Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Late Comments Item No.15 MEMORANDUM www.santa-ana.org Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Members of the City Council December 3, 2024 To:Date: Minh Thai, Executive Director Planning and Building Agency From: CITY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ITEM 15: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (OA) NO. 2024-04FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS Subject: Prior to the City Council meeting of Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the City had received four (4)comments on the second reading of OANo. 2024-04for short-term rentals.Of the four comments, one is in support of the Ordinance’s second reading, and three are in opposition. One commentin oppositioncontinues to challenge the City’s environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) without providing any new information of substance. The City has prepared a response to this comment to address the specific topic(s) raised by the commenter. None of the four comments raises any new information nor brings forward any new information of substance that has not already been addressed by the staff report and environmental analysis prepared for the City Council’s consideration of the action. The City’s responses to the comments are included in this packet. The responses will also be uploaded to the online packet to form part of the project record. Enclosures: 1. City Response, Including Four Public Comments on the Ordinance’s Second Reading 2. November 19, 2024 City Responses to Comments Received on the Ordinance’s First Reading RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MEMORANDUM– ITEM 15: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.2024-04 PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS DATE December 3, 2024 TO City of Santa Ana ADDRESS 20 Civic Center Plaza | P.O. Box 1988 |Santa Ana, CA 92702 CONTACT Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager FROM Malia Durand, Associate Principal SUBJECT Response to Comments Received on the November 19, 2024,City Council Meeting Item No.15: Second Reading Of Ordinance Amendment No.2024-04 Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals PROJECT NUMBER SNT-24.2 rd Fourcomment letterswerereceivedprior to the December3, 2024 public hearing before the City Council (seeTable 1). This memo provides responses to the comment received.As an Addendum does not require public circulation, a formal comment-and-response process is not necessary.However, for consideration by the Council, a response was prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns raisedrelated to the City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance (Modified Project). Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The Santa Ana Municipal Codedoes not and has never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The Modified Project would add Article XXI (Short-Term-Rentals) (Sections 8-3400–8-3402) toChapter 8, Building and Standards, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Specifically, Article XXI would include Sections 8- 3400 through 8-3402 to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. A description of each new section of Article XXI is provided in Attachment A of theEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR)Addendumprepared for the project. Concurrently, the City Council is proposing to adopt a resolution to set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9. Table1Comments Received Number ReferenceCommenting Agency/PersonDate Organization O1Santa Ana STR AllianceDecember 2 ,2024 O2Better Neighbors LA & Unite HERE Local 11December 3, 2024 Individuals I1Ana GomezDecember 2, 2024 I2Sheri MenkeDecember 3, 2024 The original comment letterswithbrackets andnumber assignments for individual commentsare included as an attachment to this memorandum(Attachment A). Responsesare provided to each of the comments below. December 3,2024|Page 2 LetterO1–SantaAnaSTRAlliance(SASTRA)(209pages) O1.ResponsetoCommentstoSantaAnaSTRAlliance,datedDecember2,2024. O1-1This comment requests that the City reconsider proceeding with the second reading of the STR ban. The comment states that the City plans to readopt a legally flawed STR ban. The comment states that the concerns raised at previous hearings have not been addressed. The comment summarizes the history of the Modified Project. The comment also makes the following claims: •The April 2024 ordinance prohibiting STRs that was adopted by the City Council was done so “without conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement” and “there was a misrepresentation of the current legal status of STRs in the City to the Council and a failure to conduct any environmental review of the ban’s potentially significant environmental impacts.” These environmental impacts, as stated by SASTRA, include: oAir Quality oGreenhouse Gas Emissions oEnergy oTransportation oNoise oIndirect impacts, including that a ban on STRs would result in an increase in hotel construction oCumulative impacts, including that a ban on STRs would result in increases in hotel occupancy rates and increase room rates. •The current legal status of STRs in Santa Ana has been misrepresented to the City Council. •The City did not take into account analysis prepared by SASTRA during the November 19 first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3072. •The City appears to be withholding information from the public, in violation of the California Public Records Act. The comment identifies similar claims identified in the comment letter submitted by , 2024. The City prepared and entered a response to Gaines & Stacy LLP on November 18 these claims in the record. See attached written response dated November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record.It should be noted that hotel uses are subject to Conditional Use Permit approval, which is a discretionary process in the City that invokes CEQA. Therefore, the impacts of hotel construction would be required to be evaluated through CEQA. The commenter also asserts that the current legal status of STRs in Santa Ana has been misrepresented to the City Council. This is factually incorrect. The April 2 and November 19 staff reports on STRs from 2024 unequivocally state that STRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use under the City’s zoning code. A review of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) reveals as such. STRs have never been, and remain, unlisted as a permissible use anywhere in the City’s zoning code. In fact, the April and November 2024 ordinances both seek to define and specify STRs as a use for the first time in the SAMC’s history. No misrepresentation took place. December 3,2024|Page 3 The commenter goes on to assert that the City did not take into account analysis prepared by SASTRA during the November 19 first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3072. This is incorrect. The absence of a verbal discussion on the analysis during the City Council meeting on November 19 cannot be construed lack of taking the analysis into account. SASTRA’s analysis was presented to the City Council among all public comments received on the topic for the City Council’s consideration of the item. The City Council hadample time to review and consider SASTRA’s analysis and, like all other comments on the item, was provided the opportunity to factor it in to its decision-making. Moreover, staff prepared a written response to the comments made on the environmental analysis in advance of the November 19, 2024 first reading. See attached written response dated November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record. The commenter finally asserts that the City appears to be withholding information from the public, in violation of the California Public Records Act. SASTRA’s letter does not identify the Public Records Act request (“PRR”) to which it is referring other than to state it was made in April 2024. City staff assumes SASTRA is referring to the PRR that it made on April 2, 2024 (PRR # 24-715). In response to PRR # 24-715, the City has released 485 documents between April 30, 2024 and May 31, 2024. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. O1-2This comment is the complaint filed. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. O1-3This comment is the Comment Letter submitted November 18, 2024. This comment was previously addressed for the November 19, 2024 City Council meeting.See attached written response dated November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record. O1-4The comment states that the STR ban is expected to increase VMT due to displaced travelers looking to seek accommodations in neighboring areas, which involves longer travel distances. The comment states that the ban would increase VMT compared to the baseline where STRs are available in the City. The comment also states that the STR ban would increase daily trips in the City as STRs generate fewer trips compared to hotels. The comment states that the STR would result in traffic that is more concentrated and increase local delay. The commentmakes erroneous assumptions that the Modified Project would force visitors and residents to travel further and longer for transient accommodations and would indirectly cause the construction of hotels. These claims are baseless, speculative and are not backed by substantial evidence.Currently, STRs are not a permitted use and have never been a permitted use; therefore, the claim that the ban would increase VMT compared to the baseline is inaccurateas the baseline analyzed in the General Plan Update Final PEIR did not accountfor the operation ofSTRs.The operation of STRs in the City deviates from the project analyzed in the General Plan Update Final PEIR.If the STR ban were to be rescinded, impacts associated with the legal operation of STRs would be required to be analyzed under CEQA as these impacts would be considered a new use and would not be covered by the certified EIR and would result in changes tothe approved General Plan. December 3,2024|Page 4 Additionally, it should be noted that delayor Level of Service(LOS)is no longer a metric used under CEQA to analyze transportation impacts. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. TheCitywill consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. December 3,2024|Page 5 LetterO2–BetterNeighborsLA&UniteHERELocal11(5pages) O2.ResponsetoCommentstoBetterNeighborsLA&UniteHERELocal11,datedDecember3,2024. O-1 This comment expresses strong support for the Modified Project.The comment provides information regarding STR listings in the City.The comment requests that the City uphold the STR ordinance passed in April 2024 and re-enact the STR ordinance and adopt enhanced fines for violations.This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. TheCity will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. December 3, 2024 | Page 6 LetterI1–AnaGomez(4pages) I1.ResponsetoCommentstoAnaGomez,datedDecember2,2024. I1-1This comment requests that the City identify a time frame to bring stakeholders and City staff to work on a short-term rental program and regulations. This comment states that a complete ban of STRs will not solve housing affordability issues in the City.This comment requests that the City reconsider the ban on STRs. The second reading of the ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3072) repealing and reenacting in its entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) prohibiting short-term rentals (STRs) follows the City Council’s approval of the first reading of the same ordinance on November 19, 2024. The ordinance is intended to reaffirm the City’s existing prohibition on STRs and does not establish any new policy framework for how the City considers STRs in Santa Ana. The ordinance provides clarity on the topic of STRs by expressly defining and prohibiting them in Santa Ana, reaffirming the City’s existing ban on STR operations. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. TheCity will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. December 3,2024|Page 7 LetterI2–SheriMenke(1page) I2.ResponsetoCommentstoSheriMenke,datedDecember3,2024. I2-1This comment requests that the Cityvote no on agenda item #15 and work with stakeholders on short-term rental program and regulations. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. TheCity will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. December 3,2024|Page 8 Attachment A: Bracketed Comment Letters December 3,2024|Page 9 O1 December 2,2024 VIA EMAILecomment@santa-ana.org Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza Santa Ana City Council City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center PlazaM-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re:December 3, 2024, City Council Meeting Item 15:Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-04 Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals Dear Mayor Amezcua, MayorPro TemPhan, and Honorable City Councilmembers, On behalf of the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance, I am writing to respectfully request that you reconsider proceeding with the second reading of the proposed ordinance to reenactabanon short-term rentals at your meeting on December 3. We at SASTRAfullysupport the reasonable regulation of STRsin Santa Ana.Unfortunately, plan to readopt a legally flawed STR banbased on clear misinterpretation of the lawand without any meaningful engagement with either hosts or residents that rely on STRs for transitory housinghighlightsafailurein the legislative process. At the November 19 hearing, Councilmember Bacerra and Mayor Amezcua both raised concerns O1-1 with the STR ban and encouraged Staff to return with more nuanced regulations for STRsin the future. That did not occurthe current proposal merely readopts the flawed ban with no meaningful changes.Indeed, Councilmember Lopez specifically asked Staff if the Council should consideranynew informationinlight of public comments. Staff responded did not even mentionour-page letter with detailed technical analysis by experts demonstrating thepotentially significant health, transportation, and environmental impacts. The City Council must pause before its December 3 meetingto correct missteps that began in April to enact a law that: (1) severely infringes on constitutional rightsand California law,(2) resultsin significant environmental impacts, (3) creates economic hardship, and (4) disproportionately affects those most in need of flexible housing options. A brief recap of the events is summarized here for your awareness: In April of this year, staff presented aban for City Councilconsiderationduring spring break, immediately following the Easter holiday, and without conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement. In connection with thislast-minute effort,there was also amisrepresentation of the current legal status of STRs in the City to the Councilandafailureto conduct any environmental review of thepotentially significantenvironmentalimpacts. Consequently, we were compelled to file a lawsuit challenging that ordinance. A copy of our complaintthat lays out the extent of legal infirmities with the April banis attached for your reference. While we appreciate theacknowledgment ofthe illegality of the April ordinancebythe consideration of theprior ban,theother legal arguments raised in our lawsuit were ignored when thisnew ban was introduced. Onceagain, thecurrent legal status of STRs has beenmisrepresentedtoCouncil, theappropriate environmental analysisrequired under CEQA has not been conducted, and the public has been deprived ofmeaningful participationgiven the decision to advancethisprocessduring the holiday season without any public engagement. 1 We submitted substantial legal and environmental analysison the new ban in advance of the November 19City Council meeting (reattached here). That analysis determined the ban would: o Resultin significant environmental impacts; o Violatestate and federal law; and O1-1 o Unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. Cont' The Cityrefused toengage in our analysisduring the November 19 hearing.In response to Councilmember Lopezinquiry for any new or clarifying information presented by the public, Staff did not mention ourextensive analysis.Now, despite having over two weeks to review ourletter and consider the evidence, Staff ignored it in the report for the second reading.In fact, staffdid not even acknowledge our letterand agendizedthe second reading on the consent calendar. The Cityalsoappears to be withholding information from thepublicin violation of the California Public Records Act. In April 2024, we understand aPublic Records Act request was filed efforts to regulate STRs. While the City has responded to nearly 2,000 different requests and made those results available on its website since this filing, the results from the STR PRA request remain unavailableonline. Westrongly urge you decline to move forward with the second reading on December 3 andinstead direct Staff to collaborate with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that allows STRs to continue operating under reasonable regulations. We are ready and willing to work with the Council and staffto find a better path forward.And while SASTRA does not want to litigate further with the City, for the reasons summarized above 1 We are alsoattaching an additional memorandum prepared by a traffic consultant that confirms the ban will increase traffic and vehicle miles traveled in and around the City. 2 and in ourattorneysNovember 18 letter, should the City Council proceed with adopting the ordinance on December 3, we willagain beforced challenge this action in court to protect our rightsand the rights of the public. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Sincerely, SASTRA Members O1-1 Cont' cc: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney Amy Hoyt, City Attorney Hannah Park, City Attorney David Quintana Attachments -Attachment A -Complaint filed inSanta Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 -Attachment BNovember 18, 2024 Letter from Gaines Stacey to Santa Ana City Council and attachments -Attachment CTranslutions Traffic Analysis 3 O1-2 Attachment A Complaint filed in Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/07/2024 12:19:37 PM. 30-2024-01404861-CU-WM-WJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By H. Mitchell, Deputy Clerk. 1 FRED GAINES, ESQ. (State Bar No. 125472) ALICIA B. BARTLEY, ESQ. (State Bar No. 229039) 2 GAINES & STACEY LLP 5820 Canoga Avenue, Ste. 300 3 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 933-0200 4 Facsimile: (818) 933-0222 5 Emails: fgaines@gaineslaw.com abartley@gaineslaw.com 6 7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM 8 RENTAL ALLIANCE 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 11 12 SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL Case No. ALLIANCE, a California unincorporated 13 association, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 Petitioner and Plaintiff, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 15 vs. RELIEF 16 THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, \[CCP § 1085\] 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 1 1Petitioner and Plaintiff,Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance (the Rental Allianceor 2 Petitioner, hereby petitions for a writ of mandate and brings a complaint for injunctive and 3 Santa 4 Ana (the City Santa Ana), and alleges as follows. 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. The Rental Alliance is an unincorporated community association made up of hard- 7 working residents of both the City of Santa Ana and Southern California that own and or manage 8 homes located within City limits rented on a short-term basis. The members of the Rental Alliance 9 come from diverse backgrounds and call California home. However, the City unlawfully enacted 10 an ordinance banning short-STRs with almost no public notice and 11 without undertaking the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality 12 Act CEQA. The STR Ban is extreme. It not only completely prohibits any STR throughout 13 the entire city, it also exceeds the boundaries and fundamental tenets of what is reasonable and 14 permissible government regulation under common law and the California and United States 15 Constitutions. 16 2. The Rental Alliance brings this action on behalf of its members and others who rent 17 homes they own, or work with other homeowners to manage, on a short -term basis, meaning for 18 terms of less than 31 days. The Rental Alliance hosts renters in need of housing accommodations 19 for less than the typical twelve month lease term sought by traditional landlords. Until adoption 20 of the STR Ban at issue in this Petition, hosts rented homes on a short-term basis to obtain critical 21 income for themselves and their families. 22 3. Abruptly, and initially on an emergency basis with virtually no public notice or 23 environmental review, and in contravention of the longstanding practice and economic 24 expectations of these hosts, the City enacted the STR Ban, thereby preventing hosts from 25 continuing to earn income from STRs. 26 3. In particular, the City has enacted unsupported, unlawful, and unconstitutional 27 ordinances which immediately criminalizes hosts from renting homes on a short-term basis. This 28 action challenges this decision. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 2 14.Typically, hosts list their homes for rent on websites like airbnb.com and vrbo.com. 2 Sometimes the rental periods are for less than 30 days. These STRs provide vital income to 3 property owners like hosts, making 4 STR platforms. It is likewise well-established that STRs drive tourism to 1 5 localitieslike Santa Ana and Orange County. They also provide a cost-conscious alternative to 6 expensive hotels for lower-income families seeking to visit Santa Ana and nearby attractions like 2 7 Disneyland. And it is not just tourism: STRs offer essential accommodations for individuals and 8 families that need flexible housingincluding residents facing life transitions, students, traveling 9 nurses and other essential workers, and families of patients in healthcare facilities.STRs also 10 provide rooms in homes, offering a familial environment for those needing lower-cost 11 accommodations. 12 5. Home-sharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and 13 more familieseven if only for a weekend. It fosters more vibrant and diverse communities and 14 a more robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, 15 such as Orange County would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. 16 6. 17 crisis. Aspiring full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which 18 izeable security 19 deposit, can immediately occupy an STR without this substantial up-front fee and thereby 20 immediately supply housing and fill a critical gap in the housing crisis. STRs also play an 21 important role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of 22 their preferred long-term rental housing and/or purchase of housing. 23 7. STRs have long served these purposes in Santa Ana. With the exception of a brief 24 2015 moratorium that expired on its own terms, STRs have been a recognized activity in Santa 25 Ana. Consistent with California case law recognizing that STRs 26 1 Milken Institute analysis of Alissa Dubetz, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven, The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on California, at 3-4. 27 2 Dr. Philip G. King and Sarah Jenkins, Unequal Access: Protecting Affordable Accommodations Along the 28 California Coast, at 6-7, 33. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 3 1many hosts have STRs in Santa Ana residential zones. Indeed,many Rental Alliance members 2 have acquired a business license for each rental unit that they own or manage. And, in addition to 3 paying fees to Santa Ana, hosts have invested other considerable resources to make their homes 4 suitable for STRs. 5 8. The City turned this all on its head when on April 2, 2024, it adopted an urgency 6 Urgency Ordinanceon 7 April 16, 2024, City Council adopted an ordinance permanently banning all STRs in the City 8 Ordinance No. NS-3061 STR Ban). The Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban 9 - (rental of a dwelling unit for a period of less than 30 days 10 -term or 11 vacation rentals 12 being occupied by the property owner). Neither provided an exception from these prohibitions for 13 existing operating STRs. The Urgency Ordinance became immediately effective on April 2, 2024. 14 Ordinance No. NS-3061 specified it would become , 15 which was on April 16, 2024. In adopting both the Urgency Ordinance and STR Ban, the City 16 17 the STR Ban (1) could result in impacts to the environment or (2) would, in any way, aid the City 18 in remedying the issues the ban was purportedly adopted to address. 19 9. What is obvious from a review of the stunningly sparse administrative record for 20 these ordinances is that the ultimate ban was the result of a rushed and ill-informed effort by the 21 City Council to push through STR regulation. Councilmembers gave no meaningful consideration 22 whatsoever to whether the ban would actually address the issues purportedly facing Santa Ana, 23 much less whether the ban complies with state and federal law. 24 10. In adopting Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 16, 2024, the City failed to conduct 25 necessary environmental review, made unsupported determinations about the impacts of STRs, 26 mischaracterized the lawfulness of existing STRs, and disregarded established California law 27 protecting nonconforming uses. 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 4 111.First, the Cityimproperly determined that the adoption of OrdinanceNo. NS-3061 2 California Environmental Quality Ac. The fundamental 3 goal of CEQA is to ensure that decisionmakers and the public have complete information about 4 the environmental impacts of a proposed project before its approval. It does this by requiring public 5 agencies to undertake environmental review of activities, like adoption of land use ordinances, that 6 have the , or a reasonably 7 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment But the City disregarded this duty and 8 completely failed to conduct any environmental review, despite the fact that the STR Ban would 9 have significant impactsconclusion that the STR Ban was 10 potential direct or indirect physical 11 effect on the environment. As Mark Twain reminds us, the problem with common sense is that 12 By way of example, removing all existing STR accommodations from the 13 centrally located Santa Ana would almost certainly change traffic patterns, and the shifting of 14 traffic from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, 15 including air quality impacts resulting from increased vehicle emissions from people traveling 16 farther distances to their vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and 17 residence. The STR Ban provided scant opportunity for public or expert commentary on this issue, 18 but Petitioner and others did comment on the need for an environmental analysis of the STR Ban 19 as required by CEQA. 20 12. Second, the City made unsupported determinations that banning STRs was 21 necessary to preserve public health and safety. But the Staff Report supporting the sweeping 22 prohibitions imposed by the STR Ban did not provide a single specific example of any STR 23 impacting public health or safety in any way. Instead, it relied on less than one page of 24 unsupported characterizations, such as 25 discussing that there were STRs that had received enforcement notice and citations but not 26 providing any detail why those notices were issued or if they had anything to do with public health 27 of safety. 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 5 113.Third, the City disregarded clear case law from the Court of Appeal to determine 2 3 4 14. In one fell swoop, on April 16, 2024, the City destroyed livelihoods and threatened 5 housing security, closed the door to Santa Ana for countless would-be visitors, and 6 disproportionately affected the individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options 7 and who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. 8 15. The City here are not just bad government and bad policy, they are 9 contrary to law, and for the reasons set forth below, the STR Ban must be rescinded. 10 PARTIES 11 16. Petitioner Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance (the Rental Alliance) is an 12 unincorporated association whose members include individuals and entities who owned and/or 13 operated STRs in Santa Ana prior to the adoption of the Emergency Ordinance and Ordinance No. 14 NS-3061 and who are concerned with the environmental impacts of the STR Ban at issue in this 15 petition upon their properties and the surrounding community. 16 17. The City of Santa Ana is a charter city formed under the laws of the State of 17 California. 