Parking Locations).

P A G E 4

Type of Special Events

The Open Field and adjacent hardscape plaza area are expected to be attractive locations for the following:

 Shows/Exhibitions These are usually specialized interest events, typically with displays and vendors. Examples: art, arts and craft, hobby exhibitions.

 Performances These typically involve a stage (or a performing area) with the audience seated in the open field area on their personal chairs. Examples: music, dance, theatre/outdoor plays and performances

 Festivals While they may include performances, festivals encompass a wider variety of activities and attractions and are typically within a fixed perimeter. Examples: cultural heritage, religious, arts, environmental (e.g., Earth Day).

 Other These would include such events as official ceremonies or appearances by high-profile public figures.

Special Event Traffic and Parking Management Plan Tiers

Two tiers for special events have been established to develop the individual Traffic and Parking Management Plans described in the following section. The Special Event Tiers are based solely on the number of attendees per day expected to attend the event. Each associated Traffic and Parking Management Plan is designed to account for the expected number of attendee vehicles that will either be arriving and departing the park or will need to be parked at off-site locations.

The two Special Event Tiers are:

o Tier I: Between 581 and 680 attendees o Tier II: Between 681 and 2,500 attendees

While special events may draw from many geographic areas (e.g., local, Southern California, state, national or international), the expected number of attendees alone is determinate as to the event’s tier; for example, a local cultural heritage festival might draw 1,000 attendees (Tier II), whereas a national model airplane flying competition might draw 600 attendees (Tier I).

Special Event Programming and Scheduling

Special events at Saddleback Gateway will be programmed and scheduled in a manner that minimizes their effect on regular site activities and surrounding neighborhoods. Except in very limited situations, they will be held only on weekends. The actual type and size of the special events are not known at this time. However, based on the tiers established for the Traffic and Parking Management Plan, OC Parks has initially established the following frequency limits for special events: Tier I: two weekends a month, and Tier II: four weekends a calendar year.

P A G E 5

TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW The special events at Saddleback Gateway are anticipated to occur on a limited and controlled basis outside of peak commute periods. However, special considerations must be given to ensure that both the traffic circulation and the parking demand associated with the events are addressed. This Traffic and Parking Management Plan is designed to support the Transportation/Traffic analysis conducted and presented in the CEQA document for the Saddleback Gateway IOP. Any traffic plans for special events that deviate from the assumptions in the CEQA analysis that may result in greater environmental impacts may require additional review, which may result in additional CEQA documentation for the special event. Separate plans are included for each of the Special Event Tiers.

Traffic and parking management for special events requires planning for five phases of each event: A) leading up to the event, B) immediately prior to the event, C) during the event, D) immediately following the event, and E) closure. Figure 3 identifies the potential off-site parking locations for Saddleback Gateway.

TIER I TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Special Events with between 430 and 680 attendees

A. Leading up to event: 1. Coordinate with County of Orange Public Works regarding traffic controls on Santiago Canyon Road. 2. Determine whether to allow self-parking or to direct parking based on anticipated arrival curve. 3. For ticketed events, limit the number of attendees based on anticipated AVO (e.g., 680 parking spaces x 2.5 AVO = 1,700 attendees maximum). 4. For open events, consider a parking fee if anticipated attendance requires maintaining a higher AVO. 5. Advertise by word of mouth, social media, and County or event website to include event time, location of event within Saddleback Gateway, vehicular entrance, and parking fee.

B. Immediately prior to event: 1. Set wayfinding signs to direct traffic starting one major street out from the event. 2. Set traffic cones to extend left-turn lane from Santiago Canyon Road and channelize right turns into park entrance. 3. Set number of entry gates and staff appropriate for anticipated inbound demand and service rate (e.g., approximately 1-2 stations). 4. Place “No Parking” signs, stanchions, posters, etc. as appropriate. 5. Place personnel at decision points beginning with the intersection of Santiago Canyon and Silverado Canyon roads. 6. If parking fee is to be collected, place toll collection within site at bus turn-around area.

C. During the event: 1. Use Santiago Canyon Road as primary entrance and exit.

P A G E 6

2. Instruct personnel at Santiago Canyon Road to direct turning vehicles to minimize delay. 3. Use personnel at decision points to direct vehicles to all available parking lots. 4. If actively directing parking, fill lots front to back in order to avoid pedestrian obstruction and delays.

D. Immediately following the event: 1. Allow exit through both gates along Santiago Canyon Road. 2. Use personnel at parking lot exits to facilitate orderly merging onto Santiago Canyon Road.

E. Closure: 1. Remove all temporary signage used for the event. 2. Circulate lessons learned from the event including: number of attendees and vehicles, origin of attendees, and descriptions of any on-site or off-site complications to assist refinement of Traffic and Parking Management Plan practices. TIER II TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Special Events with between 681 and 2,500 attendees

A. Leading up to event: 1. Coordinate with the OC Public Works regarding traffic controls on Santiago Canyon Road, and potentially the Orange County Sheriff’s Deaprtment. 2. For sports and performance events, plan for directed parking to minimize delay on roadway network. 3. Identify additional off-site parking facilities (e.g., Modjeska Canyon staging area, Black Star Canyon trail staging areas, Augustine staging area and others to be determined – see attached Figure 3) to accommodate parking demand in excess of available on-site spaces and organize shuttle program. 4. Offer prepaid parking with event tickets and consider limiting admittance from Santiago Canyon Road to vehicles with prepaid parking to reduce delay entering parking lots. 5. For open events, consider a parking fee for onsite parking to maintain a higher AVO and a lower fee or free parking at satellite, offsite parking lots. 6. Advertise by social media, newspaper, and County and event websites. Consider radio broadcasting or establishing a hotline accessible to the public with information regarding event time, location of event within Saddleback Gateway, vehicular entrance, parking fee and special announcements/instructions. 7. Consider teaming up with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to provide a train/shuttle express program.

B. Immediately prior to event: 1. Set wayfinding signs to direct traffic starting two major streets out from the event and offsite parking lots. 2. Set traffic cones to extend left-turn lane from Santiago Canyon Road and channelize right turns into Saddleback Gateway entrance.

P A G E 7

3. Set number of entry gates and staff appropriate for anticipated inbound demand and service rate (e.g., approximately 2-3 stations). 4. Place “No Parking” signs, barricades, stanchions, posters, etc. as appropriate. 5. Place personnel at decision points beginning with the intersection of Santiago Canyon and Silverado Canyon Roads. 6. Place parking toll collection inside property boundary. 7. Consider using Main Lot for bus parking and shuttle drop-offs.

C. During the event: 1. Use north access driveway entrance as primary entrance and south access driveway as primary exit. 2. Use personnel at decision points to direct vehicles to onsite lots in sequence. 3. If actively directing parking, fill lots front to back in order to avoid pedestrian obstruction and delays. 4. Count vacated parking spaces and admit additional vehicles as space permits.