18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Art. 20 6, section 10; sections 1085, 1060 and 187 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and sections 21 21167, 21167.5, and 21168.5 of the California Public Resources Code. 22 19. Venue is proper in Orange County Superior Court. Ordinance No. NS-3061 23 regulates land use regarding STRs within the City of Santa Ana. Section 392 of the Code of Civil 24 Procedure makes venue in this Court proper because the case involves interests in, and injuries to, 25 real property that is in Orange County. The City of Santa Ana is located in Orange County. An 26 action or proceeding against a city may be tried in the county in which the city is situated. Cal. 27 Code Civ. Proc. § 394(a). 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 6 120.Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 allows an ordinance to be challenged in an 2 action for declaratory relief. See Alameda Cnty. Land Use Assn v. City of Hayward, 38 Cal. App. 3 4th 1716, 1723 (1995). The parties have a dispute regarding the validity of Ordinance No. NS- 4 3061, and Petitioner is entitled to a judicial declaration setting forth rights as related 5 to their property. 6 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 7 21. Petitioner has satisfied all remedies necessary to bring this proceeding and 8 . Cal. Pub. 9 Res. Code § 21177. 10 22. Petitioner raised the issues pleaded in the following causes of action in a letter 11 transmitted to the City Council on or about April 2, 2024. Other members of the public transmitted 12 letters and spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the City Council Meetings on April 13 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024. All of this correspondence will be part of the proceeding in this action. 14 23. Ordinance No. NS-3061 does not provide a mechanism for an administrative 15 challenge. Even if it did, any challenge by hosts to the categorical ban on STRs would be futile, 16 as the City has determined (without sufficient evidence) that STRs constitute a nuisance and a 17 public health and safety hazard and specifically implemented the ordinance to ban STRs. Under 18 such circumstances, hosts are not required to try to convince the City otherwise before seeking 19 relief from this Court. See Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 304 20 (2008) (plaintiffs should not be required to attempt to prove what the city would not believe); Ogo 21 Assocs. v. City of Torrance 22 Council would grant a variance for the very project whose prospective existence brought about the 23 24 24. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a writ of 25 mandate from this Court. Without the remedy of a writ of mandate, the Rental Alliance and/or its 26 members would be required to litigate individual infractions or misdemeanors resulting from the 27 operation of STRs in piecemeal fashion, leading to the possibility of inconsistent rulings by 28 different trial court judges. Such litigation would delay final determination of the Rental VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 7 1Allianceand/or its membersrights, resulting in significant prejudice to the Rental Alliance 2 and/or its members and to . 3 Writ relief is thus appropriate. See Johnson v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 137 Cal. App. 4th 4 5 ; City of Oakland v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 740, 751 (1996) (the 6 7 of mandate appropriate). 8 25. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 9 21167.5 by mailing a written notice of commencement of this action to Respondents. 10 26. Petitioner will comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by filing a copy 11 of the petition with the California Attorney General. 12 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13 27. As described in its General Plan, 14 amenities, community attractions, and public facilities, including the Downtown, Bowers 15 Museum, Discovery Science Center, and the Santa Ana Zoo. A 16 city with significant opportunities to capitalize on its many assets: a diverse and multicultural 17 community; a great location to live, work, and do business; and high quality public facilities and 18 services. 19 28. Prior to the introduction of the Urgency Ordinance and Ordinance No. NS-3061, 20 the City reported that there were several hundred residential properties offering STRs. STRs 21 cultural amenities, community attractions, and public facilities and 22 provide families visiting Orange County a central and affordable homebase to other area attractions 23 like Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, the beaches, and other Southern California tourist 24 destinations. 25 29. STRs have provided short-term housing for individuals and families in Santa Ana 26 most in need of flexible housing options, such as residents facing life transitions, students, 27 traveling nurses and essential workers, families of patients in healthcare facilities, and other 28 transient residents who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 8 130.STRs have further helped make 2 their houses, or the entire house, for a period of time. 3 They have made homeownership possible for many who otherwise could not afford the high cost 4 of housing and would be pushed out of the market. 5 STRs Have Long Legally Operated in Santa Ana 6 31. STRs have operated legally in the City for decades. The City acknowledged the 7 operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City 8 Council implemented -day temporary moratorium on the 9 Ordinance No. NS-2886. 10 This \[\] 11 do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts 12 associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions 13 of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent 14 concerns relating to the impacts of these short- Id., Section 1.B 15 (emphasis added). Importantly, the emergency ordinance specially provided: -term 16 residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article I of Chapter 41 of the 17 Id., Section 2. This new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been 18 an existing lawful use in the City. 19 32. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the 20 moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so. 21 33. On information and belief, the review and study contemplated in the adoption of 22 the September 15, 2015, emergency ordinance never materialized. And, following expiration of 23 the emergency ordinance in 2015 the City issued ministerial business licenses for STRs including 24 . 25 34. In December 2021, the City adopted an ordinance that specifically regulated STRs 26 27 Ordinance No. NS- 28 short-term vacation rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 9 1-2115(h). Under the 2 Municipal Code, an individual property owner can apply to split an existing lot into two. 3 Ordinance No. NS-3013 essentially said if a property owner splits their lot, they may not rent 4 dwellings on that lot for less than 30 days. The Staff Report associated with the adoption of this 5 Ordinance No. NS-3013 made no mention of the legality of STRs in other parts of the City or on 6 non-urban split lots. 7 35. On information and belief, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses 8 for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium 9 expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs 10 were prohibited through the commencement of 11 enforcement actions against existing hosts. 12 36. The City decisions by the Courts of Appeal holding 13 that permissive zoning ordinances silent on STRs, , do not prohibit STRs. More 14 specifically, in June 2022, the California Court of Appeal considered a permissive zoning 15 code prior to the adoption of 16 Ordinance No. NS-3061. - 17 -said nothing about STRs. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 18 77 Cal. App. 5th 142, 149 (2022), review dend (June 29, 2022). As a result, people in Manhattan 19 - 20 and short- Id. at 146. Then, in 2015, 21 22 Ibid. The court disagreed, finding that 23 always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential 24 Id. at 148 (emphasis added). 25 37. The Court of Appeal explained that once the house or apartment building was built, 26 anyonerenter or ownercould reside there for periods long or short, since the code 27 textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals, and the term residence 28 does not imply some minimum length of occupancy. Id. at 148-149. Short-term rentals are VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 10 1rentals; they are a quintessential residential use. In short, \[a\] 2 3 Id. at 149. The Court of Appeal had previously reached a 4 similar conclusion in People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715, 732- 34 (2021), where 5 it rejected an argument proffered by the City of Los Angeles that, because its municipal code did 6 not expressly authorize STRs, they must be prohibited. The court rejected that argument, in part, 7 because no length of occupancy requirement is expressed in the citys code. 8 38. On information and belief, the City never explained how the apparently new 9 position it began taking in or around 2022 that existing STRs were prohibited by the Municipal 10 Code 11 The City Council Adopts the Emergency Ordinance and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12 NS-3061 in April 2024 13 39. On December 11, 2023, the Santa Ana City Planning Commission presented a 14 STRs in the City. On information and belief, following 15 that meeting, the Planning Commission reached out to certain hosts requesting suggestions and/or 16 comments on a proposed STR program in Santa Ana. 17 40. Without further discussion or outreach, in late-March 2024on Thursday, March 18 28 (just three days before Easter)the City posted an agenda that it would consider at its April 2, 19 2024, meeting (a) an Urgency O(b) 20 Ordinance No. NS-3061 banning all STRs in the City 30 days after the effective date. The hearing 21 was scheduled for the Tuesday after Easter while many families would be on spring break. 22 41. The City claimed authority to adopt the Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Sections 23 415 and 417 of the City Charter. Section 415 of the City Charter provides that the City Council 24 25 the public peace, health, or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency 26 two-thirds vote of the members of City Council. Santa Ana Mun. Code, § 415. Despite having 27 allowed the September 2015 emergency ordinance to expire 45-days later, and despite, on 28 information and belief, never having never undertaken the review and analysis that the September VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 11 12015 ordinance directed, the City suddenly deemed an emergency measure banning STRs 2 necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and safety of the community. The Staff Report 3 supporting such extraordinary actions 4 42. At the April 2, 2024, hearing, approximately 20 persons spoke in opposition to the 5 Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban. 6 43. During deliberations the City Attorney claimed that STRs were already prohibited. 7 Specifically, Councilman Phil Bacerra said to the City Attorney, Sonia Carvalho, and one of her 8 deputies: 9 10 not just, Wild Wild West, picking a position and running with it. Our code is 11 prescriptive. And because this use is not listed in our code, that means it is not 12 13 The assistant city attorney responded 14 The City Attorney, Ms. Carvalho, concurred, sayingthe status quo is they are 15 16 44. The City Attorney went on to tell the Council that the permissive zoning argument 17 18 proceedings. This was purportedly why it was important to 19 have always been illegal in Santa Ana. 20 45. With the less than one page of discussion in the Staff Report, and this clear 21 misstatement of the law on the record, the City Council went on to pass the Urgency Ordinance 22 and the first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061. 23 46. This was despite correspondence provided by the Rental Alliance and others to the 24 City Council informing it that the blanket ban on STRs in the City had the potential to cause 25 significant environmental impacts that require review under CEQA. Specifically, the Rental 26 Alliance explained that removing all existing STR accommodations from the centrally located 27 Santa Ana would almost certainly change traffic patterns, and the shifting of traffic from within 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 12 1the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, includingair quality 2 impacts resulting from increased vehicle emissions from people traveling farther distances to their 3 vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. The Rental 4 Alliance further pointed out that the City must also analyze the potential increased greenhouse gas 5 emissions resulting from the additional vehicle trips, the potential land use impacts from increased 6 construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) to make up for the loss 7 in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and the potential urban decay if the ban 8 ultimately makes it impossible for homeowners to afford their homes and causes business to 9 shutter given decline in revenue. 10 47. The City Council also ignored correspondence from the Rental Alliance explaining 11 the ban would have a drastic economic impact on STR owners because all income earned from 12 STRs would be immediately eliminated, and that property owners could lose their homes if they 13 are unable to operate STRs. It also ignored statements that many homeowners purchased homes 14 in the City with the reasonable expectation that they would operate them as STRs, because the 15 -current ordinances permitted such use. 16 48. And the City Council further failed to address correspondence explaining, among 17 other things: 18 The proposed ban would, in effect, convert currently legal STRs into immediately 19 illegal nonconforming uses, and that terminating these legal nonconforming uses 20 in this way would violate longstanding California law; 21 Hosts had already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in 22 upcoming months, and that an immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those 23 contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of their constitutional rights. 24 Nothing in the staff reports presented to the City Council demonstrated that STRs 25 in Santa Ana constituted a public nuisance; 26 The City lacked any evidence of the negative effect of STRs on housing availability 27 in the City; 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 13 1The Citydid not have factual support that existing STRs wereharming public 2 health, safety, or welfare; 3 Banning STRs would 4 accommodations, which would result in an overall increase in the prices of motel 5 and hotel rooms, making it more expensive for families to stay in the City 6 overnight; and 7 The lack of availability of short-term housing would disproportionately impact the 8 individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options. 9 The City Adopted Ordinance No. NS-3061 on Second Reading without Any Council Debate 10 49. Further stifling public debate on this important issue, the City agendized the second 11 reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061 on its By placing it on the Consent 12 Calendar, the City Council considered Ordinance No. NS-3061 with 18 other items and waived 13 the reading of the resolution and ordinance. It did not debate the STR Ban, nor did it discuss the 14 potential environmental, economic, or social impacts the Ordinance could have on Santa Ana and 15 the broader community. The City did this despite receiving significant correspondence in advance 16 of the April 16 City Council meeting opposing the STR Ban and advising the City of the need to 17 conduct environmental review under CEQA. 18 50. Commenters again informed the City that removing all existing STR 19 accommodations from the centrally located City would almost certainly change traffic patterns, as 20 visitors to Santa Ana and surrounding areas would have to seek overnight accommodations 21 elsewhere, and that the shifting of traffic from within the City to other locations could have 22 significant environmental impacts, including air quality impact resulting from increased vehicle 23 emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their vacation 24 destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. It was also raised that 25 changing traffic could result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic 26 impacts at new locations. Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts raised again 27 included increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from additional vehicle miles traveled, 28 impacts from increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 14 1to make up for the loss in overnight accommodations STRs currently provide, and urban decay if 2 the ban ultimately results in homeowners being unable to afford their homes and causing 3 businesses to shutter from the decline in tourism and transitory resident revenue. 4 51. On April 16, 2024, the City Council ultimately approved the STR Ban 5 consent,deliberation on the topic. In doing so, the City Council 6 concluded that the STR Ban . The City did not address the letters 7 arguing otherwise. And having concluded the STR Ban failed to 8 conduct any environmental review. 9 Ordinance No. NS-3061 Did Not Exempt Existing Lawful STRs from the Ban 10 52. The STR Ban completely prohibits STRs throughout the City and did not provide 11 any grandfathering, amortization, or just compensation for existing, lawfully operating STRs. As 12 explained above, the City took this action despite correspondence provided to the City Council 13 informing it that the blanket ban on STRs in the City would have a drastic economic impact on 14 STR owners. Rental Alliance members will face these drastic impacts. The City has placed STR 15 owners and operators in an untenable economic position. Not only will the properties face 16 decreasing value, owners could also be forced to sell their homes due to the immediate loss of STR 17 income and the inability to maintain mortgages, and operators will immediately lose their 18 established business and livelihood. 19 20 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Writ of Mandate Due to Failure to Comply with CEQA Code of Civil Procedure 21 §§ 1085, 1094.5 and Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) 22 53. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 23 fully herein. 24 54. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner 25 and the City, concerning whether the CityCalifornia 26 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 15 1Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21084,regarding the requirements for 2 conducting environmental review, and determining that a project is exempt from CEQA. 3 55. 4 5 change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 6 7 56. The City improperly concluded that Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a 8 under Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. 9 57. CEQA has two primary goals. First, it is intended to allow decision makers, via the 10 EIR, and the public to understand the potential, 11 significant environmental effects of a project. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subd. (a)(1); Citizens 12 of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564 (1990) 13 the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before 14 \] purpose is to inform the public and its 15 responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. 16 -Citizens 17 of Goleta Valley, 18 whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before 19 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd of Port 20 Comrs., 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (2001). 21 58. Second, CEQA requires that public entities avoid or reduce environmental impacts 22 23 measures. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subds. (a)(2) and (3); Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal. 24 3d at 564. The EIR provides agencies and the public with information about the environmental 25 26 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subd. (a)(2). 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 16 159.Failure tocarry out the full CEQA procedures so that complete information as to a 2 s impacts is developed and publicly disclosed constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion 3 that requires invalidation of the public agency action, regardless of whether full compliance would 4 have produced a different result. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21005. 5 60. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 6 1197 (2019), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding understanding that passing 7 8 9 Id. at 1186. Such study is a critical step in furthering 10 s potential 11 environmental impacts; (2) identifying ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; 12 (3) preventing environmental damage; and (4) disclosing to the public the rationale for approval 13 of a project that may significantly impact the environment. Id. at 1184. 14 61. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc., the California Supreme Court held 15 16 of causing indirect physical changes in the environment, including changed traffic patterns. Id. at 17 1199. 18 Id. at 1182. Potential changes to 19 traffic and circulation were alone enough to require CEQA review. Id. at 1200-01. The court 20 21 an environmental change requires the City to treat it as a project and proceed to the next steps of 22 Id. at 1200. 23 62. Despite these clear requirements under CEQA, the City 24 seminal environmental protection law and clear direction from the California Supreme Court. It 25 concluded Ordinance No. NS-3061 26 ordinances are not subject to the requirements of \[CEQA\], pursuant to the Guidelines section 27 15060(c)(2) because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect 28 physical change in the environment and 15060(c)(3) because the activity is not a project as defined VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 17 1in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 2 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly 3 4 63. To the contrary, Ordinance No. NS-3061 could result in direct or reasonably 5 foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment. With a ban on STRs, guests could be 6 forced to find transient accommodations outside the City limits. The City indicated there are 1,100 7 active STRs in Santa Ana. Removing all of these existing STR accommodations from the centrally 8 located City could almost certainly change traffic patterns, as visitors to Santa Ana and the 9 surrounding areas could have to seek overnight accommodations elsewhere. This shifting of traffic 10 from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, including 11 increased vehicle emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their 12 vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. This could 13 result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic impacts at new locations. 14 Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts include, but are not limited to, increased 15 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the additional vehicle miles traveled, impacts from 16 increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) to make up 17 for the loss in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and urban decay if the ban 18 ultimately results in homeowners being unable to afford their homes and causes businesses to 19 shutter from the decline in tourism and transitory resident revenue. 20 64. The City did not evaluate nor disclose to the public these potential significant 21 environmental impacts before adopting Ordinance No. NS-3061 as required by CEQA. Instead, it 22 stopped environmental review of Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the first step in the CEQA decision- 23 making tree, finding without any supporting evidence that the o 24 25 26 27 This is not how CEQA works. The City must find to a certainty that the ban will 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 18 1result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts prior to determining that Ordinance 2 No. NS-3061 Davidon Homes v. Cty. of San Joe, 54 Cal.App.4th 3 106, 119-120 (1997). 4 65. The City failed to satisfy its burden to prove, to a certainty, that Ordinance No. NS- 5 3061 will result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts and is therefore not a 6 . No other exemption applies to the Project. Therefore, the City had a 7 mandatory obligation to complete an initial study, and based on the results of such study, a duty to 8 prepare an environmental impact report, analyze all areas of potential significant environmental 9 impact, analyze a reasonable range of alter 10 to the maximum extent feasible, all as required by law. 11 66. prejudicial because the failure to comply with the law 12 resulted in a critical deprivation of the benefits of the public information and public participation 13 purposes of CEQA. The conclusion that Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project deprived the 14 City of the information needed to produce reasoned decision-making and public participation. 15 67. A 180- 16 . 17 Specifically, the City filed a notice of exemption for Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 5, 2024, 18 before the ordinance was finally approve by the City on April 16, 2024. A notice of exemption 19 filed before project approval does not trigger the CEQA limitations period. Coalition for Clean th 20 Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4 408, 423. 21 68. Petitioner has caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on 22 Respondents, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. 23 69. Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney 24 General not more than 10 days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public 25 Resources Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 19 170.Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandate directing the 2 City to rescind and set aside its approval of Ordinance No. NS-3061 and an injunction restraining 3 the City and its agents, servants, and employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, 4 from taking any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending full compliance with the 5 requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and all other applicable laws and regulations. 6 7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Relief Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. 8 (Violation of CEQA)) 9 71. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 10 fully herein. 11 72. A present and actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City concerning 12 the Citynon-compliance with CEQA. And unless declaratory or injunctive relief issues, the City 13 will continue to violate CEQA. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the City incorrectly 14 determined that Ordinance No. NS-3061 is not Ordinance No. NS- 15 3061 is not subject to CEQA review. 16 73. The City, in Ordinance No. NS-3061, disputes this contention and asserts that no 17 CEQA review of Ordinance No. NS-3061 is necessary due to the fact it is not a qualifying 18 19 74. Given this clear dispute, Petitioner requires and is entitled to a declaration 20 establishing that the City has violated CEQA by foregoing environmental review of Ordinance No. 21 NS-3061 based upon the determination Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project. 22 23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. 24 (Common Law Nonconforming Use)) 25 75. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 26 fully herein. 27 / / / 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 20 176.anexemption for existing 2 lawfully operating STRs violates California common law protection for nonconforming uses. 3 77. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 4 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 6 78. Rentalswhether short-term or long-term 7 zoning code prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061. If adoption of the STR Ban was 8 procedurally proper (and it was not), host 9 nonconforming use as soon as the ban goes into effect. See Code § 41-679 et seq. (governing 10 11 violates California law. See City of L.A. v. Gage, 127 Cal.App.2d 442, 460 (1954). 12 79. The City failed to include a provision exempting existing nonconforming uses from 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061. See Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, 14 551- 15 ordinarily included in zoning ordinances because of the hardship and doubtful constitutionality of 16 compelling the immediate discontinuance of nonconIt further failed to provide 17 any amortization period or just compensation, in clear violation of established California law. 18 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848, 881 (1980), rev. on other grounds 19 Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); , 233 20 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1394 (1991). 21 80. The City improperly determined that since the Code does not list STRs as an 22 approved use in any zoning district prohibited and unauthorized under the current 23 enforcement practice afforded by Section 41- 24 81. The City also completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to 25 demonstrate that the banning of STRs is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety, or 26 welfare. 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 21 182.Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that,prior to the adoption of 2 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were Municipal Code and following 3 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use, and thus, may continue to be 4 offered in the City. Petitioner also requires an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing 5 Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the adoption 6 the STR Ban. 7 8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. 9 (Due Process)) 10 83. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 11 fully herein. 12 84. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 13 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 15 85. The immediate termination of a nonconforming use (which Ordinance No. NS- 16 3061 causes) not only violates California common law but also constitutes a deprivation of 17 property without due process of law under the California Constitution. See Santa Barbara 18 -op v. City of Santa Barbara, 911 F.Supp.2d 884, 893-894 (C.D. 19 Cal. 2012); McCaslin v. Monterey Park, 163 Cal.App.2d 339, 346-348 (1958). For the same 20 reasons that Ordinance No. NS- 21 process rights under the California Constitution. 22 86. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 23 Ordinance No. NS- 24 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use 25 provide any reasonable amortization period or just compensation deprives petitioner of property 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 22 1without due process of law.Petitioner also requiresan injunction prohibiting the City from 2 enforcing Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the 3 adoption of the STR Ban. 4 5 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Writ of Mandate Due to Abuse of Discretion Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, 6 1094.5) 7 87. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 8 fully herein. 9 88. An actual and justiciable controversy has also arisen and now exists between 10 Petitioner and the City, concerning whether the CityOrdinance No. NS-3061 was 11 an unwarranted interference with hostthe 12 City 13 89. 14 Endangered 15 Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782 (2005). In applying this test, 16 17 demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of 18 Western States Petroleum Assn v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559, 577 19 (1995). 20 body of or within the state, including a city council. Gov. Code § 20056. 21 90. The City completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to demonstrate 22 a rational connection between its stated objectives and the complete ban of STRs when adopting 23 the STR Ban. In particular, the City adopted the ban based on an error of law. As detailed above, 24 the City staff and the City Attorney both mistakenly informed the City Council that existing STRs 25 were prohibited in the City at the time of the adoption of the STR Ban. This was a clear error and 26 calls into question the validity of the entire ordinance. 27 / / / 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 23 191.Beyond its legally flawed premise, the City Council 2 STRs was also unsupported by the record before the City Council. In the less than three-page staff 3 report supporting both the Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban, 4 the City stated that STRs associated with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, and 5 Yet, the only alleged negative impacts the report 6 identified of STRs that have received enforcement notices and 7 -site, and 84 involve properties that are not 8 owner-occupied. 9 92. The City did not provide any further detail on these active cases or what the 10 complaints entail. On information and belief, many of these enforcement notices have nothing to 11 do with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, or 12 and, instead, were 13 In any event, the City Council did not have the evidentiary basis to adopt its draconian ban given 14 the complete lack of a record before it. Moreover, the City ignored Chapter 17 of its own Code, 15 which provides several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. See Santa 16 Ana Mun. Code, Ch. 17. 17 93. The City also lacked sufficient evidence of the effect of STRs on housing 18 availability in the City to support the ban. The Staff Report for the April 2, 2024, City Council 19 meeting stated that, according to data from STR platforms, there are 1,100 active STRs in the City, 20 -2029 is 3,137 permanent housing 21 units, implying that banning STRs would add 1,100 homes to the long-term housing market. This 22 implication is wrong. A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not 23 mention STRs anywhere in that document. In the section of the Housing Element discussing 24 influence 25 housing goals including market factors (land costs, construction and rehabilitation costs, 26 availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 24 1regulations, development standards, building codes, permit procedures, and other local policies), 2 and environmental factors (adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water supply to support 3 new development). 4 94. On top of all of this, the City failed to follow CEQA requirements when it hastily 5 approved this extreme measure. 6 95. In short, the City adopted the STR Ban without studying the relationships between 7 STRs and public health and safety or long-term housing availability. That, combined with the 8 error of law and complete disregard for CEQA and existing law governing treatment of existing 9 nonconforming uses, arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary 10 support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. 11 96. This approach does not meet the standard for informed, rational decision making 12 required, and the City therefore abused its discretion as a matter of law. 13 97. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court set aside the adoption of Ordinance 14 No. NS-3061 as an abuse of discretion, and remand the matter to the City to undertake the required 15 review of the relevant law and evidence. 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17 Wherefore, Petitioner prays for relief as follows. 18 1. For the First Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate due to Failure to Comply 19 with CEQA: 20 i. A writ of mandate directing the City to rescind and set aside its approval 21 of Ordinance No. NS-3061; 22 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 23 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 24 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending full 25 compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and all 26 other applicable laws and regulations; 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 25 1iii.An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 2 3 law; and/or 4 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 5 proper. 6 2. For the Second Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief for Violation of CEQA: 7 i. A declaration finding that Ordinance No. NS-3061 is 8 CEQA and that the City violated CEQA by failing to perform 9 environmental review prior to passing Ordinance No. NS-3061; 10 ii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 11 12 law; and/or 13 iii. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 14 proper. 15 3. For the Third Cause of Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for 16 Violation of California Common Law Regarding Nonconforming Use: 17 i. A declaration finding that STRs were permitted under the Santa Ana 18 zoning code as it existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061, 19 and thus, that STRs are a legal nonconforming use under the Santa Ana 20 zoning code as amended by Ordinance No. NS-3061; 21 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 22 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 23 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-306 and a permanent 24 injunction setting aside Ordinance No. NS-3061 and holding unlawful 25 Ordinance No. NS-3061; 26 iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 27 28 law; and/or VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 26 1iv.An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 2 proper. 3 4. For the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for 4 Violation of Due Process: 5 i. A declaration finding that STRs were permitted under the Santa Ana 6 zoning code as it existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061, 7 and thus, that STRs are a legal nonconforming use under the Santa Ana 8 zoning code as amended by Ordinance No. NS-3061; 9 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 10 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 11 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-306 and a permanent 12 injunction setting aside Ordinance No. NS-3061 and holding unlawful 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061; 14 iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 15 16 law; and/or 17 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 18 proper. 19 5. For the Fifth Cause of Action for a Writ of Mandate Due to Abuse of Discretion: 20 i. A writ of mandate directing the City to rescind and set aside its approval 21 of Ordinance No. NS-3061 and to undertake the required review of the 22 relevant law and evidence; 23 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 24 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 25 any action to implement the Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending a review 26 of all applicable law and facts; 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 27 1iii.An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 2 3 law; and/or 4 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 5 proper. 6 6. For costs and legal fees as authorized by law. 7 7. For such other relief as the Court deems proper. 8 DATED: June 7, 2024 GAINES & STACEY, LLP 9 10 11 By: Alicia B. Bartley 12 ALICIA B. BARTLEY Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 13 SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM 14 RENTAL ALLIANCE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 28 O1-3 AttachmentB November 18, 2024 Letter from Gaines Stacey to Santa Ana City Council and attachments 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 T (818) 933-0200 F (818) 933-0222 www.gaineslaw.com November 18, 2024 VIA EMAIL eComment@santa-ana.org Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza Santa Ana City Council City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: November 19, 2024, City Council Meeting Item 35: Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals, and Adopt Enhanced Fines for Violations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers, This law office represents the Santa Ana Short- members own and operate STRs within the City. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the Rental Alliance on 2024-04, amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to repeal and reenact a prohibition on short-term rentals (STRs) . As we detail below, consistent with many of our prior comments, the prohibition of STRs would (a) result in significant environmental impacts, (b) violate state and federal law, and (c) unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. We also present new evidence by technical experts demonstrating the STR ban will adversely impact the physical environment by causing reasonably foreseeable increases in vehicle miles traveled , air pollutants (and related adverse health consequences), greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel consumption. As just one example from the attached technical reports: when comparing visitors staying at a hotel compared to an STR, mobile emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides , and micro particulates all scientifically proven to contribute to smog and increase risks of cancer, asthma, lung damage, and other health impairmentswere calculated Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 2 to increase by over 400%. These impacts risk harming sensitive receptors and environmental justice communities contrary to state, regional, and local policies. is woefully inadequate in analyzing and disclosing these impacts to the community. We respectfully request that you repeal the existing Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SMC (which was adopted illegally in April 2024) and direct Staff to work with stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that underscores that STRs may continue operating, subject to reasonable regulations, . Background on the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance and Challenge to the April 2024 STR Ordinance The Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance an unincorporated community association made up of hardworking residents of both the City of Santa Ana and Southern California that own and/or manage homes located within City limits rented on a short-term basis. They come from diverse backgrounds and call California home. In April 2024, the City unlawfully enacted an ordinance banning STRs in the City with almost no public notice and without undertaking the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act That action threatened to destroy security, closed the door to Santa Ana for countless would-be visitors, and disproportionately affected the individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options and who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. In response to that illegal action, this office filed a challenge on behalf of the Rental Alliance in Orange County Superior Court (Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 (Orange County Superior Court). While we are pleased that Staff has brought forward a proposal to rescind the illegally adopted ordinance, the Amended Ordinance proposes to adopt the exact same ban on STRs as adopted in April. As summarized herein, the Amended Ordinance is legally flawed, and should the City move forward with readopting the ban, the Rental Alliance intends to challenge the Amended Ordinance. History and Importance of STRs in Santa Ana STRs have always been lawful, residential uses in Santa Ana. Hosts have opened and shared their homes to transient renters for decades, providing important visitor-serving accommodations and offering guests authentic cultural experiences in all corners of the City. These rentals provide an opportunity for visitors to Orange County to meet and interact with locals who graciously share their homes. And with the exception of a brief 2015 moratorium that expired on its own terms, STRs have long been a recognized activity in Santa Ana. Indeed, many of the Rental Alliance members have acquired a business license from the City for each rental unit that they own or manage. 2 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 3 STRs help to make housing affordable for those homeowners who are able to home share and earn money by renting portions of their houses, or the entire house, for a period of time. This helps make homeownership possible for many Santa Ana residents who otherwise could not afford the high cost of housing. Home sharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and more familieseven if only for a weekend. It fosters vibrant and diverse communities and supports a robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, such as Orange County, would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. Home sharing also addresses full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which typically include advance payment of first and last months rent and a sizeable security deposit, can immediately occupy an STR without the substantial up-front cost. In this way, STRs can immediately supply housing to fill a critical gap in availability facing California cities. STRs also play an important role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of their preferred long-term rental home or home purchase. extensive benefits is particularly troubling. The Prohibition of STRs Will Have Significant Environmental Impacts That Have Not Been Evaluated under CEQA The Amended Ordinance will have significant environmental impacts, and the City has failed to appropriately evaluate these impacts under CEQA. As summarized next, the evidence is clear that the STR ban will impact the physical environment, resulting in reasonably foreseeable direct increases in vehicle miles traveled, air pollutants (with adverse health consequences), greenhouse gas emissions, energy use (including fossil fuels), and more. The City has fallen far short of analyzing these direct impacts in conformance with CEQA. What is more, the City patently ignores reasonably foreseeable indirect effects spurred by the STR ban, such as new construction to account for increased hotel demand, and cumulative impacts resulting from cascading regional impacts from similar STR bans. Despite our strenuous requests during the April 2024 hearings and the subsequent litigation, the City continues to shirk its responsibilities under CEQA to analyze and disclose the true consequences of its actions. 1. The City inappropriately relies on an addendum to an EIR for a completely different, unrelated project. GP PEIR) is impermissible under CEQA because the Amended Ordinance constitutes a new project that has not been previously reviewed, and the changes it introduces are substantial, requiring new environmental review. 3 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 4 CEQA provides that a changed project may only undergo a streamlined subsequent environmental review under certain circumstances that trigger either a subsequent EIR, a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to a previously certified EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 1516264.) An addendum to a previously certified EIR is appropriate only when the necessary changes or additions do not trigger a subsequent or supplemental EIR, meaning the changes or additions are minor and do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164.) project that has been subject to environmental review; the provisions do not apply if the agency has proposed a new project not previously analyzed in the original environmental document (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 606 n.26 \[emphasis added\]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject The Staff Report asks the City to certify an addendum based on the GP PEIR that did not review the environmental impacts of the Amended Ordinance or even acknowledge the existence of STRs in the City. The Amended CEQA and the use of an addendum or any other subsequent environmental review pathway is insufficient to comply with CEQA. Further, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens held that in order for a lead agency to rely on a previously certified CEQA document, that document must Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 605.) Here, because the GP PEIR does not analyze the impacts of banning short term rentals or even mention short term rentals at all, it retains no informational value as to the Amended Ordinance. Indeed, the GP PEIR offers no informational value on the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from the STR ban because the GP PEIR analysis completely ignores STRs. The Proposed Ordinance is a new project constituting a substantial change from the conditions contemplated in zoning code had always prohibited STRs and instead held that an ordinance expressly banning STRs wa (Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142, 14849.) Here, like in Keen, the Amended the City cannot rely on previously approved documents that did not contemplate the impacts of the Amended Ordinance. a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project described in the program EIR . . . it is treated as a ne (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 845.) \[internal quotations and citations omitted\].) A program EIR that does not include any discussion or analysis of a later proposed activity is not adequate to inform the public of the environmental effects of that later activity such that the later activity is outside the scope of the program EIR. (Id. at 852-53.) The 4 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 5 GP PEIR does not discuss, analyze, or inform the public of the environmental effects associated with the Amended Ordinance. Therefore, even if the City were to assess the Amended Ordinance under the GP PEIR, the environmental impacts of the STR ban were adequately assessed by the scope of the GP PEIR and therefore the STR ban must be fully analyzed with a project-specific EIR. The evidence is clearthat an EIR is needed because the STR ban is likely to cause potentially significant impacts to the environment that were not covered by the GP PEIR. (Id employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project deferential substantial evidence standard\] \[emphasis added\].) In addition, even if the GP PEIR were relied upon, the high-level, programmatic nature of the GP PEIR translates to a lack of detail that requires much more than a short addendum to correct. Rather, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is needed because the STR ban cannot be addressed only permitted where minor changes are needed to the prior analysis. As detailed herein, the complete absence of prior analysis of STRs, let alone the STR ban, requires changes to many topic areas covered by CEQA and raises new potentially significant impacts that cannot be addressed with minor clarifications. Amended Ordinance based on an addendum or any other subsequent, supplemental, or tiered analysis based on the GP PEIR would violate CEQA. 2. The potentially significant environmental impacts of an STR ban require the City to prepare a new EIR. Even if an addendum were appropriate, the 51-page Addendum falls far short of appropriately analyzing and disclosing impacts under CEQA. The GP PEIR is silent on STRs and the Addendum contains only a cursory, superficial, and unsupported analysis of the STR ban. As detailed in Attachment A to this letter (CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, there are several potentially significant direct environmental impacts that could result from a STR ban in the City, including but not limited to: Air quality. The STR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PM from guests of STRs 2.5 transitioning to using hotels. (CAJA Report, pp. 2-3.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children. PM can damage the respiratory tract, increasing 2.5 the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung Ramboll Memo re Environmental Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulation dated November 14, 2024, p. 3.) 5 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 6 Construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual exceeding by more than 4 . (CAJA Report, p. 2.) Environmental Justice Community impacts. The STR ban would disproportionately by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) Traffic concentration and health impacts. The STR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) Energy. The STR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs (more than 5x more electricity, more than 2x more natural gas). (CAJA Report, p. 3.) By increasing VMT, the STR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle tripsthe daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and dieselinconsistent with regional and state climate goals. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) GHG emissions. The STR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) Noise. The STR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since many hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise potentially exacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new significant noise impact. (CAJA, p. 4.) There are also potential i new hotel space construction. The STR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related to hotel construction including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions Report p. 4.) These and the other potentially significant environmental impacts summarized in Attachment A to this letter also mean the Amended Ordinance is not eligible for a Class 1 exemption and that the City must prepare a full EIR. 6 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 7 If the City Council were to ignore the substantial evidence in the record of potential impacts and proceed with adopting the Amended Ordinance without first preparing an EIR to analyze these potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the STR ban that may result in lesser impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts, such an action would constitute an abuse of discretion. Prohibiting STRs in Santa Ana Violates State and Federal Law The prohibition of STRs in the City violates state and federal laws in numerous ways. Specifically: 1. STRs have legally operated for decades. STRs have operated legally in the City for decades and the City has acknowledged the operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City Council -day temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of any short term residen(Ordinance No. NS-2886.) do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of these short-(Id., Section 1.B (emphasis added).) Importantly, the 2015 emergency ordinance for the moratorium specially -term residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article (Id., Section 2.) Of course, this new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been an existing lawful use in the City. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so. The result was that STRs continued operating as lawful residential uses throughout the City. Then, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs were pro and commenced enforcement actions against existing hosts. And now, the City states in the Staff Report that STRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use refore, STRs have always been prohibited by the City and this 4, Staff Report, p. 3.) - mentioned in the Municipal Code in the context of urban lot splits. The Municipal Code -tted in dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. (Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(l)(2); see also id. § 41- 2115(l)(2) \[same prohibition for dwelling units on lot for Two-Unit Projects\].) Notably, in both of these code provisions, the prohibition on STRs on these types of lots is in a separate subpart 7 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 8 -. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code -only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban -2115(l)(2) \[same\].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate prohibition would be superfluous. prohibited by omission throughout the entire City. After all, why would the City prohibit them explicitly in one place if they were already impliedly prohibited everywhere? If they are prohibited in the entire City, sections 41-2109 and 41-2115 would be superfluousin violation of California law. (In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94, 102-03 (2011) \[California courts strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and avoid constructions that render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.\]; Escamilla v. Vannucci, 97 Cal.App.5th 175, 187-88 (2023).) Homeowners cannot understand what is and is not prohibited if the City adopts such nonsensical readings of its own zoning provisions. foreclosed Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach. (77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).) There, the court considered a permissive zoning ordinance -- did not say anything about STRs. (Id. quite some time, . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short-term mplaints about a rental Id. at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and claimedmuch like Staff has done here Ibid.) The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding always permitted short-term, as well as long-Id. at 148 (emphasis added).) The court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone renter or owner distinction about the dura Id. at 148- Id. at 149.) As in Keen- on these residential uses. (Santa Ana Mun. Code, § 41-184 et seq.) And, just as in Keen, long-term rental of residential property is permitted under the existing Santa Ana code. And so, just as in Keen, without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden. 8 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 9 2. The Amended Ordinance would unlawfully terminate existing, lawful nonconforming uses . Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1327 n.1 (Cal. 1996) (citing cases). The Id. California courts have long held that a party may continue to use their property even though such use is nonconforming. (Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 121, 127 (Cal. 1954); Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 310-311 (Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful (and now non-conforming) uses would be of doubtful constitutionality. (Livingston Rock & Gravel Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) Th principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes, a property owner may have a City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) are making lawful uses of their property, and they have made significant investments in their homes to offer them as STRs. Settled California law affords them nonconforming use rights to continue their STR use. The Amended Ordinance cannot legally withdraw those rights. that legal nonconforming land uses may continue subject to limitations on expansion or enlargement of the use, or abandonment of use. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41-683 41-689.) 3. Recent United States Supreme Court cases establish that the Amended Ordinance would result in a taking, entitling all hosts of the 700+ existing STRs in the City to compensation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards rights deeply rooted in United with constitutional framers emphasizing private property as bulwark against unlawful exercises of critical aspect of these rights, protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions, which requires just compensation for property taken or damaged for public use. The Supreme Court recently expanded physical takings law to encompass temporary and intermittent physical invasions similar to deprivations of the right to lease. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that a regulation requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to have periodic and temporary access to farm workers on the property constituted a physical (and not a regulatory) taking. (594 U.S. at 143.) for the enjoyment of third parties th (Id. at 149.) The ordinance here not only impedes on the corollary right to include, it also effectively requires hosts to allow renters 9 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 10 right to exclude. Importantly, the Federal District Court of Hawaii recently considered an ordinance similar to that proposed by Santa Ana that barred certain STRs. (-Term Rental All. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 2022 WL 7471692, at *2-3 (D. Haw. Oct. 13, 2022).) motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held that the plaintiff would likely succeed on the merits of a takings claim under the Federal and Hawaii Constitutions. (Id. at *5.) Because the Ordinance impacts both the right to include and the right to exclude from property, all existing STR hosts would be entitled to compensation if the City Council were to adopt the Amended Ordinance. 4. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would constitute arbitrary and capricious decision-making. There is no evidence in the record record. STRs play an important and environmentally sustainable role in the City, and provide significant benefits to the City, its residents, and its visitors, and these benefits are being completely ignored. The Staff Report provides no evidence that any STRs in the City contribute to nuisance- acknowledge that the SAMC already has several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. (SAMC, Chapter 17.) In reality, many STRs in the City are either owner-occupied, meaning that the host is on site while guests are present because they live there full-time and have an extra room/rooms, or are entire home STRs which are rented on a short-term basis because the owner travels or is in the City only on a seasonal basis and so cannot rent the property on a long-term basis (e.g., six-month or one- year lease). Further, as discussed in a recent study conducted by the Milken Institute on STRs in 1 A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not appear to mention STRs anywhere in that document. (See City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element). In the section of the at various factors influencing rehabilitation costs, availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use regulations, development standards, building codes, permit procedures, and other local policies), and environmental factors (adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water 1 Alissa Dubetz, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven, Staying Power: The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on , M ILKEN I NSTITUTE (May 2022), https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Short_Term_Rentals_California.pdf. 10 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 11 supply to support new development). (Id. at A-47). Further, and as discussed in the Milken Institute -long housing shortage is primarily caused by failure to build enough housing due to rising construction costs, lengthy permitting times, and community opposition, which disincentivize construction of affordable housing. (Dubetz, p. 4.) As Professor Betsy Stevenson, the former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and member of President rs, has written, banning STRs in fact undermines efforts to Ba Crisis, B LOOMBERG N EWS (July 8, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07- 08/banning-airbnb-will-not-make-housing-more-affordable residents to rent out their homes can help them recoup some of their investment and make city Ibid.) decision-making. Because the City lacks any justification for adopting the Amended Ordinance, such an action would be arbitrary and capricious. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28, 34 (1974); Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268 (2011).) 5. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally impede on right to privacy. Constitution (Hill v. NCAA stay in their homes. (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 These constitutional privacy protections right to host STRs and invite guests into their home. In Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 454, 459, the Court of Appeal invalidated a local ordinance that limited occupants right to decide who may live in ths invite guests into their homes while they would infringe on hosts constitutional right to privacy, which includes the right to choose who can stay in homes. The City fails to provide any substantial justification to pass the heightened scrutiny applied to laws or regulations that infringe on the right to privacy and cannot do so because STRs have no demonstrable negative impact on the City compared to other residential uses, including long-term rentals. 11 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 12 6. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally infringe the right to contract. The Ordinance also violates right to contract under the California constitution, which prohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts. (Cal. Const., Art I, § 9.) , 9 and the court required to evaluate whether Id. (citations omitted); see also Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, 48 Cal. 3d 805, 831 (1989).) Rental Alliance hosts have already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in upcoming months. An immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of this constitutional right. 7. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would deprive hosts of their substantive due process rights. Termination of a lawful nonconforming use effects a deprivation of property without due process of law, and banning the ability of homeowners to rent their home to visitors more broadly violates their substantive due process rights under the California and U.S. constitutions by infringing on (United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (2002).) 8. The proposed fines violate the United States Constitution. The administrative fines proposed by the Resolution are also so excessive as to raise federal constitutional concerns. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the City from imposing excessive fines. The United States Supreme Court ha of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: the amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998).) Here the Amended $5,000 for a third violation fail to meet the principle of proportionality. (See, e.g., Kalthoff v. Douglas Cnty., of these fines \[for violations of short-term rental ordinance\] \[we\]re for several thousands of dollars enforcement of fines on constitutional grounds).) 12 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 13 The City Has Refused To Provide Evidence Surrounding its Treatment of STRs and the Basis for Banning STRs in Violation of the California Public Records Act In April 2024, a Public Records Act request was filed with the City in an effort to understand what motivated the City a total ban on STRs. Over six months later, the City has still not produced a response to the PRA. (See PRA 24-715.) The City has responded to over 1,000 PRA requestAs such, the City appears to be concealing the true motivations for seeking to ban all STRs in the City. To date, the City has not provided any evidence to support its claim that STRs in the City have a negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare, if any even exists. We strongly urge the Council to refrain from taking any action on the proposed STR prohibition until the City has responded to the Public Records Act request. Proposed Path Forward We urge the City Council to rescind the currently effective and illegally adopted Ordinance, reject the Amended Ordinance, and direct Staff to work with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that authorizes STRs to continue operating subject to reasonable regulations. Specifically, we recommend establishing an This type of regulation strikes the appropriate balance while maintaining the ability of STR owners to operate in the City. While the Rental Alliance is ready and willing to work with the City, for the reasons summarized above, should the City Council move forward with adopting the Amended Ordinance we will challenge this action in court to protect rights. Sincerely, GAINES & STACEY LLP Alicia B. Bartley By ALICIA B. BARTLEY cc: Jose Montoya (Via Email - jmontoya@santa-ana.org) Amy Hoyt (Via Email - Amy.Hoyt@bbklaw.com) Hannah Park (Via Email - Hannah.Park@bbklaw.com) Attachments Attachment A CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024. 13 Attachment A CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024. 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801  o 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 o o o 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 o   9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801  9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801    9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801   9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801    9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 MEMO To File From Eric C. Lu, Sarah Manzano, and Brent Ferren Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Date: November 14, 2024 Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated potential air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), energy and noise environmental impacts of a potential ban on short-term rentals (STR) in Santa Ana, California. As discussed throughout this memo, Ramboll found that the ban of STRs in Santa Ana has the potential to increase emissions and noise that should be evaluated further. The increase in emissions and noise have the potential to cause a significant impact in relation to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RambollÓs analysis was Ramboll informed by the economic analysis performed by RambollÓs Stefanie OÓGorman 250 Montgomery St., (see Exhibit A). Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 US USA 1 Overview T+1 510 655 7400 As a result of the proposed STR ban, individuals would be unable to enjoy the F+1 510 655 9517 https://ramboll.com benefits of STRs within Santa Ana, which will increase demand for local hotels as the only option for short term stays within Santa Ana. As a result, individuals will be forced to travel greater distances to other commercials centers in the region to find available STRs and available/affordable hotels, introducing additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In particular, increased travel to and from hotels and STRs in the region because of the unavailability of STR in Santa Ana could increase emissions relative to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria air pollutants (CAPs), with the potential to cause short-term and long-term health impacts to sensitive receptors, exceedances of appliable air quality standards, and inconsistencies with applicable air quality and climate plans, all of which create a fair argument of environmental impacts that need to be studied further under CEQA. The ban of STRs will also likely result in increased traffic congestion and noise impacts that require further study under 1, 2 CEQA. 1 Airbtics reports approximately 1,000 short-term rentals in Santa Ana, which is referenced throughout this analysis. However, conclusions herein are largely based on comparative impacts to the elimination of short-term rentals and are not dependent on the actual number of short term rentals in Santa Ana today. 2 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 1/14 ÐP 2 Health Impacts from Criteria Pollutants Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include ozone (O), nitrogen oxides (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO), particulate matter less 3xx than 10 microns in diameter (PM), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM). 102.5 The STR ban has the potential to increase emissions of these pollutants and their health impacts are discussed in the following paragraphs. Ozone O is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 3 sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NO) react in the x presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by 3 complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOCs and NO, the precursors of O, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and X3 terrain play major roles in O formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on 3 days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in 3 breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Nitrogen Oxides Most NO, like O, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical 23 reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO are collectively referred to as 2 NO and are major contributors to O formation. The primary sources of NO, the precursor to NO, X32 include automobile exhaust and industrial sources. High concentrations of NO can cause breathing 2 difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, causing reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO and chronic pulmonary fibrosis, and some increase in bronchitis 2 in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm). Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as Santa Ana, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface- based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions, where a layer of warm air sits atop cool air, 2/14 ÐP are more frequent and can trap pollutants close to the ground. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the bloodÓs ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Sulfur Oxides Sulfur Dioxide (SO) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing 2 fossil fuels. The main sources of SO are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the 2 highest levels of SO are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO 22 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO and limits placed on the sulfur content of fuels. SO is an irritant gas that attacks the 22 throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel. 2 Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM and PM 2.510 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM, is roughly 1/28 the diameter 2.5 of a human hair. PM results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and 2.5 industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM can be formed in the 2.5 atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SO), NO, and VOCs. Inhalable or coarse particulate XX matter, or PM, is about one- seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM include 1010 dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; crushing or grinding operations; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM and PM pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles 2.510 can penetrate the human respiratory systemÓs natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM 2.5 and PM can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and 10 other lung diseases, and reduce the bodyÓs ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM 10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM is so tiny that it can penetrate 2.5 deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. 3 An STR Ban Will Increase Air Pollutant Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Emissions There are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings in Santa Ana. Elimination of these Airbnb rentals and other short-term rentals in Santa Ana and the corresponding increase in guests at Santa Ana hotels 3/14 ÐP would result in an increased trip length, as potential guests would have fewer options to stay as close as possible to daily destinations during their stay in Santa Ana. In addition, the number of trips taken by guests to and from their site of accommodation would be higher for hotels than for short-term rentals, as evidenced by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), introducing additional vehicle miles traveled. Recreational Homes (ITE Land Use Code 260) have an average weekday trip generation rate of 3.55 trips per day while the Hotel land use (ITE Land Use 310) has 7.99 trips per day. This increase in trips may be due to the need to leave the hotel for amenities, such as food, and increased worker trips. The increase in mobile emissions associated with short-term rentals compared to hotels is presented below in Table 1. Based on publicly available statistics on the current Airbnb listings in Santa Ana, the 3 average capacity per STR is 5.6 people and there are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings. This results in a service population of 5,600 people. As a result of the potential STR ban, this would require 1,867 hotel rooms to accommodate this same service population assuming one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. The number of peak daily trips was estimated using the ITE trip rates for STRs and hotel rooms and the number of STRs and hotel rooms required to serve the same population. The number of daily miles traveled was estimated assuming a single trip to a hotel is 2 miles longer than a single trip to a STR since guests might have to stay farther from daily destinations if they stay at a hotel. These assumptions were used to determine daily mobile emissions. Mobile emissions from visitors staying at a hotel would generate up to 444 percent more criteria air 4 pollutant emissions and GHGs than from visitors staying at an STR. Therefore, the ban has the potential to considerably increase emissions in the area. The increase in VMT and greenhouse gas emissions is directly inconsistent with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle trips. Additional calculation details can be found in Appendix A. Table 1. Emissions Increase due to Additional VMT Percent Increase in daily mobile Criteria Air Pollutant emissions from STR to hotel to serve the same population VOC 442% NO 443% x CO 443% SO 444% x PM 444% 10 PM 444% 2.5 GHG (COe) 443% 2 3 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 4 This percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. The number of short-term rentals and population are provided for illustrative purposes only. 4/14 ÐP 4 An STR Ban Will Disproportionally Burden Environmental Justice Communities The proposed STR ban in Santa Ana, CA, raises critical environmental justice concerns, particularly given the CityÓs existing pollution burdens from regional pollution and localized traffic exposure near the existing hotel stock, and the potential for increased hotel usage in response to restrictions on STRs. The existing hotels are predominately located near the I-5 and 55 freeways on the southeastern boundary of the City. This area shows elevated burden according to the California Office of Environmental Health 5 Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) data. CalEnviroScreen was developed as a mapping tool that identifies California communities most impacted by pollution and other environmental risks to identify vulnerability to adverse health effects from those sources. CalEnviroScreen takes into account environmental and socioeconomic factors to develop a percentile of burden across the State of California. Factors include indicators of pollution burden (including ozone, traffic, pesticides, drinking water) and population characteristics (including asthma, cardiovascular disease, education, poverty), which are each scored and weighted to derive a pollution burden score, population characteristic score, and the final CalEnviroScreen score. The Santa Ana tracts that border the I-5 and 55 freeways near the Southeastern boundaries of the city are identified as vulnerable tracts are also the current locations for the greatest density of hotels in Santa Ana. As shown in Figure 1, the CalEnviroScreen tool identifies Santa Ana, and particularly the freeway- th adjacent tracts, as highly burdened, being classified into the 80 percentile and above for the thrd CalEnviroScreen overall percentile, with tracts above the 90 percentile (Tract 6059074406 93 percentile as the maximum). This significant elevation in burden is driven by the pollution and exposure th burden; these freeway-adjacent tracts are ranked in the 90 percentile and above for pollution burden th (Tract 6059074003 99 percentile for pollution burden) and face extreme burden from air pollution th associated with vehicle traffic emissions, and direct traffic exposure (Tract 6059074406 99 percentile for traffic). Conversely, while central Santa Ana tracts still register as overburdened and pollution-impacted, tracts th in the center of the City are comparatively lower burdened and near the 70 percentile for overall burden. Further screening tools, the Council on Environmental QualityÓs Climate and Economic Justice Screening 6 Tool (CEJST), the US EPAÓs Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen, Version 78 2.3), and the Public Health Alliance of Southern CaliforniaÓs California Health Places Index (HPI 3.0), each highlight significant environmental and health concerns for Santa Ana in almost all tracts, with traffic proximity and the associated vehicle traffic-generated air pollution as the driving metrics of those disadvantage and burden ratings. 5 OEHHA. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. May 2023. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 6 Council on Environmental Quality. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. Available at: https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/. 7 US EPA. Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen. 8 Public Health Alliance of Southern California. Healthy Places Index (HPI) 3.0. 2022. Available at: https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/. 5/14 ÐP Figure 1. OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Santa Ana, CA. Overall Percentile of Exposure and Burden. In Figure 2, the EJScreen-measured traffic proximity is expressed as the counts of vehicles per day divided by the distance between the vehicle(s) and tract, providing a percentile rank for total exposure. The data included demonstrates the extreme disparity for these near-freeway Santa Ana tracts, the same tracts in the Northeast and Southeast of Santa Ana where hotels are primarily located, as these tracts already experience among the most extreme traffic exposures in the state and country (Figure 2, the traffic proximity expressed as traffic volume and distance and displayed as state percentile by tract). These already traffic-exposure overburdened tracts risk further concentration of traffic from increased hotel use and potential new hotels (further discussed in Section 7). Therefore, the congestion and traffic density increases may be more impactful to this already overburdened area. 6/14 ÐP Figure 2. US EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, Santa Ana, CA, environmental burden indicator of traffic proximity. The proposed STR could shift visitor accommodations in STRs from lower-burdened, dispersed residential areas to concentrated hotel zones in southeast Santa Ana, where pollution and traffic emission levels are already elevated. This shift in accommodation location could lead to increase vehicular traffic and hotel-generated emissions in an already-concentrated area facing significant air pollution exposure levels and health risks. Furthermore, the construction of more hotels in this area to meet the demands for visitors due to the STR ban could increase emissions from construction and additional operation to an area with higher burden. The relocation of accommodations could further the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these already overburdened communities. 5 An STR Ban Would Increase Energy Demands Because Hotels Use More Energy Per Person Than STRs The proposed STR ban could cause visitors who would have otherwise stayed in STRs to stay in hotels, which consume more energy per person than STRs. Using CalEEMod, Ramboll modeled the operational GHG emissions of hotels and STRs for comparison. The single-family home CalEEMod land use type was used a surrogate for STR. Assuming an occupancy rate of 3 people per hotel room and 5.6 people per STR, hotels have much higher associated GHG emissions per person. It was found that hotels consume 7/14 ÐP more electricity and natural gas per person than STRs, as shown in Table 2 and in the CalEEMod output 9 in Appendix B. Table 2. Operational Energy Use per Person Electricity Natural Gas Land Use kWh/yr/person kBTU/yr/person Hotel 6,773 13,974 Short Term Rentals 1,231 6,846 As a result of the increase in energy consumption when staying in a hotel instead of an STR, GHG emissions from energy consumption per person would increase by 179 percent. 6 An STR Ban Will Increase Fossil Fuel Usage In addition, increased VMT would require greater reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips. Even with CaliforniaÓs policies to shift the vehicle fleet towards cleaner cars and trucks, vehicle usage will continue to rely on gasoline for car and truck trips for years to come. The STR ban therefore results in greater reliance on fossil fuels, inconsistent with regional and state climate policy. The estimated fuel use is summarized in Table 3 and utilizes the same assumptions from Table 1. Additional calculation 10 details can be found in Appendix A. Table 3. Daily Mobile Fuel Consumption Gasoline Diesel Land Use Gallons per day Gallons per day Hotels 6,916 197 Short Term Rentals 1,272 36 Percent Increase with Hotel Use 444% 447% 7 An STR Ban Could Concentrate Traffic Resulting in Potential Noise and Health Impacts The potential ban of short-term rentals in Santa Ana could result in concentrated traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, which could have noise and health impacts to the surrounding land uses. As described above, removing short term rentals as a means for lodging in Santa Ana would result in visitors needing to rely on hotels for their stay. Currently, there are over 20 hotels in the city limits of Santa Ana and over half of them are located in one concentrated area in the southeastern part of the City along Highway 55. It can be assumed that if more people will need stay in hotels instead of STRs, then the traffic to this part of town would increase significantly as it is likely all of this traffic would be concentrated to the roadways surrounding the hotel zone area. In comparison, traffic caused from 9 The CalEEMod analysis is based on 134 dwelling units, which is the amount of STRs that would accommodate the same number of people as a 250 room hotel. However, the energy use per person and percent increase in GHG emission is independent of the absolute number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. 10 The fuel usage is based on 1,000 STRs in Santa Ana. However, the percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. 