5. Equip all traffic/parking personnel with two-way radio units to keep communications timely and efficient.

D. Immediately following the event: 1. Allow vehicles parked onsite to use North access driveway as primary exit. 2. Use personnel at parking lot exits to facilitate orderly merging onto Santiago Canyon Road accordingly.

E. Closure: 1. Remove all temporary signage used for the event. 2. Organize an after-action meeting with all agencies involved. 3. Circulate lessons learned from the event including: number of attendees and vehicles, origin of attendees, and descriptions of any on-site or off-site complications to assist refinement of Traffic and Parking Management Plan practices.

CALCUALTIONS

NOISE NOISE

AIR QUALITY AND AND QUALITY AIR

–

APPENDIXB

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

Saddleback Gateway Orange County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

City Park 8.23 Acre 8.23 358,498.80 0

Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.20 Acre 1.20 52,272.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 8.23 acres City Park and 1.2 acres of Other Asphalt Surfaces Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by applicant Grading - Demolition - 196 tons of asphalt to be removed Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks added to demolition and grading phases to account for water truck emissions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 3x per day per SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 65.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 12.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/30/2016 12/31/2016

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2016 4.4269 46.7657 36.8470 0.0446 6.7575 2.3094 8.9653 3.4226 2.1524 5.4538 0.0000 4,530.444 4,530.444 1.1220 0.0000 4,554.005 1 1 9

Total 4.4269 46.7657 36.8470 0.0446 6.7575 2.3094 8.9653 3.4226 2.1524 5.4538 0.0000 4,530.444 4,530.444 1.1220 0.0000 4,554.005 1 1 9

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2016 4.4269 46.7657 36.8470 0.0446 2.7606 2.3094 4.9684 1.3685 2.1524 3.3996 0.0000 4,530.444 4,530.444 1.1220 0.0000 4,554.005 1 1 9

Total 4.4269 46.7657 36.8470 0.0446 2.7606 2.3094 4.9684 1.3685 2.1524 3.3996 0.0000 4,530.444 4,530.444 1.1220 0.0000 4,554.005 1 1 9

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.15 0.00 44.58 60.02 0.00 37.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0383 0.0860 0.4161 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6504 93.6504 3.5600e- 93.7253 003 003 003 003

Total 10.7798 0.0860 0.4170 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6525 93.6525 3.5700e- 0.0000 93.7275 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0383 0.0860 0.4161 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6504 93.6504 3.5600e- 93.7253 003 003 003 003

Total 10.7798 0.0860 0.4170 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6525 93.6525 3.5700e- 0.0000 93.7275 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2016 9/14/2016 5 10

2 Grading Grading 9/15/2016 12/14/2016 5 65

3 Paving Paving 12/15/2016 12/31/2016 5 12

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 162 0.38

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 125 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 130 0.36

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Demolition 6 15.00 6.00 19.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 6 15.00 6.00 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

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.4194 0.0000 0.4194 0.0635 0.0000 0.0635 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 2.2921 2.2921 2.1365 2.1365 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.6374 1 1

Total 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 0.4194 2.2921 2.7116 0.0635 2.1365 2.2000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0347 0.5236 0.3800 1.4000e- 0.0331 7.8700e- 0.0410 9.0600e- 7.2400e- 0.0163 140.8545 140.8545 1.0000e- 140.8755 003 003 003 003 003

Vendor 0.0525 0.5190 0.6133 1.3000e- 0.0375 8.2200e- 0.0457 0.0107 7.5600e- 0.0182 130.1153 130.1153 9.2000e- 130.1347 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1392 1.1098 1.8167 4.7400e- 0.2383 0.0173 0.2555 0.0642 0.0159 0.0801 441.1601 441.1601 9.9200e- 441.3686 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.1636 0.0000 0.1636 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 2.2921 2.2921 2.1365 2.1365 0.0000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.6374 1 1

Total 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 0.1636 2.2921 2.4557 0.0248 2.1365 2.1613 0.0000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0347 0.5236 0.3800 1.4000e- 0.0331 7.8700e- 0.0410 9.0600e- 7.2400e- 0.0163 140.8545 140.8545 1.0000e- 140.8755 003 003 003 003 003

Vendor 0.0525 0.5190 0.6133 1.3000e- 0.0375 8.2200e- 0.0457 0.0107 7.5600e- 0.0182 130.1153 130.1153 9.2000e- 130.1347 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1392 1.1098 1.8167 4.7400e- 0.2383 0.0173 0.2555 0.0642 0.0159 0.0801 441.1601 441.1601 9.9200e- 441.3686 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.3860 9 9

Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 6.5523 2.1984 8.7507 3.3675 2.0225 5.3900 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0525 0.5190 0.6133 1.3000e- 0.0375 8.2200e- 0.0457 0.0107 7.5600e- 0.0182 130.1153 130.1153 9.2000e- 130.1347 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1045 0.5862 1.4367 3.3400e- 0.2052 9.3900e- 0.2146 0.0552 8.6400e- 0.0638 300.3056 300.3056 8.9200e- 300.4930 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 2.5554 0.0000 2.5554 1.3133 0.0000 1.3133 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 0.0000 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.3860 9 9

Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.5554 2.1984 4.7538 1.3133 2.0225 3.3359 0.0000 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0525 0.5190 0.6133 1.3000e- 0.0375 8.2200e- 0.0457 0.0107 7.5600e- 0.0182 130.1153 130.1153 9.2000e- 130.1347 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1045 0.5862 1.4367 3.3400e- 0.2052 9.3900e- 0.2146 0.0552 8.6400e- 0.0638 300.3056 300.3056 8.9200e- 300.4930 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.0898 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3518 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.0898 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 0.0000 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3518 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 0.0000 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0520 0.0672 0.8235 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 170.1902 170.1902 8.0000e- 170.3583 003 003 003 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0383 0.0860 0.4161 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6504 93.6504 3.5600e- 93.7253 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated 0.0383 0.0860 0.4161 1.1100e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1200e- 0.0224 93.6504 93.6504 3.5600e- 93.7253 003 003 003 003

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

City Park 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655

4.3 Trip Type Information

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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.510449 0.057012 0.191854 0.151889 0.041459 0.005887 0.015572 0.014818 0.001440 0.002145 0.004716 0.000509 0.002251 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

5.04.4 FleetEnergy Mix Detail Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Unmitigated 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 2.6081 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 8.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 005 004 003 003 005 003

Total 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 2.6081 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 8.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 005 004 003 003 005 003

Total 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:52 PM

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

Saddleback Gateway Orange County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

City Park 8.23 Acre 8.23 358,498.80 0

Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.20 Acre 1.20 52,272.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 8.23 acres City Park and 1.2 acres of Other Asphalt Surfaces Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by applicant Grading - Demolition - 196 tons of asphalt to be removed Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks added to demolition and grading phases to account for water truck emissions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 3x per day per SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 65.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 12.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/30/2016 12/31/2016

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2016 4.4377 46.8025 36.9791 0.0445 6.7575 2.3095 8.9654 3.4226 2.1525 5.4539 0.0000 4,520.006 4,520.006 1.1220 0.0000 4,543.568 2 2 9

Total 4.4377 46.8025 36.9791 0.0445 6.7575 2.3095 8.9654 3.4226 2.1525 5.4539 0.0000 4,520.006 4,520.006 1.1220 0.0000 4,543.568 2 2 9

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2016 4.4377 46.8025 36.9791 0.0445 2.7606 2.3095 4.9685 1.3685 2.1525 3.3997 0.0000 4,520.006 4,520.006 1.1220 0.0000 4,543.568 2 2 9

Total 4.4377 46.8025 36.9791 0.0445 2.7606 2.3095 4.9685 1.3685 2.1525 3.3997 0.0000 4,520.006 4,520.006 1.1220 0.0000 4,543.568 2 2 9

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.15 0.00 44.58 60.02 0.00 37.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0406 0.0907 0.4152 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5663 89.5663 3.5700e- 89.6412 003 003 003 003

Total 10.7820 0.0907 0.4162 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5683 89.5683 3.5800e- 0.0000 89.6433 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0406 0.0907 0.4152 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5663 89.5663 3.5700e- 89.6412 003 003 003 003

Total 10.7820 0.0907 0.4162 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5683 89.5683 3.5800e- 0.0000 89.6433 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2016 9/14/2016 5 10

2 Grading Grading 9/15/2016 12/14/2016 5 65

3 Paving Paving 12/15/2016 12/31/2016 5 12

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 162 0.38

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 125 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 130 0.36

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Demolition 6 15.00 6.00 19.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 6 15.00 6.00 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

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.4194 0.0000 0.4194 0.0635 0.0000 0.0635 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 2.2921 2.2921 2.1365 2.1365 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Total 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 0.4194 2.2921 2.7116 0.0635 2.1365 2.2000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0371 0.5415 0.4361 1.4000e- 0.0331 7.8900e- 0.0410 9.0600e- 7.2600e- 0.0163 140.5188 140.5188 1.0100e- 140.5401 003 003 003 003 003

Vendor 0.0582 0.5312 0.7370 1.2900e- 0.0375 8.3100e- 0.0458 0.0107 7.6400e- 0.0183 129.0182 129.0182 9.5000e- 129.0382 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1501 1.1467 1.9488 4.6200e- 0.2383 0.0174 0.2556 0.0642 0.0160 0.0802 430.7222 430.7222 9.9600e- 430.9315 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.1636 0.0000 0.1636 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 2.2921 2.2921 2.1365 2.1365 0.0000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Total 4.2876 45.6559 35.0303 0.0399 0.1636 2.2921 2.4557 0.0248 2.1365 2.1613 0.0000 4,089.284 4,089.284 1.1121 4,112.637 1 1 4

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0371 0.5415 0.4361 1.4000e- 0.0331 7.8900e- 0.0410 9.0600e- 7.2600e- 0.0163 140.5188 140.5188 1.0100e- 140.5401 003 003 003 003 003

Vendor 0.0582 0.5312 0.7370 1.2900e- 0.0375 8.3100e- 0.0458 0.0107 7.6400e- 0.0183 129.0182 129.0182 9.5000e- 129.0382 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1501 1.1467 1.9488 4.6200e- 0.2383 0.0174 0.2556 0.0642 0.0160 0.0802 430.7222 430.7222 9.9600e- 430.9315 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 6.5523 2.1984 8.7507 3.3675 2.0225 5.3900 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0582 0.5312 0.7370 1.2900e- 0.0375 8.3100e- 0.0458 0.0107 7.6400e- 0.0183 129.0182 129.0182 9.5000e- 129.0382 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1129 0.6052 1.5127 3.2200e- 0.2052 9.4800e- 0.2147 0.0552 8.7200e- 0.0639 290.2034 290.2034 8.9500e- 290.3914 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 2.5554 0.0000 2.5554 1.3133 0.0000 1.3133 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 0.0000 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.5554 2.1984 4.7538 1.3133 2.0225 3.3359 0.0000 3,093.788 3,093.788 0.9332 3,113.386 9 9 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0582 0.5312 0.7370 1.2900e- 0.0375 8.3100e- 0.0458 0.0107 7.6400e- 0.0183 129.0182 129.0182 9.5000e- 129.0382 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.1129 0.6052 1.5127 3.2200e- 0.2052 9.4800e- 0.2147 0.0552 8.7200e- 0.0639 290.2034 290.2034 8.9500e- 290.3914 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.0898 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3518 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.0898 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 0.0000 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3518 22.3859 14.8176 0.0223 1.2610 1.2610 1.1601 1.1601 0.0000 2,316.376 2,316.376 0.6987 2,331.049 7 7 5

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0548 0.0739 0.7757 1.9300e- 0.1677 1.1700e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0800e- 0.0455 161.1852 161.1852 8.0000e- 161.3532 003 003 003 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0406 0.0907 0.4152 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5663 89.5663 3.5700e- 89.6412 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated 0.0406 0.0907 0.4152 1.0600e- 0.0796 1.2200e- 0.0808 0.0212 1.1300e- 0.0224 89.5663 89.5663 3.5700e- 89.6412 003 003 003 003

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

City Park 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655

4.3 Trip Type Information

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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.510449 0.057012 0.191854 0.151889 0.041459 0.005887 0.015572 0.014818 0.001440 0.002145 0.004716 0.000509 0.002251 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

5.04.4 FleetEnergy Mix Detail Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Unmitigated 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 2.6081 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 8.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 005 004 003 003 005 003

Total 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 2.6081 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 8.1333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 005 004 003 003 005 003

Total 10.7415 1.0000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0600e- 2.0600e- 1.0000e- 2.1800e- 005 004 003 003 005 003

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 17 Date: 7/28/2016 2:49 PM

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

Saddleback Gateway Orange County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

City Park 8.23 Acre 8.23 358,498.80 0

Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.20 Acre 1.20 52,272.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 8.23 acres City Park and 1.2 acres of Other Asphalt Surfaces Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by applicant Grading - Demolition - 196 tons of asphalt to be removed Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks added to demolition and grading phases to account for water truck emissions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 3x per day per SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 65.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 12.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/30/2016 12/31/2016

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2016 0.1592 1.6385 1.1747 1.4400e- 0.2238 0.0909 0.3146 0.1121 0.0837 0.1959 0.0000 133.8783 133.8783 0.0367 0.0000 134.6493 003