8/14 ÐP visitors traveling to and from various STRs located throughout the City would result in more diversified traffic patterns as all visitors are not driving to one area. Furthermore, a potential new hotel constructed to meet the demand as a result of the STRs ban would likely be constructed in the area of Santa Ana with the majority of hotels, further concentrating traffic in this area. Health Risk Impacts from Traffic Ramboll performed a preliminary analysis that quantified the health risks from traffic emissions in order to assess the impact that increased hotel use in Santa Ana due to a ban on STRs could cause. A typical roadway with approximately 30,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) results in an excess cancer risk 11,12,13 of 40 in a million at a nearby residential receptor. According to ITE, hotels generate 7.99 trips per 14 day per hotel room. There are currently approximately 1,000 Airbnbs in Santa Ana, with other STRs 15 also available. Assuming this ban contributes to 950 more hotel rooms being used, traffic would increase by 7,560 vehicles per day, which results in health impacts that would exceed 10 in a million, which is the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. This scaling approach also does not take into account increased truck traffic associated with deliveries to a hotel that would not occur to an STR. Therefore, banning STRs in Santa Ana could result in an increase in traffic on certain roadways that could be considered significant. If additional truck trips were taken into account, the number of hotel rooms that could cause an exceedance of the threshold of significance for cancer risk could be lower than 950 hotel rooms. It could be assumed that similar trends to cancer risk based on near-roadway traffic exposure would be true for particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions. Noise Impacts from Traffic Ramboll evaluated whether a potential traffic volume increase could cause a traffic noise increase that is considered either substantial (per CEQA guidelines) or increases the ambient conditions to a level above the Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element standard (65 dBA CNEL). Traffic noise analyses require specific knowledge of existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes as well as project-related traffic volumes and mixes. In this case, this information is currently unknown. However, the following figure shows the current (2022) exterior levels of noise created by cars, trucks, or trains traveling along roadways and rail lines in the City. The CityÓs noise and land use compatibility standards (see Table N-1) consider exterior levels above 65 dBA (CNEL) to be generally incompatible for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. If residential or other noise-sensitive areas within the City that are currently below the 65 dBA CNEL level experienced traffic volume increases, specifically due to an increased hotel demand resulting from 11 Health impacts obtained from highway 152 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Mobile Source Screening tool at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway. This was used as a surrogate to estimate general health risks from only traffic. The traffic volume along this road was obtained from CalTrans. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. CEQA Roadway Screening Tool - Cancer Risk. Available at: https://data.bayareametro.gov/Environment/CEQA-Roadway-Screening-Tool-Cancer-Risk/kz4a-ueki 13 CalTrans, Traffic Census Program. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. 14 ITE. Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. 15 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana?payment-plan=pro&payment- duration=yearly 9/14 ÐP the proposed STR ban, and the traffic volume increase caused the CNEL level to now exceed 65 dBA, the STR ban could be considered to have caused a significant impact. The magnitude of a traffic noise increase is dependent on several factors including the traffic volume increase, the vehicle mix, and the local site conditions. Based on standard methodologies prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and considering a vehicle mix typical of suburban/urban areas, traffic volume increases would be expected to result in the following traffic noise increases. Project-specific detailed analysis, including a traffic analysis, would be required to further evaluate. Nonetheless, the volume increases listed below suggest the traffic increases likely necessary to increase the existing traffic noise conditions would need to be significant.As shown in the Figure below, the existing hotel stock is in the area near Highway 55 that is either already above the noise standard of 65 dBA or near the standard. Therefore, adding additional traffic to this area due to the shiftto hotels as a result of the STR ban or the addition of new hotels to the area has the potential to exacerbate the existing noise impacts or create a new noise impact. Therefore, this should be studied in more detail. Figure 3.Contours from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. 10/14 ÐP Table 4. Noise Impact from Traffic Increase Traffic Volume Increase Potential Traffic Noise Increase ЋЎі Њ ķ. ЎЉі Ћ ķ. ЊЉЉі Ќ ķ. 8 Elimination of Short-Term Rentals Could Cause the Construction of New Hotels to Meet Demand; the Construction of New Hotels Would Result in Numerous Environmental Impacts That Require Studying As detailed in the Ramboll memorandum ÐECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONÑ, the prohibition of STRs, including those currently operating within the City, could compel tourists to seek alternative accommodations, increasing demand for hotels and potentially leading to the development of additional hotels as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the STR ban. The construction of hotels has impacts on the environment that have not been studied. In particular, construction of hotels has potential noise and air quality impacts as discussed below. Potential Hotel Construction Air Quality and Health Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Ramboll performed a screening health risk assessment to determine the potential cancer risk resulting from construction activity of a hypothetical new hotel. The emissions associated with the construction of these hotels encompass on-site, off-road heavy equipment, off-site, on-road vehicle travel, architectural coating, paving, and fugitive dust. Ramboll utilized CalEEMod to estimate construction emissions from a 250-room hotel as shown in Appendix B, which is an average mid-size hotel. Ramboll used an existing hotel project site to model emissions in AERMOD as a surrogate for the space of hotel construction. Concentrations resulting from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from off- road construction equipment in CalEEMod were modeled on receptors in a grid of 20 meters. The health 16 risk assessment used default exposure assumptions for residents as outlined by OEHHA. As indicated in Table 5, the construction of a hotel without emissions mitigation results in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual (MEI), which exceeds the SCAQMDÓs threshold of 10 in a million. Cancer risks continue to exceed the threshold until a distance of 450 feet from the construction area. Table 5. Cancer Risk from Hotel Construction Source Cancer Risk (in a million) Construction of a 250 room Hotel 48 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 10 Potential Hotel Construction Noise Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Construction of structures generates noise, which is regulated by the City of Santa Ana. 16 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. 11/14 ÐP City of Santa Ana Noise Element California Government Code encourages each local government entity to implement a noise element as part of its general plan. In addition, the California GovernorÓs Office of Planning and Research has developed guidelines for preparing noise elements, which include recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The City of Santa Ana 17 has established a Noise Element as part of the Santa Ana General Plan. The Noise Element works to ensure that the City limits the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day. Specifically, the City has established standards for noise levels (Community Noise Equivalent Level\[CNEL\],dBA) for land uses as displayed in Table N-1. Additionally, all residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that provided by normal building construction when constructed in areas exposed to greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Sound levels resulting from a project that exceed the standards listed in Table N-1 or that cause the existing conditions to increase above these standards would typically be considered to be impacting the surrounding community. Figure 4. Noise Standards from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance The City of Santa Ana regulates noise emissions via the Santa Ana Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 18 18, Article 6 (Noise Control).The noise ordinance establishes that it isunlawful for any person at any location within the City of Santa Ana to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which creates a soundlevel 17 https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/april-2022-general-plan-noise-element/ 18 https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH18HESA_ARTVINOC O 12/14 ÐP at aresidential propertythat exceeds the following exterior noise standards. The noise levels are based on a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. Table 6. Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Source: Santa Ana Municipal Code, §18-312. Noise emissions from one property that propagate onto an adjacent or nearby residential property and exceed these limits are deemed to be noncompliant with the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Noise emissions related to construction activities are exempt from thelimits, provided the construction activitiesdo not occurplace between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Analysis of New Hotel Construction The effect of construction noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitiveneighbors is dependent on the location and nature of the construction activities. Depending on the construction activities and neighboring land uses, there is a potential for possible significance threshold exceedances related to the resulting construction activities, particularly in relation to residential communities. While noise from construction activities is exempt from the Santa Ana Municipal Code during daytime hours, noise from construction activities occurring during the nighttime hours (as detailed in the previous section) must comply with the established limits. Additionally, the potential for substantial temporary increases to the existing ambient conditions could be considered relative to CEQA guidelines. Construction typically involves the use of heavy machinery that can be a significant source of noise and, while often temporary, can result in significant impacts. Construction equipment commonly includes air compressors, backhoes, concrete trucks, cranes,dump trucks, excavators, graders, pavers, tractors/dozers, vibratory rollers, portable generators, and water trucks. Depending on the phase of construction, project construction typically involves a combination of these types of off-road and portable construction equipment. Assuming a typical construction plan, common types of construction equipment, and typical construction equipment sound levels published by resources such as the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and manufacturers, potential overall sound levels can be estimated. Accordingly, construction sound levels could range from approximately 75 to 90 dBA assuming typical receptor distances of 500 ft to 50 ft. Construction activities also may need to occur at night due to various limitations. Examples include concrete pours that need to occur when other construction is not happening or would impede traffic, accelerated construction needs to meet hotel demand that may come with the Olympics in 2028, roadway construction work that needs to occur at nighttime. The table below outlines general construction phasing and equipment assumptions employed to estimate approximate sound pressure levels (SPL) for common construction phasesfor a hotel use as 19 generated in CalEEMod.It is anticipated that these sound pressure levels are above typical 19 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2022.1. Available online at https://www.caleemod.com/ . 13/14 ÐP suburban/urban ambient sound levels and therefore could cause a temporary increase above the threshold discussed above. For reference, typical suburban/urban background sound levels are 20 commonly on the order of 45 to 55 dBA during daytime hours and lower during nighttime hours. Because sound pressure levels from construction of a new hotel, which was needed due to a STR ban, have the potential to cause a temporary increase above the noise level threshold, more analysis is needed to evaluate specific impacts and potential mitigation. While construction may be exempt from the noise ordinance during daytime hours, the table below shows that the construction could have a significant noise impact on the community. Furthermore, if any nighttime construction activity is needed for the hotel, the noise levels below show that threshold for nighttime work in the noise ordinance would be exceeded. Table 7. Noise Impacts from Construction Activity Avg. Equip Equip Total Total Total Usage Lmax Acoustical Construction Size, SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ Equipment Type Qty Hours SPL @ Use Phase Hp 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 500 ft per 50 ft Factor dBA dBA dBA dBA Day dBA wǒĬĬĻƩ źƩĻķ 5ƚǩĻƩƭ Ќ Б ЌЏА БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЏ {źƷĻ 89 79 ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ tƩĻƦğƩğƷźƚƓ Ѝ Б БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЏ ƉŷƚĻƭ 9ǣĭğǝğƷƚƩƭ Ћ Б ЌЏ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЍ DƩğķĻƩƭ Њ Б ЊЍБ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЊ wǒĬĬĻƩ źƩĻķ 5ƚǩĻƩƭ Њ Б ЌЏА БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЊ DƩğķźƓŭ 90 80 {ĭƩğƦĻƩƭ Ћ Б ЍЋЌ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЍ ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ Ћ Б БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЌ ƉŷƚĻƭ /ƩğƓĻƭ Њ А ЌЏА БЌ ЊЏі АЎ АЎ CƚƩƉƌźŅƷƭ Ќ Б БЋ АЎ ЍЉі АЊ АЏ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ DĻƓĻƩğƷƚƩ {ĻƷƭ Њ Б ЊЍ БЋ ЎЉі АВ АВ 87 77 /ƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ Ќ А БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЎ ƉŷƚĻƭ ‘ĻƌķĻƩƭ Њ Б ЍЏ АЍ ЍЉі АЉ АЉ tğǝĻƩƭ Ћ Б БЊ БЎ ЎЉі БЋ БЎ tğǝźƓŭ tğǝźƓŭ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ Ћ Џ БВ БЎ ЎЉі БЋ БЎ 89 79 wƚƌƌĻƩƭ Ћ Џ ЌЏ БЎ ЋЉі АБ БЊ 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Noise, December 31, 1971. 14/14 APPENDIX Confidential e 2 CO 443% 2.5 6 PM 10 PM x SO CO x Hotel to serve the same Population NO 443%443%444%444%444% sions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools Percent Increase of Operational Emissions from STR to VOC 442% r STR (Airbtics). In order to compare STR and Hotel VMT on an travel two additional miles to get to their Hotel compared to a umes on average one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. STR - short term rentalVOC - volatile organic compounds VMT - vehicle miles traveled equivalents. Emissions were determined using EMFAC2021 emission p and gram per mile emission factors for each pollutant. 5 VMT Peak Daily (miles/day) 4 Trips ) (one-way trips/day) Peak Daily 2 3 Trips Rate (trips/day) 2 Trip (miles) Distance 1 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter - particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter - nitrogen oxide compounds (NO + NO 5,6008.87.9914,915131,086 - sulfur oxide compounds x x 2.510 Capacity Population NOPMPMSO Unit Hotel Rooms Quantity 1 5.61,000STRs5,6006.83.553,55024,101 Rate Population (per STR or hotel room) Ļ Ώ ĭğƩĬƚƓ ķźƚǣźķĻ ĻƨǒźǝğƌĻƓƷƭ Hotel3.01,867 Rental Ћ Land Use There are approximately 1,000 active short-term rentals within the City of Santa Ana and the average capacity is 5.6 people pe Trip distances assume CalEEMod default trip length assumptions in Santa Ana. For this comparison, it is assumed visitors must Daily trip rate for Recreational Homes (ITE Land Use 260) and Hotel (ITE Land Use 310). The number of peak daily trips were determined by multiplying the trip rate by the number of STRs or number of hotel rooms. The number of peak daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were determined by multiplying the daily trips by the trip length. The percent increase from short term rentals compared to hotels were calcuated for criteria air pollutants and carbon dioxide Short Term Appendix Table A1: VMT and Mobile Emissions Comparison of Short Term Rentals and Hotels 1 equivalent per capita basis, the number of hotel rooms required to accommodate the total STR capacity is 1,867 hotels. This ass 2 short term rental.3456 factors for Orange County in 2027. The variation in the percent increase between pollutants is due to the ratio of gram per triAbbreviations:CalEEMod - California Emissions Estimator ModelCO - carbon monoxideCOITE - Institute of Transportation EngineersReferences:https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20anaITE. Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition.California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emis Appendix Table A2: VMT and Fuel Consumption Comparison of Short Term Rentals and Hotels 2 Fuel Consuption 1,2 Fuel Percent of Fleet (gallons per mile) 0.055 Gasoline95% Diesel5% 0.031 3 Gasoline Consumption Diesel Consumption Peak Daily VMT Land Use 44 (miles/day)(gal)(gal) Short Term Rental24,1011,27236 Hotel131,0866,916197 1 Gasoline includes gasoline fueled vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Natural gas is excluded from this analysis due to the negligible VMT from natural gas vehicles. 2 The fleet mix and fuel consumption per mile is determined using EMFAC2021 for Santa Ana in 2027. The fuel consumption rate is weighted based on fleet type. 3 The number of peak daily VMT were determined in Appendix Table A1. 4 Gasoline and diesel consumption are calculated by multiplying the VMT by the fuel-specific percentage and then by the weighted fuel consumption factor (gal/VMT) derived from EMFAC output. Abbreviations: STR - short term rental VMT - vehicle miles traveled gal - gallon References: California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools APPENDIX Confidential HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1 /45 HotelDetailedReport 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated2.4. OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated3.1.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated3.3.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated3.5.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated3.7. BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated3.9.Paving(2027)-Unmitigated TableofContents 1.BasicProjectInformation2.EmissionsSummary3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 2 /45 4.1.1.Unmitigated4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.3.1.Unmitigated4.4.1.Unmitigated4.5.1.Unmitigated4.6.1.Unmitigated4.7.1.Unmitigated 3.11.ArchitecturalCoating(2027)-Unmitigated4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse4.2.Energy4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse4.7.Of froadEmissionsByEquipmentType4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 3 /45 4.8.1.Unmitigated4.9.1.Unmitigated4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-Unmitigated4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-Unmitigated4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsby Species-Unmitigated5.2.1.Unmitigated5.3.1.Unmitigated5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities 4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment5.3.ConstructionVehicles5.4.Vehicles5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMit igation 5.ActivityData HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 4 /45 5.10.1.1.Unmitigated 5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies5.9.1.Unmitigated5.10.1.Hearths5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment5.11.1.Unmitigated5.12.1.Unmitigated5.13.1.Unmitigated5.14.1.Unmitiga ted 5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors5.9.OperationalMobileSources5.10.OperationalAreaSources5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewat erConsumption5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5 /45 5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 5.15.1.Unmitigated5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.2.Sequestration 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment5.16.StationarySources5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation6.1.ClimateRiskSummary6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 6 /45 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores7.4.Health&EquityMeasures7.5.EvaluationScorecard7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails8.UserChangestoDefaultData Description Population HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 SpecialLandscapeArea(sqft) LandscapeArea(sqft) ValueHotel1/1/20262027ÏProject/site2.5018.6SantaAna,CA,USAOrangeSantaAnaSouthCoastAQMDSouthCoast59907SouthernCaliforniaEdisonSouthernCaliforniaGas2022.1.1.29 7 /45 BuildingArea(sqft) LotAcreage Unit Size DataFieldProjectNameConstructionStartDateOperationalYearLeadAgencyLandUseScaleAnalysisLevelforDefaultsCountyWindspeed(m/s)Precipitation(days)LocationCountyCityAirDistrictAirBasinTAZEDFZElectricUtilit yGasUtilityAppVersionLandUseSubtypeHotel250Room2.30363,0000.00ÏÏÏ 1.BasicProjectInformation 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 8 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx 250Space2.30100,0000.00ÏÏÏ ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG EnclosedParkingwithElevatorUn/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.17117112.924.40.040.403.193.590.370.781.14Ï7,3107,3100.250.4515.07,464Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.14.74.8016889.60.812.6950.353.02.5918.621.2Ï118,0 90118,0908.7317.95.92123,638AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.9.899.7813.818.10.050.373.884.240.341.261.60Ï7,8607,8600.400.766.638,104Annual(Max)Unmit.1.801.792.523.300.010.070.710.770.060.230.29Ï1,3011,3010.07 0.131.101,342Year 1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector Nomeasuresselected 2.EmissionsSummary 2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual) andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 9 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily-Summer(Max)20262.141.7812.924.40.040.403.193.590.370.781.14Ï7,3107,3100.250.4515.07,464202717117112.323.70.040.353.193.540.330.781.10Ï7,2237,2230.240.4313.57,371Daily-Winter(Max)202614.74.80168 89.60.812.6950.353.02.5918.621.2Ï118,090118,0908.7317.95.92123,63820272.061.6312.422.40.040.353.193.540.330.781.10Ï7,1047,1040.240.430.357,239AverageDaily20261.861.3413.818.10.050.373.884.240.341.261 .60Ï7,8607,8600.400.766.638,10420279.899.783.115.630.010.090.730.820.080.180.26Ï1,6711,6710.060.101.321,702AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ20260.340.252.523.300.010.070.710.770.060.230.29Ï1,3011,3010.070.131 .101,34220271.801.790.571.03<0.0050.020.130.150.020.030.05Ï2772770.010.020.22282Un/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.12.612.22.9822.50.020.250.000.250.240.000.2485.98,6518,7379.420.105679,568Daily,Winter(Ma x)Unmit.9.028.872.822.360.020.210.000.210.210.000.2185.98,5688,6549.410.105679,485AverageDaily(Max) 2.4.OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 10 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Unmit.11.511.12.9316.20.020.240.000.240.230.000.2385.98,6258,7119.420.105679,542Annual(Max)Unmit.2.092.030.532.95<0.0050.040.000.040.040.000.0414.21,4281,4421.560.0293.91,580SectorDaily,Summer(Max)Mo bile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area12.312.00.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1Energy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,5270 .790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total12.612.22.9822.50.020.250.000.250.240.000.2485.98,6518,7379.420.105679, 568Daily,Winter(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area8.718.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEnergy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,5270.790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total9.028.872.822.360.020.210.000.210.210.000.2185.98,5688,6549.410.105679,485AverageDaily 2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 11 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area11.211.00.1213.8<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï56.756.7<0.005<0.005Ï56.9Energy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,52 70.790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total11.511.12.9316.20.020.240.000.240.230.000.2385.98,6258,7119.420.10567 9,542AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area2.042.000.022.52<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42Energy0.060.030.5 10.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï1,4121,4120.130.01Ï1,418WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.993.9Total2.092.030.532.95<0.0050.0 40.000.040.040.000.0414.21,4281,4421.560.0293.91,580LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max) 3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails 3.1.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 5,316 Ï 0.04 0.21 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5,298 5,298 Ï 1.14 Ï 12 /45 1.14 1.24 Ï 1.24 0.05 28.8 29.2 3.14 3.74ÏÏÏÏÏÏ20.320.3Ï10.210.2ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.100.090.800.79<0.0050.03Ï0.030.03Ï0.03Ï1451450.01<0.005Ï146ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.560.56Ï0. 280.28ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.020.150.14<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï24.024.0<0.005<0.005Ï24.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.100.10Ï0.050.05ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Off-RoadEquipmDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckOffsiteDai ly,Summer(Max) ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 13 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.961.6515.017.40.030.65Ï0.650.59Ï0.59Ï2,9602,9600.120.02Ï2,970 Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.060.060.060.800.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï217217<0.0050.010.02219Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling10.91.5913960.00.761.4529. 731.21.458.349.78Ï112,575112,5758.5117.85.90118,102AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï6.026.02<0.005<0.0050.016.10Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.300.043.851.630.020.040.810.850.040.230.27Ï3,0843,0840.230.492.693,238AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.005<0.0050.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï1 .001.00<0.005<0.005<0.0051.01Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.050.010.700.30<0.0050.010.150.150.010.040.05Ï5115110.040.080.45536LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.3.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï 3.42 3.42 14 /45 Ï 7.08 7.08 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.160.141.231.43<0.0050.05Ï0.050.05Ï0.05Ï2432430.01<0.005Ï244ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.580.58Ï0.280.28ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.030.020.220.26<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï40.340.3<0.005<0.005Ï40.4ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.110.11Ï0.050.05ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000 .000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ DustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max) Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.050.050.050.680.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï186186<0.0050.010.02188 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 15 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079. 8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,405 Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.060.000.00 0.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï15.515.5<0.005<0.0050.0215.7Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.0 00.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.562.56<0.005<0.005<0.0052.60Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.5.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 16 /45 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.770.655.967.840.010.23Ï0.230.21Ï0.21Ï1,4501,4500.060.01Ï1,4550.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.140.121.091.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2402400.01<0.005Ï2410.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.670.660.5910.20.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,5322,5320.030.098.8 02,569Vendor0.190.052.421.210.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3802,3800.120.346.152,489Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.670.660.688.84 0.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,4102,4100.030.090.232,438Vendor0.180.052.521.240.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3812,3810.120.340.162,485Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000 .000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.400.390.415.560.000.001.521.520.000.360.36Ï1,4771,4770.020.062.301,497Vendor0.110.031.540.740.010.010.390.400.010.110.12Ï1,4401,4400.070.201.611,503 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 17 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.3 40.