Total 0.1592 1.6385 1.1747 1.4400e- 0.2238 0.0909 0.3146 0.1121 0.0837 0.1959 0.0000 133.8783 133.8783 0.0367 0.0000 134.6493 003

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2016 0.1592 1.6385 1.1747 1.4400e- 0.0926 0.0909 0.1835 0.0452 0.0837 0.1289 0.0000 133.8782 133.8782 0.0367 0.0000 134.6492 003

Total 0.1592 1.6385 1.1747 1.4400e- 0.0926 0.0909 0.1835 0.0452 0.0837 0.1289 0.0000 133.8782 133.8782 0.0367 0.0000 134.6492 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.63 0.00 41.69 59.72 0.00 34.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 6.9600e- 0.0168 0.0760 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 14.9560 14.9560 5.9000e- 0.0000 14.9683 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1441 0.0000 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1760 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004

Total 1.9673 0.0168 0.0761 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.1441 46.1322 46.2763 0.0105 3.0000e- 46.5896 004 004 003 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 6.9600e- 0.0168 0.0760 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 14.9560 14.9560 5.9000e- 0.0000 14.9683 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1441 0.0000 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1760 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004

Total 1.9673 0.0168 0.0761 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.1441 46.1322 46.2763 0.0105 3.0000e- 46.5896 004 004 003 004 003 004

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2016 9/14/2016 5 10

2 Grading Grading 9/15/2016 12/14/2016 5 65

3 Paving Paving 12/15/2016 12/31/2016 5 12 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 162 0.38

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 125 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 130 0.36

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Demolition 6 15.00 6.00 19.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 6 15.00 6.00 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

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 2.1000e- 0.0000 2.1000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004

Off-Road 0.0214 0.2283 0.1752 2.0000e- 0.0115 0.0115 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 18.5487 18.5487 5.0400e- 0.0000 18.6546 004 003

Total 0.0214 0.2283 0.1752 2.0000e- 2.1000e- 0.0115 0.0136 3.2000e- 0.0107 0.0110 0.0000 18.5487 18.5487 5.0400e- 0.0000 18.6546 004 003 004 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 1.8000e- 2.7500e- 2.1200e- 1.0000e- 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 0.0000 0.0000 0.6384 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005

Vendor 2.8000e- 2.7100e- 3.5400e- 1.0000e- 1.8000e- 4.0000e- 2.3000e- 5.0000e- 4.0000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.5881 0.5881 0.0000 0.0000 0.5882 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005

Worker 2.6000e- 3.8000e- 3.9600e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7421 0.7421 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7429 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

Total 7.2000e- 5.8400e- 9.6200e- 3.0000e- 1.1600e- 9.0000e- 1.2600e- 3.1000e- 9.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.9685 1.9685 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.9695 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 8.2000e- 0.0000 8.2000e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004 004 004 004

Off-Road 0.0214 0.2283 0.1752 2.0000e- 0.0115 0.0115 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 18.5487 18.5487 5.0400e- 0.0000 18.6546 004 003

Total 0.0214 0.2283 0.1752 2.0000e- 8.2000e- 0.0115 0.0123 1.2000e- 0.0107 0.0108 0.0000 18.5487 18.5487 5.0400e- 0.0000 18.6546 004 004 004 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 1.8000e- 2.7500e- 2.1200e- 1.0000e- 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 0.0000 0.0000 0.6384 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005

Vendor 2.8000e- 2.7100e- 3.5400e- 1.0000e- 1.8000e- 4.0000e- 2.3000e- 5.0000e- 4.0000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.5881 0.5881 0.0000 0.0000 0.5882 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005

Worker 2.6000e- 3.8000e- 3.9600e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7421 0.7421 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7429 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

Total 7.2000e- 5.8400e- 9.6200e- 3.0000e- 1.1600e- 9.0000e- 1.2600e- 3.1000e- 9.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.9685 1.9685 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.9695 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.2130 0.0000 0.2130 0.1094 0.0000 0.1094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.1192 1.2495 0.8476 9.7000e- 0.0715 0.0715 0.0657 0.0657 0.0000 91.2157 91.2157 0.0275 0.0000 91.7935 004

Total 0.1192 1.2495 0.8476 9.7000e- 0.2130 0.0715 0.2844 0.1094 0.0657 0.1752 0.0000 91.2157 91.2157 0.0275 0.0000 91.7935 004

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

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 1.8200e- 0.0176 0.0230 4.0000e- 1.2000e- 2.7000e- 1.4700e- 3.4000e- 2.5000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 3.8227 3.8227 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.8233 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 005

Worker 1.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0257 6.0000e- 5.3500e- 4.0000e- 5.3900e- 1.4200e- 4.0000e- 1.4600e- 0.0000 4.8239 4.8239 2.4000e- 0.0000 4.8288 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Total 3.4900e- 0.0201 0.0487 1.0000e- 6.5500e- 3.1000e- 6.8600e- 1.7600e- 2.9000e- 2.0500e- 0.0000 8.6466 8.6466 2.7000e- 0.0000 8.6521 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

3.3 Grading - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0831 0.0000 0.0831 0.0427 0.0000 0.0427 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.1192 1.2495 0.8476 9.7000e- 0.0715 0.0715 0.0657 0.0657 0.0000 91.2156 91.2156 0.0275 0.0000 91.7934 004

Total 0.1192 1.2495 0.8476 9.7000e- 0.0831 0.0715 0.1545 0.0427 0.0657 0.1084 0.0000 91.2156 91.2156 0.0275 0.0000 91.7934 004

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

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 1.8200e- 0.0176 0.0230 4.0000e- 1.2000e- 2.7000e- 1.4700e- 3.4000e- 2.5000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 3.8227 3.8227 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.8233 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 005

Worker 1.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0257 6.0000e- 5.3500e- 4.0000e- 5.3900e- 1.4200e- 4.0000e- 1.4600e- 0.0000 4.8239 4.8239 2.4000e- 0.0000 4.8288 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Total 3.4900e- 0.0201 0.0487 1.0000e- 6.5500e- 3.1000e- 6.8600e- 1.7600e- 2.9000e- 2.0500e- 0.0000 8.6466 8.6466 2.7000e- 0.0000 8.6521 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0125 0.1343 0.0889 1.3000e- 7.5700e- 7.5700e- 6.9600e- 6.9600e- 0.0000 12.6083 12.6083 3.8000e- 0.0000 12.6882 004 003 003 003 003 003

Paving 1.5700e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003

Total 0.0141 0.1343 0.0889 1.3000e- 7.5700e- 7.5700e- 6.9600e- 6.9600e- 0.0000 12.6083 12.6083 3.8000e- 0.0000 12.6882 004 003 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