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.270.222.042.810.010.07Ï0.070.07Ï0.07Ï5215210.02<0.005Ï522 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.070.070.071.010.000.000.280.280.000.060.06Ï245245<0.0050.010.38248Vendor0.020.010.280.14<0. 005<0.0050.070.07<0.0050.020.02Ï2382380.010.030.27249Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsi tetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipment 3.7.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 18 /45 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.050.040.370.51<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï86.286.2<0.005<0.005Ï86.50.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.0 00.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.650.560.589.620.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,4902,4900.030.097.892,526Vendor0.180.052.331.160.020.020.65 0.670.020.180.20Ï2,3362,3360.120.325.592,440Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.650.550.608.270.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,3692,3690 .030.090.212,398Vendor0.180.052.431.180.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3372,3370.120.320.142,435Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.140.120.1 51.870.000.000.550.550.000.130.13Ï5225220.010.020.74529Vendor0.040.010.530.25<0.005<0.0050.140.14<0.0050.040.04Ï5085080.030.070.52529Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000. 000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.030.020.030.340.000.000.100.100.000.020.02Ï86.486.4<0.005<0.0050.1287.5Vendor0.01<0.0050.100.05<0.005<0.0050.030.03<0.0050.010.01Ï84.084.0<0.0050.010.0987.6H auling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 19 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.790.666.098.830.010.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,3501,3500.050.01Ï1,3550.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.040.040. 330.48<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï74.074.0<0.005<0.005Ï74.20.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.010.060.09<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï12.312.3<0.005<0.005Ï12.3 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentPaving0.300.30ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentPaving0.020.02ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckAnnua lÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentPaving<0.005<0.005ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruck 3.9.Paving(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 20 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.140.110.831.13<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï134 OffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.070.060.060.990.000.000.260.260.000.060.06Ï256256<0.0050.010.81260Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.0 00.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.050.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï13.513.5<0.005<0.0050.0213.7Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0. 005<0.005Ï2.242.24<0.005<0.005<0.0052.27Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Location OnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.11.ArchitecturalCoating(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 21 /45 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 171 1710.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.010.010.050.06<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï7.327.32<0.005<0.005Ï7.349.369.36ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï1.211.21<0.005<0.005Ï1.221.711.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ArchitecturalOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max) Worker0.130.110.121.920.000.000.510.510.000.120.12Ï4984980.010.021.58505Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 22 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.090.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï26.326.3<0.005<0.0050.0426.7Vendor0.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.0 10.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.364.36<0.005<0.0050.014.41Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000. 00LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ4,8184,8180.460.06Ï4,846 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails 4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse 4.1.1.Unmitigated MobilesourceemissionsresultsarepresentedinSections2.6.Nofurtherdetailedbreakdownofemissionsisavailable.4.2.Energy 4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 352CO2e ÏR <0.005N2O 0.03CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 350CO2T 350NBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 23 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3503500.03<0.005Ï352ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ58.058.00.01<0.005Ï58.3TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 EnclosedTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5,1685,1680.490.06Ï5,198Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ4,8184,8180.460.06Ï4,846EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5,1685,1680.490.06Ï5,198AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7987980.080.01Ï802EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8568560.080.01Ï861LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)Hotel0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368EnclosedPa rkingwithElevator 4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 24 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.787.78ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Total0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368Daily,Winter(Max)Hotel0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotal0.310.152.822. 360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotel0.060.030.510.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï5565560.05<0.005Ï558EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotal0.060.030.510.43<0.0050.04Ï0 .040.04Ï0.04Ï5565560.05<0.005Ï558SourceDaily,Summer(Max)ConsumerProducts 4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource 4.3.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 25 /45 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 0.94 0.943.583.310.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.787.78ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.940.94ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.421.42ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.170.17ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.410.022.5 2<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42 ArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal12.312.00.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1Daily,Winter(Max)ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsTotal8.718.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnual ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal2.042.000.022.52<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 26 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3Enclosed ParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4 4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse 4.4.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 27 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258EnclosedPar kingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7 4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse 4.5.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 28 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.99 3.9TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.993.9EquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.6.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.7.1.UnmitigatedCriteri aPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2eCO2e ÏRR ÏN2ON2O ÏCH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2TCO2T ÏNBCO2NBCO2 ÏBCO2BCO2 ÏPM2.5TPM2.5T ÏPM2.5DPM2.5D 29 /45 ÏPM2.5EPM2.5E ÏPM10TPM10T ÏPM10DPM10D ÏPM10EPM10E ÏSO2SO2 ÏCOCO ÏNOxNOx ÏROGROG ÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG Daily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentType 4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.8.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.9.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 30 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG Daily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏVegetationDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)Total ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏLandUse 4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType 4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.2.Abo veandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 31 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSpeciesDaily,Summer(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubt otalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsbySpecies-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï PhaseDescription Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï WorkDaysperPhase Ï Ï Ï DaysPerWeek Ï 32 /45 Ï EndDate Ï Ï Ï StartDate Ï Ï Ï PhaseType Ï ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏPhaseNameSitePreparationSitePreparation1/1/20261/14/20265.0010.0ÏGradingGrading1/15/20262/25/20265.0030.0ÏBuildingConstructionBuildingConstruction2/26/20264/21/202 75.00300ÏPavingPaving4/22/20275/19/20275.0020.0ÏArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoating5/20/20276/16/20275.0020.0Ï 5.ActivityData 5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment LoadFactor VehicleMix HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Horsepower HoursPerDay MilesperTrip NumberperDay 33 /45 One-WayTripsperDay EngineTier FuelTypeDieselAverage4.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage3.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage3.007.0084.00.37DieselAverage2.006.0010.00.56DieselAverage1.008.0084.00.37 TripType EquipmentTypehoeshoeshoesMixershoes PhaseNameSitePreparationRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage3.008.003670.40SitePreparationTractors/Loaders/BackGradingExcavatorsDieselAverage1.008.0036.00.38GradingGradersDieselAverage1.008.001480.41Gradin gRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage1.008.003670.40GradingTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionCranesDieselAverage1.007.003670.29BuildingConstructionForkliftsDieselAverage3.008.0082.00.20BuildingConst ructionGeneratorSetsDieselAverage1.008.0014.00.74BuildingConstructionTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionWeldersDieselAverage1.008.0046.00.45PavingPaversDieselAverage1.008.0081.00.42PavingPaving EquipmentDieselAverage2.006.0089.00.36PavingRollersDieselAverage2.006.0036.00.38PavingCementandMortarPavingTractors/Loaders/BackArchitecturalCoatingAirCompressorsDieselAverage1.006.0037.00.48PhaseNam e 5.2.1.Unmitigated 5.3.ConstructionVehicles 5.3.1.Unmitigated HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 34 /45 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SitePreparationSitePreparationWorker17.518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2SitePreparationVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTSitePreparationHauling1,64220.0HHDTSitePreparationOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTGradingGradingWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT 2GradingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTGradingHauling0.0020.0HHDTGradingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTBuildingConstructionBuildingConstructionWorker19418.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2BuildingConstructionVendor75.910.2HHDT,MHDTBuildingCons tructionHauling0.0020.0HHDTBuildingConstructionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPavingÏÏÏÏPavingWorker20.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2PavingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTPavingHauling0.0020.0HHDTPavingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTArchitecturalCoati ngArchitecturalCoatingWorker38.918.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2ArchitecturalCoatingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTArchitecturalCoatingHauling0.0020.0HHDTArchitecturalCoatingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDT 5.4.Vehicles ParkingAreaCoated(sqft)AcresPaved(acres) N2O HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialDemolished(sq.ft.)%Asphalt CH4 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)AcresGraded(acres) 35 /45 CO2 ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialExported(CubicYards)AreaPaved(acres) kWhperYear ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialImported(CubicYards) PhaseNameArchitecturalCoating0.000.00549,008182,0016,011PhaseNameSitePreparation0.00131,37315.00.00ÏGrading0.000.0090.00.00ÏPaving0.000.000.000.002.30LandUseHotel0.000%EnclosedParkingwithElevator2.30 100%Year20260.005320.03<0.005 5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities5.6.2.ConstructionEarth movingControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors kWhperYearandEmissionFactor(lb/MWh) VMT/Year NaturalGas(kBTU/yr) ParkingAreaCoated(sqft) VMT/Sunday HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 VMT/SaturdayValueN2O Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) VMT/Weekday CH4 36 /45 Trips/Year Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Trips/SundayUnitCO2 Trips/Saturday ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Electricity(kWh/yr) Trips/Weekday 20270.005320.03<0.005LandUseTypeTotalallLandUses0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)00.00549,008182,0016,011SeasonSnowDaysday/yr0.00SummerDaysday/yr250LandUse 5.9.OperationalMobileSources 5.9.1.Unmitigated 5.10.OperationalAreaSources 5.10.1.Hearths5.10.1.1.Unmitigated5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment 5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption 5.11.1.UnmitigatedElectricity(kWh/yr)andCO2andCH4andN2OandNaturalGas(kBTU/yr) TimesServiced HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ServiceLeakRate OutdoorWater(gal/year)Cogeneration(kWh/year) OperationsLeakRate Quantity(kg) 37 /45 GWP IndoorWater(gal/year)Waste(ton/year) RefrigerantR-134a1,4300.000.600.001.00R-410A2,0881.804.004.0018.0R-404A3,922<0.0057.507.5020.0 369,1433460.03300.00400.00 EquipmentTyperefrigeratorsand/orfreezersandheatpumpsandfreezers Hotel5,079,7143460.03300.004010,480,427EnclosedParkingwithElevatorLandUseHotel6,341,6930.00EnclosedParkingwithElevator0.000.00LandUseHotel137ÏEnclosedParkingwithElevator0.00ÏLandUseTypeHotelHousehold HotelOthercommercialA/CHotelWalk-inrefrigerators 5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption 5.12.1.Unmitigated 5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration 5.13.1.Unmitigated 5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment 5.14.1.Unmitigated LoadFactorLoadFactor AnnualHeatInput(MMBtu/yr) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 FinalAcres HorsepowerHorsepower DailyHeatInput(MMBtu/day)FinalAcres HoursPerDayHoursperYear BoilerRating(MMBtu/hr)FuelTypeInitialAcres 38 /45 NumberperDayHoursperDay NumberInitialAcres EngineTierNumberperDay VegetationSoilType FuelType FuelTypeFuelType EquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeVegetationLandUseTypeBiomassCoverType 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment 5.15.1.Unmitigated 5.16.StationarySources 5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers 5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation 5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.1.Un mitigated5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.1.1.Unmitigated VulnerabilityScore .7miles(mi)by3.7mi. ouldbelighttomoderaterainfallif etal.,2017,CEC-500-2017-008),and derRCP8.5),andconsiderhistoricaldata rise,0.5meter,1.0meter,1.41meters oncentrationPathway(RCP)8.5which Averageconditions(CanESM2),Rangeof ymaximum/minimumtemperaturesfrom HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ialwildfireprobabilitiesforthegridcell.The ncrementsofsealevelrisecoupledwith NaturalGasSaved(btu/year) Unit AdaptiveCapacityScore ElectricitySaved(kWh/year) 39 /45 SensitivityScore ResultforProjectLocation Number ExposureScore100N/A TreeTypeClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeat9.03annualdaysofextremeheatExtremePrecipitation3.50annualdayswithprecipitationabove20mmSeaLevelRiseÏmetersofinundationdepthWildfire1.31annualhectaresburn edClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise100N/A 5.18.2.Sequestration5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport 6.1.ClimateRiskSummary Cal-Adaptmidcentury2040Î2059averageprojectionsforfourhazardsarereportedbelowforyourprojectlocation.Theseare underRepresentationCassumesGHGemissionswillcontinuetorisestronglythrough2050andthenplateauaround2100.TemperatureandExtremeHeatdataareforgridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.Theprojectionisbasedonthe9 8thhistoricalpercentileofdailobservedhistoricaldata(32climatemodelensemblefromCal-Adapt,2040Î2059averageunderRCP8.5). Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3ExtremePrecipitationdataareforthegridcellin whichyourprojectarelocated.Thethresholdof20mmisequivalenttoabout¾aninchofrain,whichwreceivedoverafulldayorheavyrainifreceivedoveraperiodof2to4hours.Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by 3.7mi.SeaLevelRisedataareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromRadkeetal.(2017),asreportedinCal-Adapt(RadkeconsiderinundationlocationanddepthfortheSanFranciscoBay,theSacrame nto-SanJoaquinRiverDeltaandCaliforniacoastresultingdifferentiextremestormevents.Usersmayselectfromfourscenariostoviewtherangeinpotentialinundationdepthforthegridcell.Thefourscenariosare:NoWildfiredat aareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromUCDavis,asreportedinCal-Adapt(2040Î2059averageunofclimate,vegetation,populationdensity,andlarge(>400ha)firehistory.Usersmayselectfr omfourmodelsimulationstoviewtherangeinpotentfoursimulationsmakedifferentassumptionsaboutexpectedrainfallandtemperatureare:Warmer/drier(HadGEM2-ES),Cooler/wetter(CNRM-CM5),differentrainfallandtemperat urepossibilities(MIROC5).Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by3.7mi.6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores VulnerabilityScore 1to5,withascoreof5representingthe1to5,withascoreof5representingthe udeimplementationofclimateriskreduction plementationofclimateriskreduction HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5 AdaptiveCapacityScore 40 /45 SensitivityScore 100N/A000N/AExposureScore111211121112 WildfireFloodingN/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradationClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise1112WildfireFlooding N/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradation Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonascaleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanage andreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvulnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityas sessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresdonotinclmeasures.6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonasc aleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanageandreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvu lnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityassessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresincludeimmeasures.6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails estate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ57.073.578.346.577.70.0087.544.2Ï94.80.000.0066.7Ï55.545.888.097.988.796.992.849.9 41 /45 IndicatorExposureIndicatorsAQ-OzoneAQ-PMAQ-DPMDrinkingWaterLeadRiskHousingPesticidesToxicReleasesTrafficEffectIndicatorsCleanUpSitesGroundwaterHazWasteFacilities/Generators86.4ImpairedWaterBodiesSoli dWasteSensitivePopulationAsthmaCardio-vascularLowBirthWeightsSocioeconomicFactorIndicatorsÏEducationHousingLinguisticPovertyUnemployment 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinth actsinthestate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ5.4151161349.839599645.838573078Ï10.6120877710045.81034262Ï2.66906197993.17336071Ï61.863210574.401385859Ï16.2710124535.8141922296.3557038494.2512511220.51841396Ï5.80007699 24.516874118 42 /45 IndicatorEconomicAbovePovertyEmployedMedianHIEducationBachelor'sorhigherHighschoolenrollmentPreschoolenrollmentTransportationAutoAccessActivecommutingSocial2-parenthouseholdsVotingNeighborhoodAlcohol availabilityParkaccessRetaildensitySupermarketaccessTreecanopyHousingHomeownershipHousinghabitabilityLow-inchomeownerseverehousingcostburden15.57808289Low-increnterseverehousingcostburden43.07712049 7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensustr HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.680995765Ï1.86064416854.349.458.087.614.811.995.739.745.17.314.819.994.317.3Ï57.09.30.00.0 43 /45 UncrowdedhousingHealthOutcomesInsuredadultsArthritisAsthmaERAdmissionsHighBloodPressureCancer(excludingskin)AsthmaCoronaryHeartDisease23.5ChronicObstructivePulmonaryDisease17.9DiagnosedDiabetesLifeEx pectancyatBirthCognitivelyDisabledPhysically DisabledHeartAttackERAdmissions78.5MentalHealthNotGoodChronicKidneyDiseaseObesityPedestrianInjuriesPhysicalHealthNotGood7.3StrokeHealthRiskBehaviorsBingeD rinkingCurrentSmokerNoLeisureTimeforPhysicalActivity3.2ClimateChangeExposuresÏWildfireRiskSLRInundationArea tractsinthestate. thestate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.569.31.393.321.655.323.0Ï96.6Ï31.1ResultforProjectCensusTract 44 /45 ChildrenElderlyEnglishSpeakingForeign-bornOutdoorWorkersClimateChangeAdaptiveCapacityÏImperviousSurfaceCover11.1TrafficDensityTrafficAccessOtherIndicesHardshipOtherDecisionSupport2016VotingMetricCalE nviroScreen4.0ScoreforProjectLocation(a)90.0HealthyPlacesIndexScoreforProjectLocation(b)12.0ProjectLocatedinaDesignatedDisadvantagedCommunity(SenateBill535)YesProjectLocatedinaLow-IncomeCommunity(Ass emblyBill1550)YesProjectLocatedinaCommunityAirProtectionProgramCommunity(AssemblyBill617)No 7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores a:ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinb:ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.A highscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensus 7.4.Health&EquityMeasures NoHealth&EquityMeasuresselected.7.5.EvaluationScorecard Health&EquityEvaluationScoreca rdnotcompleted. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 JustificationMorereflectiveofSantaAnaLotAcreage 45 /45 ScreenConstruction:ConstructionPhasesremoveddemolition.LandUseConstruction:DustFromMaterialMovementMorerepresentativeofSantaAna 7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures NoHealth&EquityCustomMeasurescreated.8.UserChangestoDefaultData SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1 /52 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated2.4. OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated3.1.Demolition(2026)-Unmitigated3.3.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated3.5.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated3.7.BuildingCo nstruction(2026)-Unmitigated3.9.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated TableofContents 1.BasicProjectInformation2.EmissionsSummary3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 2 /52 4.1.1.Unmitigated4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.3.1.Unmitigated4.4.1.Unmitigated4.5.1.Unmitigated4.6.1.Unmitigated 3.11.BuildingConstruction(2028)-Unmitigated3.13.BuildingConstruction(2029)-Unmitigated3.15.Paving(2029)-Unmitigated3.17.ArchitecturalCoating(2029)-Unmitigated4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse4.2.Energy4.3 .AreaEmissionsbySource4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 3 /52 4.7.1.Unmitigated4.8.1.Unmitigated4.9.1.Unmitigated4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-Unmitigated4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-Unmitigated4.10.3.AvoidedandSeque steredEmissionsbySpecies-Unmitigated5.2.1.Unmitigated5.3.1.Unmitigated5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies 4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipmen t5.3.ConstructionVehicles5.4.Vehicles 5.ActivityData SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 4 /52 5.10.1.1.Unmitigated 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies5.9.1.Unmitigated5.10.1.Hearths5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment5.11.1.Unmitigated5.12.1.Unmit igated 5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors5.9.OperationalMobileSources5.10.OperationalAreaSources5.11.OperationalEnergy Consumption5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5 /52 5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 5.13.1.Unmitigated5.14.1.Unmitigated5.15.1.Unmitigated5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.2.Sequestration 5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment5.16.StationarySources5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation6.1.ClimateRiskSummary 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 6 /52 6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores7.4.Health&EquityMeasure s7.5.EvaluationScorecard7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails8.UserChangestoDefaultData Description Population SpecialLandscapeArea(sqft) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 LandscapeArea(sqft) ValueSingleFamilyResidence1/1/20262027ÏProject/site2.5018.6SantaAna,CA,USAOrangeSantaAnaSouthCoastAQMDSouthCoast59907SouthernCaliforniaEdisonSouthernCaliforniaGas2022.1.1.29 7 /52 BuildingArea(sqft) LotAcreage Unit Size134DwellingUnit43.5261,3001,569,523Ï750Ï DataFieldProjectNameConstructionStartDateOperationalYearLeadAgencyLandUseScaleAnalysisLevelforDefaultsCountyWindspeed(m/s)Precipitation(days)LocationCountyCityAirDistrictAirBasinTAZEDFZElectricUtilit yGasUtilityAppVersionLandUseSubtypeSingleFamilyHousing 1.BasicProjectInformation 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 8 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ParkingLot134Space1.210.000.00ÏÏÏUn/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.30.230.129.229.70.061.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï6,8596,8590.270.113.346,885Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.30.230.129.229.60.051.2419.921.11.1410.21 1.3Ï5,5155,5150.220.110.095,536AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.5.105.0013.815.40.030.563.824.370.511.662.17Ï3,3363,3360.130.070.933,355Annual(Max)Unmit.0.930.912.522.810.010.100.700.800.090.300.40Ï5525520.020 .010.15555YearDaily-Summer(Max) 1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector Nomeasuresselected 2.EmissionsSummary 2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual) andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 9 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 20263.803.2029.229.70.061.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï6,8596,8590.270.113.346,88520271.431.189.9815.50.030.340.751.090.310.180.49Ï3,4563,4560.130.103.013,49220281.371.139.4715.40.030.300.751.060.280.180.4 6Ï3,4353,4350.130.082.703,465202930.230.19.1115.20.030.280.751.030.260.180.44Ï3,4133,4130.130.082.403,443Daily-Winter(Max)20263.803.2029.229.60.051.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï5,5155,5150.220.110.095,5362 0271.431.1810.0015.20.030.340.751.090.310.180.49Ï3,4263,4260.130.100.083,46020281.371.139.5115.10.030.300.751.060.280.180.46Ï3,4063,4060.130.100.073,440202930.230.19.1314.90.030.280.751.030.260.180.4 4Ï3,3843,3840.130.100.063,418AverageDaily20261.871.5813.815.40.030.563.824.370.511.662.17Ï3,3363,3360.130.050.563,35520271.020.847.1610.90.020.240.530.770.220.130.35Ï2,4532,4530.090.070.932,47820280. 980.816.8110.90.020.220.530.750.200.130.33Ï2,4452,4450.090.070.842,47020295.105.003.986.540.010.130.280.410.120.070.18Ï1,3611,3610.050.040.381,373AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ20260.340.292.522.810.010.100 .700.800.090.300.40Ï5525520.020.010.0955520270.190.151.311.99<0.0050.040.100.140.040.020.06Ï4064060.010.010.1541020280.180.151.241.98<0.0050.040.100.140.040.020.06Ï4054050.020.010.1440920290.930.910. 731.19<0.0050.020.050.070.020.010.03Ï2252250.010.010.06227Un/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.45.741.84.1576.30.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1436,51515.70.081.876,934 2.4.OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 10 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.45.041.14.0868.70.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1226,49415.70.081.876,914AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.9.348.981.5410.40.020.760.000.760.750.000.752032,9023,10512.20.041.873,425Ann ual(Max)Unmit.1.701.640.281.90<0.0050.140.000.140.140.000.1433.64805142.020.010.31567SectorDaily,Summer(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area45.641.72.85 75.80.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,4193,6743.740.05Ï3,781Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660.230.01Ï2,576WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï37 5Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total45.741.84.1576.30.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1436,51515.70.081.876,934Daily,Winter(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000. 000.00Area44.941.12.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660.230.01Ï2,576 2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 11 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total45.041.14.0868.70.