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 3.1000e- 4.6000e- 4.7500e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8906 0.8906 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8915 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005

Total 3.1000e- 4.6000e- 4.7500e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8906 0.8906 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8915 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

3.4 Paving - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0125 0.1343 0.0889 1.3000e- 7.5700e- 7.5700e- 6.9600e- 6.9600e- 0.0000 12.6083 12.6083 3.8000e- 0.0000 12.6881 004 003 003 003 003 003

Paving 1.5700e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003

Total 0.0141 0.1343 0.0889 1.3000e- 7.5700e- 7.5700e- 6.9600e- 6.9600e- 0.0000 12.6083 12.6083 3.8000e- 0.0000 12.6881 004 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

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 3.1000e- 4.6000e- 4.7500e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8906 0.8906 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8915 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005

Total 3.1000e- 4.6000e- 4.7500e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.6000e- 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8906 0.8906 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8915 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 6.9600e- 0.0168 0.0760 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 14.9560 14.9560 5.9000e- 0.0000 14.9683 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

Unmitigated 6.9600e- 0.0168 0.0760 2.0000e- 0.0142 2.2000e- 0.0145 3.8000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 14.9560 14.9560 5.9000e- 0.0000 14.9683 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

City Park 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 13.09 13.09 13.09 37,655 37,655

4.3 Trip Type Information

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 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.510449 0.057012 0.191854 0.151889 0.041459 0.005887 0.015572 0.014818 0.001440 0.002145 0.004716 0.000509 0.002251 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

5.04.4 FleetEnergy Mix Detail Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004

Unmitigated 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.4760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 1.4843 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.4760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 1.4843 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.9603 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 004 004 004

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004

Unmitigated 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

City Park 0 / 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 9.80589 003 004

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004

Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

City Park 0 / 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 9.80589 003 004

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 31.1760 1.4300e- 3.0000e- 31.2980 003 004

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

Unmitigated 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

City Park 0.71 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 21 Date: 7/28/2016 2:51 PM

8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

City Park 0.71 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.1441 8.5200e- 0.0000 0.3230 003

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Vegetation Noise Measurement 1 - looking north Noise Measurement 1 - looking northeast

Noise Measurement 1 - looking east Noise Measurement 1 - looking southeast

Noise Measurement 1 - looking south Noise Measurement 1 - looking southwest

Noise Measurement 1 - looking west Noise Measurement 1 - looking northwest Noise Measurement 2 - looking north Noise Measurement 2 - looking northeast

Noise Measurement 2 - looking east Noise Measurement 2 - looking southeast

Noise Measurement 2 - looking south Noise Measurement 2 - looking southwest

Noise Measurement 2 - looking west Noise Measurement 2 - looking northwest General Information Serial Number 02509 Model 831 Firmware Version 2.301 Filename 831_Data.001 User GT Job Description Saddleback Gateway Project Location 10' North of Silverado Children's Center

Measurement Description Start Time Friday, 2016 July 22 11:24:14 Stop Time Friday, 2016 July 22 11:39:14 Duration 00:15:00.5 Run Time 00:15:00.5 Pause 00:00:00.0 Pre Calibration Friday, 2016 July 22 11:22:40 Post Calibration None Calibration Deviation ---

Note 98 F, 29.92 in Hg, 21% Hu, 2 mph wind, clear sky Noise from Santiago Cyn Rd (350 ft to west) and AC unit

Overall Data LAeq 51.8 dB LASmax 2016 Jul 22 11:31:52 62.0 dB LApeak (max) 2016 Jul 22 11:34:02 81.8 dB LASmin 2016 Jul 22 11:26:26 40.4 dB LCeq 61.5 dB LAeq 51.8 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.7 dB LAIeq 53.3 dB LAeq 51.8 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.5 dB Ldn 51.8 dB LDay 07:00-23:00 51.8 dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB Lden 51.8 dB LDay 07:00-19:00 51.8 dB LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB LAE 81.4 dB # Overloads 0 Overload Duration 0.0 s # OBA Overloads 0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s

Statistics LAS5.00 55.8 dBA LAS10.00 54.5 dBA LAS33.30 52.1 dBA LAS50.00 50.9 dBA LAS66.60 48.8 dBA LAS90.00 45.2 dBA

LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s

Settings RMS Weight A Weighting Peak Weight A Weighting Detector Slow Preamp PRM831 Integration Method Linear OBA Range Normal OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3 OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max Gain +0 dB

Under Range Limit 26.1 dB Under Range Peak 75.1 dB Noise Floor 16.9 dB Overload 142.6 dB

1/1 Spectra Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 62.1 56.3 54.2 57.6 57.2 48.8 47.7 48.4 42.7 39.8 40.1 42.4 LZSmax 77.6 72.0 67.0 73.2 75.6 63.9 59.7 56.4 51.8 44.9 44.6 43.7 LZSmin 39.2 46.1 45.3 43.9 35.7 34.5 33.3 34.5 35.3 36.5 38.8 42.2 1/3 Spectra Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 59.3 56.9 54.5 52.9 51.4 50.0 49.2 48.7 50.3 53.8 52.8 51.6 LZSmax 75.3 71.3 69.5 69.3 66.7 62.9 63.8 64.9 65.2 72.0 72.0 71.8 LZSmin 31.9 34.4 33.5 37.4 41.8 39.2 37.2 38.0 41.6 39.7 39.2 35.4

Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1.25k LZeq 53.9 53.7 47.6 42.8 43.7 45.1 44.1 42.3 41.8 42.1 42.9 45.3 LZSmax 73.9 71.2 64.9 57.8 60.0 61.0 56.5 54.7 55.2 51.3 50.6 53.8 LZSmin 32.6 30.9 26.4 29.0 28.8 28.5 28.7 28.4 28.5 29.0 29.4 30.2

Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 39.6 37.2 35.8 35.6 34.6 34.8 34.7 35.3 35.8 36.5 37.3 39.0 LZSmax 47.7 46.3 46.7 42.0 40.8 41.4 39.7 42.0 39.0 38.2 39.1 39.6 LZSmin 30.4 29.6 30.2 31.4 31.3 32.1 32.7 33.8 34.9 36.1 37.0 38.7

Calibration History Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa PRM831 22 Jul 2016 11:22:38 -25.1 PRM831 18 Jul 2016 16:09:36 -25.0 PRM831 29 Jun 2016 10:02:21 -25.8 PRM831 23 May 2016 20:57:21 -24.4 PRM831 21 Apr 2016 20:33:17 -26.4 PRM831 05 Apr 2016 19:44:56 -25.8 PRM831 20 Jan 2016 19:37:37 -25.1 PRM831 04 Jan 2016 15:13:27 -25.0 PRM831 24 Nov 2015 17:51:11 -25.7 PRM831 18 Sep 2015 11:07:45 -24.9 PRM831 10 Sep 2015 15:32:49 -25.6 General Information Serial Number 02509 Model 831 Firmware Version 2.301 Filename 831_Data.002 User GT Job Description Saddleback Gateway Project Location In front of 7432 Santiago Cyn Rd

Measurement Description Start Time Friday, 2016 July 22 11:44:30 Stop Time Friday, 2016 July 22 11:59:31 Duration 00:15:00.6 Run Time 00:15:00.6 Pause 00:00:00.0 Pre Calibration Friday, 2016 July 22 11:22:38 Post Calibration None Calibration Deviation ---

Note 100 F, 29.9 in Hg,, 19% Hu, 2 mph wind, clear sky Noise from Santiago Cyn Rd (60 feet to east) and neighbors in yards

Overall Data LAeq 61.2 dB LASmax 2016 Jul 22 11:51:07 81.9 dB LApeak (max) 2016 Jul 22 11:51:07 98.5 dB LASmin 2016 Jul 22 11:48:24 34.1 dB LCeq 72.3 dB LAeq 61.2 dB LCeq - LAeq 11.0 dB LAIeq 64.1 dB LAeq 61.2 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.9 dB Ldn 61.2 dB LDay 07:00-23:00 61.2 dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB Lden 61.2 dB LDay 07:00-19:00 61.2 dB LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB LAE 90.8 dB # Overloads 0 Overload Duration 0.0 s # OBA Overloads 0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s

Statistics LAS5.00 65.4 dBA LAS10.00 63.6 dBA LAS33.30 55.0 dBA LAS50.00 48.9 dBA LAS66.60 43.2 dBA LAS90.00 38.3 dBA

LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 25 / 78.3 s LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s

Settings RMS Weight A Weighting Peak Weight A Weighting Detector Slow Preamp PRM831 Integration Method Linear OBA Range Normal OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3 OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max Gain +0 dB

Under Range Limit 26.1 dB Under Range Peak 75.1 dB Noise Floor 16.9 dB Overload 142.6 dB

1/1 Spectra Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 53.8 52.5 58.9 66.4 70.1 62.6 56.2 56.8 50.9 44.0 40.7 42.6 LZSmax 77.5 67.0 79.8 88.6 92.0 85.6 79.0 77.7 69.5 64.4 55.5 51.4 LZSmin 36.3 41.9 39.6 53.0 35.1 30.8 31.1 32.2 32.6 35.4 39.0 42.3 1/3 Spectra Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 50.9 48.8 47.4 46.6 47.4 49.1 50.0 51.8 57.3 63.2 58.1 61.7 LZSmax 73.5 72.0 71.1 64.6 61.7 64.2 68.5 68.5 79.6 87.5 78.4 84.1 LZSmin 29.7 29.4 32.1 33.5 35.9 35.3 35.4 34.4 34.1 49.1 50.1 32.6

Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1.25k LZeq 65.6 67.5 59.7 58.9 58.3 56.0 53.1 50.5 49.7 51.9 53.0 51.3 LZSmax 87.3 89.5 82.5 81.7 81.4 80.2 77.5 72.1 67.1 73.3 75.2 70.3 LZSmin 30.8 30.6 27.4 25.7 25.4 26.0 25.9 25.7 26.2 27.1 26.8 27.5

Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 48.6 44.7 43.0 41.0 38.6 37.2 36.1 35.6 36.2 36.5 37.4 39.4 LZSmax 67.1 62.6 63.0 61.9 58.7 56.6 52.8 50.5 46.6 43.0 41.7 51.2 LZSmin 27.3 27.6 28.4 29.3 30.4 30.3 31.7 33.6 35.4 36.0 37.1 38.7

Calibration History Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa PRM831 22 Jul 2016 11:22:38 -25.1 PRM831 18 Jul 2016 16:09:36 -25.0 PRM831 29 Jun 2016 10:02:21 -25.8 PRM831 23 May 2016 20:57:21 -24.4 PRM831 21 Apr 2016 20:33:17 -26.4 PRM831 05 Apr 2016 19:44:56 -25.8 PRM831 20 Jan 2016 19:37:37 -25.1 PRM831 04 Jan 2016 15:13:27 -25.0 PRM831 24 Nov 2015 17:51:11 -25.7 PRM831 18 Sep 2015 11:07:45 -24.9 PRM831 10 Sep 2015 15:32:49 -25.6 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 7/29/2016 Case Description: Saddleback Gateway - Demolition

---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes Residential 61.2 61.2 61.2

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 400 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 450 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 500 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 550 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 600 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 650 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Concrete Saw 71.5 64.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 61.6 57.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 60.7 56.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 60.1 56.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 59.4 55.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 72 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Silverado Children's Center Commercial 51.8 51.8 51.8

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 340 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 390 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 440 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 490 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 540 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 590 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Concrete Saw 72.9 65.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 62.9 58.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 61.8 57.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 60.9 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 61.0 57.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 60.2 56.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 73 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 7/29/2016 Case Description: Saddleback Gateway - Grading

---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes Residential 61.2 61.2 61.2

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 240 0 Grader No 40 85 290 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 340 0 Tractor No 40 84 390 0 Tractor No 40 84 440 0 Tractor No 40 84 490 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 69.7 65.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 65.0 61.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 66.2 62.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 65.1 61.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 64.2 60.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 70 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Silverado Children's Center Commercial 52 52 51.8

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0 Grader No 40 85 100 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0 Tractor No 40 84 200 0 Tractor No 40 84 250 0 Tractor No 40.0 84 300 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 79.0 75.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72.0 68.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70.0 66.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 68.4 64.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 81 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 7/29/2016 Case Description: Saddleback Gateway - Paving

---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes Residential 61.2 61.2 61.2

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 150 0 Paver No 50 77.2 200 0 Paver No 50 77.2 250 0 Paver No 50 77.2 300 0 Roller No 20 80 350 0 Roller No 20 80 400 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Paver 67.7 64.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 65.2 62.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 63.2 60.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 61.7 58.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 63.1 56.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 61.9 54.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 68 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Silverado Children's Center Commercial 52 52 51.8

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 75 0 Paver No 50 77.2 125 0 Paver No 50 77.2 175 0 Paver No 50 77.2 225 0 Roller No 20 80 275 0 Roller No 20 80 325 0

Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Paver 73.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 69.3 66.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 66.3 63.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 64.2 61.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 63.7 56.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 74 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

EVALUATIONATTACHMENTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL

–

C APPENDIX

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Methods

Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey, Chambers Group conducted biological database searches to determine which plant and wildlife species are known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project (defined as within 5 miles). Additionally, biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on March 15, 2016, by Chambers Group biologists Jeremy Smith and Erik Olmos. The purpose of the survey was to conduct an inventory of biological resources within the survey area and assess the potential for the presence of sensitive habitats and plant and wildlife species.

Literature Review

Sensitive Species

Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey, Chambers Group conducted biological database searches to determine which plant and wildlife species are known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project (defined as within 5 miles). The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2016a) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CDFW 2016b) were reviewed for the quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project site (i.e., Tustin, El Toro, Santiago Peak, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Cañada Gobernadora, Corona South, Black Star Canyon, and Orange, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles). These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federally and state listed endangered or threatened or proposed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise sensitive species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. A list of sensitive plant and wildlife species potentially occurring within the Project site was developed from the database searches.

Soils

Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey, soil maps for Orange County were referenced to determine the types of soil found on the Project site. Soils were determined in accordance with categories set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2016).

Biological Reconnaissance Survey

The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on March 15, 2016, by Chambers Group biologists Jeremy Smith and Erik Olmos. The purpose of the survey was to conduct an inventory of biological resources within the survey area and assess the potential for the presence of sensitive habitats and plant and wildlife species. Qualitative observations were made of habitat types on site, including soil and vegetation types. Plant and wildlife species observed or detected during the survey were noted (Appendix C, Attachments 1 and 2). Weather conditions during the general reconnaissance survey included temperatures ranging from approximately 70 to 73°F with clear skies and dry conditions. Photographs to document existing conditions of the Project site were taken and are presented in Appendix C, Attachment 3.

Chambers Group, Inc. A-1 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Vegetation

Plant species and communities observed on the Project site were identified, qualitatively described, and mapped. Plants of uncertain identity were collected and subsequently identified from keys, descriptions, and illustrations. Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). A list of plant species observed during the survey is presented in Appendix C, Attachment 1.

Wildlife

A reconnaissance-level field survey was performed within the survey area to characterize the distribution and relative abundance of wildlife, wildlife resources, and wildlife habitats within the Project site. Wildlife and wildlife sign (including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows, nests, excavations, and vocalizations) were noted and recorded. A list of wildlife species observed during the survey is included in Appendix C, Attachment 2.

Jurisdictional Waters Assessment

Prior to beginning the field preliminary delineation, an aerial photograph (Google Earth 2015) was examined to determine the locations of potential areas containing waters subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction. Chambers Group biologists examined the Project site to identify potential jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the State of California Fish and Game Code.

The aerial imagery reviewed did not identify any jurisdictional features on or around the Project site. Results of the desktop survey were field checked for the presence of riparian vegetation, definable channels, definable bed and bank, and Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWMs). No jurisdictional features were observed during the field survey.

Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Analysis

The potential for occurrence of special status plants and wildlife was evaluated through the literature review and visit to the Project site. A sensitive species was considered a potential inhabitant of the Project site if general habitat requirements of the species were present (such as elevation; soils; presence of roosting, nesting, or foraging habitat; or a permanent water source) and/or its known geographical distribution encompassed or was adjacent to part of the Project site. All habitat types on the Project site were visited on foot, and the probability for special status plants and wildlife to occur on site was evaluated.

The locations of prior CNDDB records of occurrence were also referenced during the analysis. However, since the CNDDB is a positive-sighting database, these data were used only in support of the analysis from the previously identified factors. The potential for presence was determined based on the type of habitat present on site and the results of the field survey. The “potential for occurrence” ranking is based on the following criteria:

Chambers Group, Inc. A-2 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

. Absent: Species was not observed during focused surveys conducted at an appropriate time for identification of the species, or species is restricted to habitats that do not occur on the Project site, or suitable habitat conditions are not present on site.

. Low: Habitats needed to support the species are of poor quality within the Project site.

. Moderate: Either habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Project site; or marginal habitat exists within the site and a historical record exists of the species within the Project site or immediate vicinity of the Project site.

. High: Both the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the site, and a historical record exists of the species within the Project site or its immediate vicinity.

. Present: Species was observed within the Project site at the time of the survey.

Location information on some sensitive species is not available; therefore, for survey purposes, landscape factors associated with species occurrence requirements may be considered sufficient to give a species a positive potential for occurrence.

Status Codes

The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine the significance of biological resources potentially occurring on the Project site.

Federal FE = Federally listed; Endangered FT = Federally listed; Threatened FC = Federal Candidate for listing FSC = Federal Species of Special Concern FBCC = Federal Bird of Conservation Concern State ST = State listed; Threatened SE = State listed; Endangered SC = State Candidate for Listing SP = State protected SSC = State Species of Special Concern SWL = State Watch List

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) [Formerly known as the CNPS List status] List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California. List 1B = Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. List 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range. List 3 = Plants about which we need more information; a review list.

Chambers Group, Inc. A-3 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

List 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list. CRPR Extensions 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat). 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened). 0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened). Principal Characteristics of Vegetation Communities Observed

California Sagebrush Scrub

California Sagebrush Scrub, as described by Sawyer et al. (2009), is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), forming an intermittent to continuous canopy of shrubs less than 6.5 feet in height; this series exists on slopes that are usually steep and rarely flooded. Soils are alluvial or colluvial derived and shallow. The floristic composition of this vegetation community matches the Diegan Coastal and Riversidian sage scrubs (sometimes referred to as Coastal Sage Scrub) described by Holland (1986); they typically occur on xeric sites such as steep slopes, severely drained soils, or clays that slowly release stored soil moisture. This vegetation type contains low, soft-woody sub-shrubs that are most active in winter and early spring; many taxa are drought-deciduous (Holland 1986).

Coast Live Oak Woodland

Coast Live Oak Woodland consists of evergreen trees dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) reaching between 30 to 80 feet in height. Shrub layer is poorly developed and can include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), gooseberry (Ribes sp.), and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea). Herbaceous layer is continuous and dominated by non-natives such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). This community occurs on exposed north-facing slopes below 4,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and shaded ravines in the south and has been known to intergrade with Coastal Scrub, Upper Sonoran Mixed Chaparral on drier sites and Coast Live Oak Forest and Mixed Evergreen Forest on moister sites (Holland 1986).

Non-Native Grassland

Non-Native Grassland consists of a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses such as oats (Avena sp.), bromes (Bromus sp.), and ryegrass (Lolium sp.) with flowering culms up to 3 feet in height. This community is often associated with numerous species of showy-flowered, native annual forbs “wildflowers” such as California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), lupines (Lupinus sp.), and goldfields (Lasthenia sp.) especially in years of favorable rainfall (Holland 1986). Germination occurs with the onset of the late fall rains; growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring. Typically, plants are dead through the summer-fall dry season, persisting as seeds. Non-native grasslands can be found on fine-textured, usually clay soils, moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall. Oak woodland is often adjacent on moister, better-drained soils.

Chambers Group, Inc. A-4 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Ruderal

Areas classified as Ruderal tend to be dominated by pioneering herbaceous species that readily colonize disturbed ground and that are typically found in temporary, often frequently disturbed habitats (Barbour et al. 1999). The soils in ruderal areas are typically characterized as heavily compacted or frequently disturbed. The vegetation in these areas is adapted to living in compact soils where water does not readily penetrate the soil. Often, Ruderal areas are dominated by species of the Centaurea, Brassica, Malva, Salsola, Eremocarpus, Amaranthus, and Atriplex genera.

Ornamental Landscaping

Ornamental Landscaping describes areas where the vegetation is dominated by non-native horticultural plants (Gray and Bramlet 1992). Typically, the species composition consists of introduced trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass.

Sensitive Plants

The CNDDB and CNPSEI literature reviews resulted in a list of 13 sensitive plant species that have records of occurrence on or within the vicinity of the Project site. One of the 13 sensitive plant species is federally and/or state listed as an endangered or threatened species. The current listing status for each species is provided after its scientific name.

Nine sensitive species of plants require habitat conditions (cismontane woodland, riparian, chaparral, seeps, or vernal pool habitat, alkaline substrate, or occur outside the elevation range of the site) that are not met on the Project site. Furthermore, the majority of the site is highly disturbed and has urban development. The following species are considered absent from the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat:

. Malibu baccharis (Baccharis malibuensis), CRPR 1B.1 . San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), FC, SE, CRPR 1B.1 . Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii), CRPR 1B.1 . heart-leaved pitcher sage (Lepechinia cardiophylla), CRPR 1B.2 . mud nama (Nama stenocarpa), CRPR 4.3 . chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana), CRPR 1B.2 . Allen’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta aurea subsp. allenii), CRPR 1B.1 . Santiago Peak phacelia (Phacelia keckii), CRPR 1B.3 . chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), CRPR 2B.2

*CRPR: California Rare Plant Ranks* Sensitive Wildlife

The CNDDB literature review resulted in 25 sensitive wildlife species that have records of occurrence on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Five of the 25 sensitive wildlife species are federally and/or state listed as endangered or threatened species. The current listing status for each species is provided after its scientific name.

Chambers Group, Inc. A-5 20921 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saddleback Gateway Interim Operations Plan Project IP 16-213 Orange County, California

Fourteen of the 25 sensitive wildlife species have habitat requirements (chaparral and coniferous woodland habitats, sandy or loose soils, nesting or roosting sites, or open water) that are not met on the Project site. The following species are considered absent due to lack of suitable habitat:

. arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), SSC . pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), SSC . western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), SSC . bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), SE . yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), SSC . California mountain kingsnake (San Diego population) (Lampropeltis zonata (pulchra)), SSC . northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), SSC . Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3), SSC . western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), SSC . Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), FE . coast range newt (Taricha torosa), SSC . two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), SSC . least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), FE, SE . western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), SSC

Chambers Group, Inc. A-6 20921

Attachment 1: Plant Species Observed

Scientific Name Common Name

GYMNOSPERMS PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Pinus sp.+ pine ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS) ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea blue elderberry ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Malosma laurina laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia lemonadeberry Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY Foeniculum vulgare* fennel APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY Nerium oleander* oleander ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Corethrogyne filaginifolia sand-aster Deinandra fasciculata fascicled tarweed Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow Gazania sp.* African daisy Helianthus gracilentus slender sunflower Isocoma menziesii coast goldenbush Pseudognaphalium californicum California everlasting Silybum marianum* milk thistle Sonchus asper subsp. asper* prickly sow thistle Taraxacum officinale* common dandelion BETULACEAE BIRCH FAMILY Betula sp.+ Asian white birch BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia menziesii common fiddleneck BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Hirschfeldia incana* shortpod mustard Sisymbrium sp.* mustard CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia littoralis coastal prickly pear

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Scientific Name Common Name CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY Silene gallica* common catchfly CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Chenopodium album* lamb's quarters Salsola tragus* Russian thistle CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Calystegia macrostegia western bindweed Cuscuta sp. dodder CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Croton setiger turkey-mullein Euphorbia peplus* petty spurge Ricinus communis* castor-bean FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Acmispon glaber deerweed Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine Medicago polymorpha* bur clover Melilotus indica* sourclover FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY Quercus agrifolia coast live oak GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium sp.* filaree GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY Ribes indecorum white flowering currant LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Marrubium vulgare* horehound Salvia mellifera black sage MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY Malacothamnus fasciculatus mesa bushmallow Malva parviflora* cheeseweed MONTIACEAE MINER'S LETTUCE FAMILY Claytonia perfoliata miner's lettuce MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY Anagallis arvensis* scarlet pimpernel NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia California wishbone bush OXALIDACEAE OXALIS FAMILY Oxalis pes-caprae* Bermuda buttercup

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Scientific Name Common Name POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY Rhamnus ilicifolia holly-leaf redberry ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Solanum xanti chaparral nightshade URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY Urtica dioica stinging nettle ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS) AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY Hesperoyucca whipplei Our Lord's candle IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Avena fatua* wild oat Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Bromus hordeaceus* soft chess Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens* red brome Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Stipa miliacea var. miliacea* smilo grass THEMIDACEAE BRODIAEA FAMILY Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks *Non-Native Species, +Ornamental, Unlikely to be Invasive

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Attachment 2: Wildlife Species Observed

Scientific Name Common Name CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES ZEBRA-TAILED, EARLESS, FRINGE-TOED, SPINY, TREE, SIDE- PHRYNOSOMATIDAE BLOTCHED, AND HORNED LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard CLASS AVES BIRDS CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura turkey vulture ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk FALCONIDAE FALCONS Falco sparverius American kestrel APODIDAE SWIFTS Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird PICIDAE WOODPECKERS Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird CORVIDAE JAYS and CROWS Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus bushtit TURDIDAE THRUSHES Turdus migratorius American robin MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS, THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird PTILOGONATIDAE SILKY-FLYCATCHERS Phainopepla nitens phainopepla PARULIDAE WOOD WARBLERS Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler EMBERIZIDAE EMBERIZIDS

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Scientific Name Common Name Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES Carpodacus mexicanus house finch CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

ATTACHMENT 3 - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1: Photo depicts an open field with Ruderal vegetation in the southern portion of the site.

Photo 2: Photo depicts the large open field with Ruderal vegetation in the northern portion of the site.

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Photo 3:An overview of the Project site from the hills to the northeast. Photo facing southwest.

Photo 4: Representative photo of the Oak Woodland (with trails) in the southern tip of the site.

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921

Photo 5: Representative photo of the California Sagebrush Scrub mapped within the Project site.

Photo 6: California Sagebrush Scrub adjacent to the Project site.

Chambers Group, Inc. 20921