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1226,49415.70.081.876,914AverageDail yMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area9.198.900.249.880.010.66Ï0.660.65Ï0.6586.01782640.26<0.005Ï272Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660. 230.01Ï2,576WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total9.348.981.5410.40.020.760.000.760.750.000.752032,9023,10512.20.041.873,425A nnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area1.681.620.041.80<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.229.543.70.04<0.005Ï45.0Energy0.030.010.240.10<0.0050. 02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï4254250.04<0.005Ï427WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.6026.127.70.17<0.005Ï33.1WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ17.80.0017.81.770.00Ï62.1Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31Total1.701.640.281.90<0.0050.140.000.140.140.00 0.1433.64805142.020.010.31567LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails 3.1.Demolition(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 12 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.722.2920.719.00.030.84Ï0.840.78Ï0.78Ï3,4273,4270.140.03Ï3,438ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.370.312.832.60<0.0050.12Ï0.120.11Ï0.11Ï4694690.02<0.005Ï471ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.520.48<0.005 0.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï77.777.7<0.005<0.005Ï78.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Su mmer(Max) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 13 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3.743.1429.228.80.051.24Ï1.241.14Ï1.14Ï5,2985,2980.210.04Ï5,316ÏÏÏÏÏÏ19.719.7Ï10.110.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.050.050.050.680.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï186186<0.0050.010.02188Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000. 000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.100.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï25.825.8<0.005<0.0050.0426.2Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000. 000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.274.27<0.005<0.0050.01 4.33Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer (Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovement 3.3.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.00 0.00 14 /52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3.743.1429.228.80.051.24Ï1.241.14Ï1.14Ï5,2985,2980.210.04Ï5,316ÏÏÏÏÏÏ19.719.7Ï10.110.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏ0.310.262.402.37<0.0050.10Ï0.100.09Ï0.09Ï4354350.02<0.005Ï437ÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.621.62Ï0.830.83ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.060.050.440.43<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï 0.02Ï72.172.1<0.005<0.005Ï72.3ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.290.29Ï0.150.15ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 OnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMateri alMovementOnsitetruck CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 15 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.060.060.050.920.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï228228<0.0050.010.79231Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.0 00.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.060.060.060.800.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï217217<0.0050.010.02219Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.0 00.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.0050.010.070.000.000.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï18.118.1<0.005<0.0050.0318.3Vendor0 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.0 00.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.992.99<0.005<0.005<0.0053.03Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max) 3.5.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 6,621 Ï 0.05 0.27 6,599 6,599 Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.03 Ï 16 /52 1.03 1.12 Ï 1.12 0.06 27.6 27.2 3.04 3.62ÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.209.20Ï3.653.65ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.740.635.595.670.010.23Ï0.230.21Ï0.21Ï1,3561,3560.060.01Ï1, 361ÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.891.89Ï0.750.75ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.140.111.021.03<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2242240.01<0.005Ï225ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.350.35Ï0.140.14ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000. 000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Off-RoadDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruc kOffsite ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 17 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 Daily,Summer(Max)Worker0.070.070.061.050.000.000.260.260.000.060.06Ï260260<0.0050.010.91264Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000. 000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.190.000.000.050.050.000.010.01Ï51.651.6<0.005<0.0050.0852.3Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000. 00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.040.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï8.558.55<0. 005<0.0050.018.66Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruck 3.7.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 18 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.360.302.803.680.010.11Ï0.110. 10Ï0.10Ï6806800.030.01Ï6830.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.510.67<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï113113<0.005<0.005Ï1130.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.170.160.152.540.000.000.630.63 0.000.150.15Ï6286280.010.022.18637Vendor0.040.010.460.23<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4494490.020.061.16470Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winte r(Max)Worker0.170.160.172.190.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5985980.010.020.06605 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 19 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039. 3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,405 Vendor0.030.010.480.23<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4504500.020.060.03469Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.050.050.050.650.000.000.1 80.180.000.040.04Ï172172<0.0050.010.27174Vendor0.01<0.0050.140.07<0.005<0.0050.030.04<0.0050.010.01Ï1281280.010.020.14133Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00An nualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.010.010.010.120.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï28.528.5<0.005<0.0050.0428.8Vendor<0.005<0.0050.020.01<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï21.121.1<0.005<0.0050.0222.0Hauli ng0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.9.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 20 /52 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.880.746.719.240.020.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,7121,7120.070.01Ï1,7180.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.160.131.221.69<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2832830.01<0.005Ï2840.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.160.140.142.390.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï6186180.010.021.96627 Vendor0.030.010.440.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4414410.020.061.05461Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.160.140.152.050.000. 000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5885880.010.020.05595Vendor0.030.010.460.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4414410.020.060.03460Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00A verageDailyWorker0.110.100.121.530.000.000.450.450.000.100.10Ï4264260.010.020.60431Vendor0.020.010.330.16<0.005<0.0050.090.09<0.0050.020.03Ï3153150.020.040.32329 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 21 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.180.998.9212.90.020.30Ï0.300.28Ï0.28Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.180.998.9212.90.020.30Ï0.3 00.28Ï0.28Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.850.716.399.260.020.22Ï0.220.20Ï0.20Ï1,7171,7170.070.01Ï1,723 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.020.020.020.280.000.000.080.080.000.020.02Ï70.570.5<0.005<0.0050.1071.4Vendor<0.005<0.0050. 060.03<0.005<0.0050.020.02<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï52.252.2<0.0050.010.0554.4Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off -RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipment 3.11.BuildingConstruction(2028)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 22 /52 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.150.131.171.69<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2842840.01<0.005Ï2850.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.160.130.122.250.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï6076070.01<0.0051.75609Vendor0.030.010.420.21<0.005<0.0050.12 0.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4314310.020.060.95450Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.160.130.151.930.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5775770.010.020 .05584Vendor0.030.010.440.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4314310.020.060.02450Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.110.100.101.450.000 .000.450.450.000.100.10Ï4194190.010.020.54425Vendor0.020.010.320.15<0.005<0.0050.090.09<0.0050.020.03Ï3093090.020.040.29322Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.020.020.020.260.000.000.080.080.000.020.02Ï69.469.4<0.005<0.0050.0970.3Vendor<0.005<0.0050.060.03<0.005<0.0050.020.02<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï51.151.1<0.0050.010.0553.3Hauli ng0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 23 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.150.978.5812.90.020.28Ï0.280.25Ï0.25Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.150.978.5812.90.020.28Ï0.2 80.25Ï0.25Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.360.302.704.060.010.09Ï0.090.08Ï0.08Ï7557550.030.01Ï7580.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.490.74<0.0050.02Ï0.020.01Ï0.01Ï1251250.01<0.005Ï125 LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquip ment 3.13.BuildingConstruction(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 24 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG OnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.150.130.122.120.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5965960.01<0.0051.56599Vendor0.030.010.400.20<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4194190.020.060.85439Hauling0.000 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.150.130.121.820.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5685680.010.020.04575Vendor0.030.010.420.21<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0 050.030.04Ï4204200.020.060.02438Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.050.040.040.600.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï181181<0.0050.010.21184Vendo r0.01<0.0050.130.06<0.005<0.0050.040.04<0.0050.010.01Ï1321320.010.020.12138Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.010.010.010.110. 000.000.040.040.000.010.01Ï30.030.0<0.005<0.0050.0430.4Vendor<0.005<0.0050.020.01<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï21.921.9<0.005<0.0050.0222.9Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 3.15.Paving(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï 25 /52 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï0.800.676.469.920.010.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,5111,5110.060.01Ï1,5160.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.971.49<0.0050.04Ï0.0 40.03Ï0.03Ï2282280.01<0.005Ï2280.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.020.180.27<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï37.737.7<0.005<0.005Ï37.80.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentPaving0.060.06ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentPaving0.010.01ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquip mentPaving<0.005<0.005ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.050.040.040.660.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï185185<0.005<0.0050.48186 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 26 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.791.11<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï13430.030.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010 .090.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï27.027.0<0.005<0.0050.0327.3Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.464.46<0.005<0.0050.014.52Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.0 0Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruck 3.17.ArchitecturalCoating(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 27 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.791.11<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï13430.030.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.020.020 .120.17<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï20.120.1<0.005<0.005Ï20.24.524.52ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00<0.005<0.0050.020.03<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0 .005Ï<0.005Ï3.333.33<0.005<0.005Ï3.340.830.83ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruc kOffsite SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 28 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Worker0.030.030.020.420.000.000.130.130.000.030.03Ï119119<0.005<0.0050.31120Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.030.030.020.360.000.000.130.130.000.030.03Ï114114<0.005<0.0050.01115Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000. 000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.060.000.000.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï17.317.3<0.005<0.0050.0217.6Vendor0. 000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.00 0.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.872.87<0.005<0.005<0.0052.91Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000 .000.000.000.00 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails 4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse 4.1.1.Unmitigated MobilesourceemissionsresultsarepresentedinSections2.6.Nofurtherdetailedbreakdownofemissionsisavailable.4.2.Energy CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 29 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8768760.080.01Ï881ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ43.643.6<0.005<0.005Ï43.9ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8768760.080.01Ï881ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ43.643.6<0.005<0.005Ï43.9ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1451450.01<0.0 05Ï146ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.237.23<0.005<0.005Ï7.27 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9209200.090.01Ï925Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9209200.090.01Ï925AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingle FamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1521520.01<0.005Ï153 4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants (lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 30 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,6510.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0 .10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,6510.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.030.010.240.10<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï2732730.02<0.005Ï2730.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000 .000.00Ï0.00TOG LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,651Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï 0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,651AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.030.010.240.10<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï2732730.02<0.005Ï273Source 4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource 4.3.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï 31 /52 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï5.605.60ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.45ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.700.670.077.61<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï20.320.3<0.005<0.005Ï20.4ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5.605.60ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.45ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.021.02ÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Hearths38.835.02.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal45.641.72.8575.80.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,419 3,6743.740.05Ï3,781Daily,Winter(Max)Hearths38.835.02.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsTotal44.941.12.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,39 83,6533.740.05Ï3,761AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHearths0.490.440.030.85<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.227.241.40.04<0.005Ï42.6ConsumerProducts ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 32 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx 0.08ROG 0.080.090.080.010.95<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï2.302.30<0.005<0.005Ï2.31TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9. 641581671.000.03Ï200ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 ArchitecturalLandscapeEquipmentTotal1.681.620.041.80<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.229.543.70.04<0.005Ï45.0LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200Daily ,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse 4.4.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 33.1CO2e ÏR <0.005N2O 0.17CH4 27.7CO2T 26.1NBCO2 1.60BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 33 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000. 000.000.00Ï0.00 SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.6026.127.70.17<0.005Ï33.1LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousing ParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse 4.5.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 62.1CO2e ÏR 0.00N2O 1.77CH4 17.8CO2T 0.00NBCO2 17.8BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 34 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31 SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ17.80.0017.81.770.00Ï62.1LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 1.871.87AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31 4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.6.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 35 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ EquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily, Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.7.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.8.1.UnmitigatedCr iteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 36 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏVegetationDa ily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.9.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType 4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2eCO2e ÏRR ÏN2ON2O ÏCH4CH4 ÏCO2TCO2T ÏNBCO2NBCO2 ÏBCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5TPM2.5T ÏPM2.5DPM2.5D 37 /52 ÏPM2.5EPM2.5E ÏPM10TPM10T ÏPM10DPM10D ÏPM10EPM10E ÏSO2SO2 ÏCOCO ÏNOxNOx ÏROGROG ÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏLandUseDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏT otalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSpeciesDaily,Summer(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequestered 4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsbySpe cies-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 38 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 5.ActivityData LoadFactor PhaseDescription Horsepower WorkDaysperPhase SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 HoursPerDay DaysPerWeek NumberperDay 39 /52 EndDate EngineTier StartDate FuelTypeDieselAverage1.008.0033.00.73DieselAverage4.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage2.008.0084.00.37 PhaseType EquipmentTypeSawshoeshoes PhaseNameDemolitionDemolition1/1/20263/12/20265.0050.0ÏSitePreparationSitePreparation3/13/20264/24/20265.0030.0ÏGradingGrading4/25/20268/8/20265.0075.0ÏBuildingConstructionBuildingConstruction8/9/202 66/10/20295.00740ÏPavingPaving6/11/20298/27/20295.0055.0ÏArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoating8/28/202911/13/20295.0055.0ÏPhaseNameDemolitionConcrete/IndustrialDemolitionExcavatorsDieselAverage3.0 08.0036.00.38DemolitionRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage2.008.003670.40SitePreparationRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage3.008.003670.40SitePreparationTractors/Loaders/BackGradingExcavatorsDieselAverage2.008 .0036.00.38GradingGradersDieselAverage1.008.001480.41GradingRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage1.008.003670.40GradingScrapersDieselAverage2.008.004230.48GradingTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionCra nesDieselAverage1.007.003670.29BuildingConstructionForkliftsDieselAverage3.008.0082.00.20BuildingConstructionGeneratorSetsDieselAverage1.008.0014.00.74 5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment 5.2.1.Unmitigated VehicleMix SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 MilesperTrip 40 /52 One-WayTripsperDay TripTypeÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ BuildingConstructionTractors/Loaders/BackDieselAverage3.007.0084.00.37BuildingConstructionWeldersDieselAverage1.008.0046.00.45PavingPaversDieselAverage2.008.0081.00.42PavingPavingEquipmentDieselAvera ge2.008.0089.00.36PavingRollersDieselAverage2.008.0036.00.38ArchitecturalCoatingAirCompressorsDieselAverage1.006.0037.00.48PhaseNameDemolitionDemolitionWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2DemolitionVendorÏ10. 2HHDT,MHDTDemolitionHauling0.0020.0HHDTDemolitionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTSitePreparationSitePreparationWorker17.518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2SitePreparationVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTSitePreparationHauling0.0020.0HHDTSitePre parationOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTGradingGradingWorker20.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2GradingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTGradingHauling0.0020.0HHDTGradingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTBuildingConstructionBuildingConstructionWorker48.218.5LD A,LDT1,LDT2 5.3.ConstructionVehicles 5.3.1.Unmitigated ParkingAreaCoated(sqft)AcresPaved(acres) Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialDemolished(sq.ft.) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)AcresGraded(acres) 41 /52 ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialExported(cy) ÏÏÏÏ ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialImported(cy) BuildingConstructionVendor14.310.2HHDT,MHDTBuildingConstructionHauling0.0020.0HHDTBuildingConstructionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPavingÏÏÏÏPavingWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2PavingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTPavingHauli ng0.0020.0HHDTPavingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoatingWorker9.6518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2ArchitecturalCoatingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTArchitecturalCoatingHauling0.0020.0HHDTArchitecturalCoa tingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPhaseNameArchitecturalCoating529,133176,3780.000.003,152PhaseNameDemolition0.000.000.00ÏÏ 5.4.Vehicles 5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities VMT/Year N2O VMT/Sunday %AsphaltVMT/Saturday SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CH4 VMT/Weekday 42 /52 Trips/Year CO2 AreaPaved(acres)Trips/Sunday Trips/Saturday kWhperYear Trips/Weekday SitePreparationÏÏ45.00.00ÏGradingÏÏ2250.00ÏPaving0.000.000.000.002.68LandUseSingleFamilyHousing1.480%ParkingLot1.21100%Year20260.005320.03<0.00520270.005320.03<0.00520280.005320.03<0.00520290.005320. 03<0.005LandUseTypeTotalallLandUses0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors kWhperYearandEmissionF actor(lb/MWh)5.9.OperationalMobileSources 5.9.1.Unmitigated 5.10.OperationalAreaSources ParkingAreaCoated(sqft) Value SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Unmitigated(number)Ï7114001370 43 /52 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Unit ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) HearthTypeSingleFamilyHousingWoodFireplacesGasFireplacesPropaneFireplacesElectricFireplacesNoFireplacesConventionalWoodStoves0CatalyticWoodStovesNon-CatalyticWoodStoves7PelletWoodStovesResidentialInt eriorAreaCoated(sqft)529132.5176,3780.000.003,152SeasonSnowDaysday/yr0.00SummerDaysday/yr250 5.10.1.Hearths5.10.1.1.Unmitigated5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment 5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption 5.11.1.Unmitigated TimesServiced NaturalGas(kBTU/yr) ServiceLeakRate N2OOutdoorWater(gal/year)Cogeneration(kWh/year) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 OperationsLeakRate CH4Quantity(kg) 44 /52 GWP CO2IndoorWater(gal/year)Waste(ton/year) RefrigerantR-410A2,088<0.0052.502.5010.0R-134a1,4300.120.600.001.00 Electricity(kWh/yr) EquipmentTypeOtherresidentialA/Candheatpumpsrefrigeratorsand/orfreezers LandUseSingleFamilyHousing923,9493460.03300.00405,136,936ParkingLot46,0193460.03300.00400.00LandUseSingleFamilyHousing5,028,43724,861,959ParkingLot0.00ÏLandUseSingleFamilyHousing199ÏParkingLot0.00ÏLa ndUseTypeSingleFamilyHousingAverageroomA/C&SingleFamilyHousingHousehold Electricity(kWh/yr)andCO2andCH4andN2OandNaturalGas(kBTU/yr)5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption 5.12.1.Unmitigated 5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration 5.13.1.Unmitigated 5.14.OperationalRefriger ationandAirConditioningEquipment 5.14.1.Unmitigated LoadFactorLoadFactor AnnualHeatInput(MMBtu/yr) FinalAcres HorsepowerHorsepower DailyHeatInput(MMBtu/day)FinalAcres SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 HoursPerDayHoursperYear BoilerRating(MMBtu/hr)FuelTypeInitialAcres 45 /52 NumberperDayHoursperDay NumberInitialAcres EngineTierNumberperDay VegetationSoilType FuelType FuelTypeFuelType EquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeVegetationLandUseTypeBiomassCoverType 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment 5.15.1.Unmitigated 5.16.StationarySources 5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers 5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation 5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.1.Un mitigated5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.1.1.Unmitigated VulnerabilityScore .7miles(mi)by3.7mi. ouldbelighttomoderaterainfallif etal.,2017,CEC-500-2017-008),and derRCP8.5),andconsiderhistoricaldata rise,0.5meter,1.0meter,1.41meters oncentrationPathway(RCP)8.5which Averageconditions(CanESM2),Rangeof ymaximum/minimumtemperaturesfrom ialwildfireprobabilitiesforthegridcell.The ncrementsofsealevelrisecoupledwith NaturalGasSaved(btu/year) Unit SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 AdaptiveCapacityScore ElectricitySaved(kWh/year) 46 /52 SensitivityScore ResultforProjectLocation Number ExposureScore100N/A TreeTypeClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeat9.03annualdaysofextremeheatExtremePrecipitation3.50annualdayswithprecipitationabove20mmSeaLevelRiseÏmetersofinundationdepthWildfire1.31annualhectaresburn edClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise100N/A 5.18.2.Sequestration5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport 6.1.ClimateRiskSummary Cal-Adaptmidcentury2040Î2059averageprojectionsforfourhazardsarereportedbelowforyourprojectlocation.Theseare underRepresentationCassumesGHGemissionswillcontinuetorisestronglythrough2050andthenplateauaround2100.TemperatureandExtremeHeatdataareforgridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.Theprojectionisbasedonthe9 8thhistoricalpercentileofdailobservedhistoricaldata(32climatemodelensemblefromCal-Adapt,2040Î2059averageunderRCP8.5). Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3ExtremePrecipitationdataareforthegridcellin whichyourprojectarelocated.Thethresholdof20mmisequivalenttoabout¾aninchofrain,whichwreceivedoverafulldayorheavyrainifreceivedoveraperiodof2to4hours.Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by 3.7mi.SeaLevelRisedataareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromRadkeetal.(2017),asreportedinCal-Adapt(RadkeconsiderinundationlocationanddepthfortheSanFranciscoBay,theSacrame nto-SanJoaquinRiverDeltaandCaliforniacoastresultingdifferentiextremestormevents.Usersmayselectfromfourscenariostoviewtherangeinpotentialinundationdepthforthegridcell.Thefourscenariosare:NoWildfiredat aareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromUCDavis,asreportedinCal-Adapt(2040Î2059averageunofclimate,vegetation,populationdensity,andlarge(>400ha)firehistory.Usersmayselectfr omfourmodelsimulationstoviewtherangeinpotentfoursimulationsmakedifferentassumptionsaboutexpectedrainfallandtemperatureare:Warmer/drier(HadGEM2-ES),Cooler/wetter(CNRM-CM5),differentrainfallandtemperat urepossibilities(MIROC5).Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by3.7mi.6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores VulnerabilityScore 1to5,withascoreof5representingthe1to5,withascoreof5representingthe udeimplementationofclimateriskreduction plementationofclimateriskreduction tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 AdaptiveCapacityScore 47 /52 SensitivityScore 100N/A000N/AExposureScore111211121112 WildfireFloodingN/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradationClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise1112WildfireFlooding N/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradation Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonascaleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanage andreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvulnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityas sessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresdonotinclmeasures.6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonasc aleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanageandreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvu lnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityassessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresincludeimmeasures.6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails estate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ57.073.578.346.577.70.0087.544.2Ï94.80.000.0066.7Ï55.545.888.097.988.796.992.849.9 48 /52 IndicatorExposureIndicatorsAQ-OzoneAQ-PMAQ-DPMDrinkingWaterLeadRiskHousingPesticidesToxicReleasesTrafficEffectIndicatorsCleanUpSitesGroundwaterHazWasteFacilities/Generators86.4ImpairedWaterBodiesSoli dWasteSensitivePopulationAsthmaCardio-vascularLowBirthWeightsSocioeconomicFactorIndicatorsÏEducationHousingLinguisticPovertyUnemployment 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinth actsinthestate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ5.4151161349.839599645.838573078Ï10.6120877710045.81034262Ï2.66906197993.17336071Ï61.863210574.401385859Ï16.2710124535.8141922296.3557038494.2512511220.51841396Ï5.80007699 24.516874118 49 /52 IndicatorEconomicAbovePovertyEmployedMedianHIEducationBachelor'sorhigherHighschoolenrollmentPreschoolenrollmentTransportationAutoAccessActivecommutingSocial2-parenthouseholdsVotingNeighborhoodAlcohol availabilityParkaccessRetaildensitySupermarketaccessTreecanopyHousingHomeownershipHousinghabitabilityLow-inchomeownerseverehousingcostburden15.57808289Low-increnterseverehousingcostburden43.07712049 7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensustr SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.680995765Ï1.86064416854.349.458.087.614.811.995.739.745.17.314.819.994.317.3Ï57.09.30.00.0 50 /52 UncrowdedhousingHealthOutcomesInsuredadultsArthritisAsthmaERAdmissionsHighBloodPressureCancer(excludingskin)AsthmaCoronaryHeartDisease23.5ChronicObstructivePulmonaryDisease17.9DiagnosedDiabetesLifeEx pectancyatBirthCognitivelyDisabledPhysically DisabledHeartAttackERAdmissions78.5MentalHealthNotGoodChronicKidneyDiseaseObesityPedestrianInjuriesPhysicalHealthNotGood7.3StrokeHealthRiskBehaviorsBingeD rinkingCurrentSmokerNoLeisureTimeforPhysicalActivity3.2ClimateChangeExposuresÏWildfireRiskSLRInundationArea tractsinthestate. thestate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.569.31.393.321.655.323.0Ï96.6Ï31.1ResultforProjectCensusTract 51 /52 ChildrenElderlyEnglishSpeakingForeign-bornOutdoorWorkersClimateChangeAdaptiveCapacityÏImperviousSurfaceCover11.1TrafficDensityTrafficAccessOtherIndicesHardshipOtherDecisionSupport2016VotingMetricCalE nviroScreen4.0ScoreforProjectLocation(a)90.0HealthyPlacesIndexScoreforProjectLocation(b)12.0ProjectLocatedinaDesignatedDisadvantagedCommunity(SenateBill535)YesProjectLocatedinaLow-IncomeCommunity(Ass emblyBill1550)YesProjectLocatedinaCommunityAirProtectionProgramCommunity(AssemblyBill617)No 7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores a:ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinb:ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.A highscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensus 7.4.Health&EquityMeasures NoHealth&EquityMeasuresselected.7.5.EvaluationScorecard Health&EquityEvaluationScoreca rdnotcompleted. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 JustificationAsperAirbnbanalyticsdata 52 /52 ScreenLandUse 7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures NoHealth&EquityCustomMeasurescreated.8.UserChangestoDefaultData MEMO To File From Stefanie OÓGorman Subject ECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated possible Date November , 2024 consequences of a potential ban on short-term rentals in Santa Ana, California. This report was completed Stefanie OÓGorman, an environmental economist with 23 years experience in her field. Stefanie specializes in the integration of costs and benefits within decision making and has worked across the spectrum from policy design and development to project and infrastructure delivery. She has acted as an expert witness in a number of planning related enquiries in the UK and Ireland relating to water regulation, marine infrastructure planning and Ramboll 250 Montgomery St., transport related projects, focusing on the economic and socio-economic impacts Suite 1200 San Francisco, of these developments. CA 94104 US USA EDUCATION/QUALIFICATION T+1 510 655 7400 MSc Ecological Economics, University of Edinburgh, 2001 F+1 510 655 9517 BA (Mod) Natural Science, Trinity College Dublin, 1999 https://ramboll.com Based on professional experience and judgment, this analysis assumes a reasonably foreseeable potential that: 1.A ban on STR will spur new hotel development and, as a result of increased demand on local hotels, local hotel availability will go down and room rates will go up. 2.Result of (1), people will be forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. Theses assumptions are found to be sufficiently supported by evidence or that insufficient evidence is available to reject them, as outlined here. Introduction Santa Ana, the largest city in Orange County at 27.2 square miles and 1 home to nearly 328,000 residents, is a rich cultural, culinary, and entertainment hub with deep historical roots. As the county seat, it 1 https://www.orangecounty.net/cities/SantaAna.html 1/5 blends vibrant city life with a preserved historic core. Visitors can explore a variety of attractions, from the art-filled streets of the Downtown Santa Ana Artwalk to the Bowers 2 MuseumÓs global collections and the Discovery Cube's interactive science exhibits. The cityÓs distinctive neighborhoods offer everything from historic architecture to innovative food markets, and the popular Frida Cinema and Yost Theatre. Tourism is a cornerstone of Santa Ana's economy, driving substantial revenue and job creation for the community. In 2023, visitor spending alone contributed an impressive 3 $414.7 million to the local economy , an increase of over 9% compared to the previous year. This spending supports local businesses and fuels sectors like food service, accommodations, retail, arts, and transportation. Food service alone saw $109 million from visitor spending, with accommodations adding another $107 million, and arts, entertainment, and recreation generating $81.5 million. These visitor expenditures provide essential funding for city services like public safety, parks, and neighborhood improvements, while also alleviating the tax burden for residentsÏwithout tourism-related tax revenue, each household would pay an additional $195 annually in local taxes. TourismÓs impact on employment is equally significant, supporting nearly 3,000 jobs in Santa Ana and contributing around $137 million in wages to the local workforce. With continued growth in overnight visits and local attractions, tourism remains a vital industry that helps sustain the communityÓs economic well-being and enhance residentsÓ quality of life. 1. How a ban on STR could spur new hotel development and impact demand and room rates Orange CountyÓs STR occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and its hotels also maintain a high 77% occupancy rate and an ADR of $196.59, which underscores the regionÓs strong demand. High occupancy figures are seen in all months Î with only January falling below 70%. Orange CountyÓs hotel room demand showed a 5% year-over-year growth, highlighting its popularity within the state. Based on AirDna data, Santa Ana's appears to have or had up to approximately 2,180 STR listings (approximately 79% of which are Airbnb listings), with a current occupancy rate of 53%. This is approximately 73% for Airbnb rentals, for which there appear to be 45 approximately 1,100 active STR listings. STRs generate substantial revenue for hosts 6 (estimated at $43,000 annually per host for Airbnb rentals) with an Average Daily Rate 7 (ADR) of $237.3 . 2 https://www.visitcalifornia.com/places-to-visit/santa-ana/ 3 https://www.travelsantaana.com/about-travel-santa-ana/economic-impact-of- tourism/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20traveler%20expenditures%20from,in%20local%20and%20state%20tax es. 4 https://www.santa-ana.org/short-term-rentals-ban/ 5 We note that even if the exact amounts of STRs in the City are slightly higher or lower than the approximate values shown here, the conclusions of this report remain consistent regarding the impact of the STR ban on spurring hotel demand and forcing individuals to forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. 6 https://airbtics.com/annual-airbnb-revenue-in-santa-ana-california-usa/ 7 https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview 2/5 Accurate data on the size of the whole lodgings market in Santa Ana is not readily available for review, however the number of listings for hotels and motels on www.booking.com and Expedia is not significant, at less than 100. The majority of these properties are 3 star or less. If we assume that the rate of hotel /motels to STRs in Santa Ana is representative of that of Orange Country where the hotel room supply is 61,937 (see table below) and the number of 8 STRs is 10,841 , then STRs would represent 15% of the lodging supply in Santa Ana. However, given the <100 hotels found online, is it considered likely that STRs contribution a significantly higher percentage of the lodging market locally. Forecast summary: Annual, Orange County Hotel room Hotel supply demand Occupancy ADR RevPAR Room revenue (daily) (daily) Levels 2019 58,282 45,141 77.5% $161.94 $125.42 $2,668,166,801 2020 50,463 22,479 44.5% $136.03 $60.59 $1,116,070,720 2021 56,897 32,999 58.0% $167.45 $97.12 $2,016,885,289 2022 60,995 42,663 69.9% $177.02 $123.82 $2,756,556,935 2023 61,590 45,366 73.7% $185.82 $136.87 $3,076,862,904 2024 61,937 47,723 77.1% $196.59 $151.48 $3,424,409,154 Growth 2020 -13.4% -50.2% -42.5% -16.0% -51.7% -58.2% 2021 12.7% 46.8% 30.2% 23.1% 60.3% 80.7% 2022 7.2% 29.3% 20.6% 5.7% 27.5% 36.7% 2023 1.0% 6.3% 5.3% 5.0% 10.5% 11.6% 2024 0.6% 5.2% 4.6% 5.8% 10.7% 11.3% Relative to 2019 2020 87% 50% 58% 84% 48% 42% 2021 98% 73% 75% 103% 77% 76% 2022 105% 95% 90% 109% 99% 103% 2023 106% 100% 95% 115% 109% 115% 2024 106% 106% 99% 121% 121% 128% Source: STR; Tourism Economics The minimum stay durations data for short-term rentals in Santa Ana varies. AirDna data suggests that half of the stock has a minimum stay of under 30 days. This data appears to be 2023 data and to relate to their estimate of 2,000+ STR listing in that data source. Therefore, it is not possible at this stage to tell how many of the City Council estimated 8 https://www.keydatadashboard.com/en-gb/markets/orange-county-california 3/5 1,100 listings would be impacted by designated for shorter stays, but it could be as high as 100%. STR Listings by Minimum Stay in Santa Ana 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0% 30+ Nights7-29 Nights4-6 Nights3 Nights2 Nights1 Night Source: https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview With STRs accommodating a significant portion of the lodging market, their removal would leave a considerable gap in available accommodations, which the existing hotel infrastructure is unlikely to be able to fully absorb given Orange County's occupancy rates were already at 77% in September 2024 (California Travel Forecast Î October 2024). Effects of a Ban on STR on Local Hotel Demand, Room Rates, and Availability Eliminating STRs is likely to intensify demand for hotel accommodations, which would reduce availability and drive up average daily rates (ADR). Orange County's ADR is already 9 high, at $209.14 (see table below) (192$ in Santa Ana ), and Santa AnaÓs hotel market is part of this broader region where occupancy and room rates reflect high demand, particularly near attractions. With STRs contributing substantial capacity, the ban would further stress local hotels, as noted above likely leading to increased ADR due to scarcity. The 7.1% year-on-year increase in Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) in Orange County indicates a strong market with limited room for new capacity; hence, shifting demand from STRs to hotels would almost certainly lead to higher room rates, potentially pushing them beyond the reach of budget-conscious travelers. Year to Date - September 2024 vs September 2023 Short Term Rentals Occ % ADR RevPAR 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 California 68.0 68.4 190.57 192.15 129.60 131.41 Orange County 72.1 72.0 209.14 210.91 150.74 151.91 9 https://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca * https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview 4/5 2. Travel Displacement and Need to Seek Affordable Lodging Elsewhere: Rising hotel rates and limited availability could push some visitors to look for more affordable accommodations in nearby cities. With the increased demand and rising prices in Santa AnaÓs hotel sector, neighboring areas like Anaheim or Irvine may absorb some of the overflow but would also likely experience upward rate pressure, creating a ripple effect across Orange County. Given that Orange CountyÓs occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and shows high occupancy figures in all months Î with only January falling below 70%, hotels in adjacent areas to Santa Ana are likely to be at full capacity during peak 10 seasons, especially July, or major events. As a result, tourists may find themselves traveling farther for budget-friendly lodging, potentially discouraging some visitors from choosing Santa Ana altogether. In addition, group room demand in California was up a robust 7% relative to September 2023. Orange County saw this increase by 35% year on year for the month of September 11 2024. This strong local growth in demand is reflected by the fact that approximately 650 of 12 the AirBNB listing in Santa Ana are for 2+bedrooms, so suitable for groups . The loss of this accommodation type may not be easily substituted within the existing local supply, which could, as a result, spurn additional local development. The available evidence and analysis allows a reasonable conclusion to be drawn that in the short term visitors will be pushed away from Santa Ana due to occupancy restrictions and increased rates, and in the longer term these constraints could result in new hotel capacity development. 10 https://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca 11 https://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/report/monthly-travel-indicators-summary 12 Santa Ana, Airbnb Market Statistics & Data, United States 5/5 O1-4 AttachmentC Translutions Traffic Analysis translutions, inc. 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200, Tustin, California 92780 Phone (949)656-3131 Fax (949)445-3131 solutions@translutions.com November 29, 2024 File Subject: Santa Ana Ordinance Transportation Analyses Support Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is pleased to present this memorandum evaluating potential issues with the proposed Short-Term Rental (STR) Ban in the City of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California. It is our understanding that the ordinance would affect approximately 700 - 1000 currently active units. This memorandum focuses on the potential for the STR Ban to increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and trip generation. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED VMT analysis is a requirement under CEQA due to the passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB-743).SB-743 was codified in Public (OPR) to identify alternative metrics for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for nt This resulted in changes to the CEQA guidelines in response to Section 21099 including a new section (15064.3) that specifies that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. A separate Technical Advisory issued by OPR provides additional technical details on calculating VMT and assessing transportation impacts for various types of projects. The City adopted thresholds of significance and screening thresholds under VMT in February 2019. An increase in VMT is a reasonably foreseeable result of the STR ban for several reasons. First, the increased trips directly correlate to greater vehicle travel and VMT compared to the baseline. Second, the STR ban would likely incentivize increased VMT from individuals that seek available or more affordable hotels in neighboring or regional communities, thereby increasing VMT to/from the non-local hotel compared to VMT to/from a local hotel. Third, the STR ban would force any user that prefers STRs to hotels to travel to neighboring or regional communities because STRs are no longer allowed in the City, thereby directly causing increase in VMT traveling to/from the non-local STR compared to the baseline where STRs are available in the City. TRIP GENERATION th Trip generation is generally based on the ITE Trip Generation, 11 Edition. The ITE Trip Generation does not have rates for STRs. Therefore, the trip generation of STRs are based on rates for All Suites Hotels and using rates from Recreational Homes, which are the closet uses with published rates. It should be noted that the trip generation of All Suites Hotel is likely to be higher than was compared to those of hotels since it is likely that if STRs are disallowed, guests would potentially stay in hotels. Based on publicly available statistics on the current Airbnb listings in Santa Ana, the average capacity per STR is 5.6 people, which has been converted to equivalent hotel rooms, assuming one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. Further, two trip generations have been calculated, one using the numbers included in the staff report (700 units) and the other based on the number of SRTs under operation in Santa Ana obtained from online data analytics (1,000 units). Applying the STR to Hotel Room conversion ratio of 1.867 (5.6 people per room/3 people per room), 700 STRs would require 1,307 replacement hotel rooms while 1,000 STRs would require 1,867 replacement hotel rooms. Table A shows the trip generation of 700 STRs using the two rates and 1,307 replacement hotel rooms, while Table B shows the trip generation of 700 STRs using the two rates and 1,867 replacement hotel rooms. Table A - Trip Generation (700 Units) A.M. Peak HourP.M. Peak Hour Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily Short Term Rentals (Using All Suites Hotel) 1 Trip Generation Rates 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.18 0.18 0.36 4.4 Trip Generation 700 DU 126 112 238 123 129 252 3,080 Short Term Rentals (Using Recreational Homes) 2 Trip Generation Rates 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.29 3.55 Trip Generation 700 DU 85 69 154 93 110 203 2,485 Hotel 3 Trip Generation Rates 0.26 0.20 0.46 0.30 0.29 0.59 7.99 Trip Generation 1,307 Room 337 264 601 393 378 771 10,443 Notes: DU = Dwelling Unit 1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 311 - "All Suites Hotel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). 2 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 260 - "Recreational Homes" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). 3 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 310 - "Hotel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). As seen on Table B, the 700 STRs currently in operation are calculated to generate between 2,485p to 3,080 daily trips, depending on the rates used, which is significantly lower than hotel uses. Therefore, removing the STRs and forcing guests to hotels will result in over 7,363 to 7,958 additional daily trips. Table C - Trip Generation (1,000 Units) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily Short Term Rentals (Using All Suites Hotel) 1 Trip Generation Rates 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.18 0.18 0.36 4.4 Trip Generation 1,000 DU 180 160 340 176 184 360 4,400 Short Term Rentals (Using Recreational Homes) 2 Trip Generation Rates 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.29 3.55 Trip Generation 1,000 DU 121 99 220 133 157 290 3,550 Hotel 3 Trip Generation Rates 0.26 0.20 0.46 0.30 0.29 0.59 7.99 Trip Generation 1,867 Room 481 378 859 562 540 1,102 14,917 Notes: DU = Dwelling Unit 1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 311 - "All Suites Hotel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). 2 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 260 - "Recreational Homes" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). 3 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 310 - "Hotel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition). As seen on Table C, if 1,000 STRs are currently in operation, they are generating between 3,550 and 4,400 daily trips, depending on the rates used, which is significantly lower than hotel uses. Therefore, removing the STRs and forcing guests to hotels will result in over 10,517 to 11,367 additional daily trips. An additional benefit of STRs is that since the units are spread out over a larger area, the additional traffic generated by STRs is more spread out throughout the City. As such, the additional delay caused by the vehicles would be minimal. If the STRs are replaced by new hotels in the City of Santa Ana, concentrated traffic would be added to roadways and intersections near the new hotels, potentially resulting in substantially more additional delays. SUMMARY Based on the above evaluation, disallowing STRs in the City of Santa Ana is likely to increase regional VMT. Disallowing STRs is also likely to increase traffic within the City of Santa Ana. 11/29/2024 (C:\\Users\\kjohnst2\\AppData\\Roaming\\iManage\\Work\\Recent\\063437-0026 (Airbnb_ Inc._ Project Locke)\\Translutions_Santa Ana Ordinance_Memo(155519529.7).docx) 2 Sincerely, translutions,inc. Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV SP Principal 11/29/2024(C:\\Users\\kjohnst2\\AppData\\Roaming\\iManage\\Work\\Recent\\063437-0026 (Airbnb_ Inc._ Project Locke)\\Translutions_Santa Ana Ordinance_Memo(155519529.7).docx) 3 O2 From:Maura O"Neill To:eComment Subject:Public Comment Letter on Agenda Item #15 Date:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:57:27 PM Attachments:Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter - Agenda Item 15 Santa Ana- Support.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Attached, please find my comment for the written record on agenda item #15, Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment (OA) No. 2024-04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs). This is in support of the adoption of the ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals and adopt enhanced violations for fines. Thanks, Maura O’Neill she/her Policy Analyst and Advocate Better Neighbors LA (213) 355-7475 maura@betterneighborsla.org December 3, 2024 City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 eComment@santa-ana.org Via Electronic Mail Re: Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter –Agenda Item #15 Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment (OA) No. 2024-04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals– SUPPORT Dear Councilmembers, Better Neighbors LA writes to you in support of adopting the Ordinance Amendment (OA) No. 2024-04 that will repeal and re-enact in its entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and adopting enhanced fines for violations of the Short-Term Rental Ordinance. As residents across Southern California continue to face a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, precautions must be taken to protect housing stock for long-term residents. It is crucial to codify Santa Ana’s prohibition on short-term rentals within the City, and in the process, further safeguard housing for long-term residents. O2-1 Better Neighbors LA is a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, hotel workers, and community members working to curb illegal short-term rental activity with the intent to protect 1 housing and neighborhoods impacted by the short-term rental industry. We conduct data analysis and research on the short-term rental industry and its impact on affordable housing. According to our analysis of AirDNA data, the vast majority of short-term rentals in the City of Santa Ana are unhosted, meaning they are whole home rentals that are not primarily used for 2 Since 2019, the number of unhosted short-term rental long-term housing, unlike hosted rentals. listings has increased by 294% and grown to over 509 units. Hosted units, on the other hand, have risen by 169 listings, or 134%. The number of unhosted STRs aligns with the staff report findings on enforcement notices and citations. Staff identified that the majority of properties with 1 https://www.betterneighborsla.org/ 2 AirDNAdata on file with Better Neighbors includes VRBO and Airbnb listings within the City of Santa Ana through March 2023. https://www.airdna.co/ 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 2 of 4 confirmed active STRenforcement cases involved properties owned by an LLC, managed by a property management company, or owned by absentee owners. Below please find the growth in short-term rentals from 2014 to 2023. AVERAGE ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL LISTINGS IN SANTA ANA Unhosted UnitsHosted Units 1200 1000 800 295 600 201 682 510 400 140 O2-1 133 126 200 Cont' 105 251 54 33 201 78 21 173 117 68 0 23 3038 2014201520162017201820192020202120222023 As of March 2023, the most recent data we have available, there were 991 active STR 3 listings in Santa Ana, making up 1.27% of Santa Ana’s housing stock. Short-term rentals have grown significantly over the last few years, and in the process have taken housing units off the long-term market that may have otherwise been available to long-term tenants or potential homeowners. According to the staff report, there are more than 700 STRs currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs account for 22% of the 3,137 permanent housing units that the City has identified as required by the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensuring that the prohibition of short-term rentals remains in place in the City of Santa Ana will safeguard this milestone in meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA goals. Santa Ana is not alone in their push to ban short-term rentals. Within Orange County, at least twelvecitieshave taken steps to prohibit short-term rentals in some form. These cities include the Aliso Viejo, Brea, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, Laguna Hills, 4 Laguna Nigel, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, and La Habra. In Los Angeles County, the 3 Profile of the City of Santa Ana, Southern California Association of Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/santaana_localprofile.pdf?1606012682. 4 City of Aliso Viejo: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1514.html; City of Brea: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/brea/latest/brea_ca/0-0-0-70791; City of Costa Mesa: https://weblink.costamesaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233471&dbid=0&repo=CityofCostaMesa; City of Fountain Valley: https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16275/Ordinance-No-1591; City of Garden Grove: https://ecode360.com/42535001; City of Irvine: https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_DIV3GEDESTLAUSRE_CH3-25SHTERE_S3-25- 5VIMIIN#:~:text=3%2D25%2D3.,of%20short%2Dterm%20rentals%20prohibited.&text=section%20Compare%20versions- ,A.,zoning%20district%20within%20the%20City; City of Laguna Hills: 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 3 of 4 City Councils of Calabasas, Diamond Bar, Rosemead, Culver City, West Hollywood, San Gabriel, La Mirada, Lakewood, Rolling Hills, Redondo, and Lawndale all have short-term 5 rentals bans in place.According to a study published in the Real Estate Economics Journal in 2023, in the City of Irvine rental prices decreased 3% on average following two years after the 6 enforcement of their ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals in all residential zones. This study illustrates the positive impacts a prohibition on short-term rentals can have on addressing the affordability of housing in cities within Orange County. Given that a majority of housing units within Santa Ana are renter occupied, it is likely that a similar prohibition on short-term rentals 7 will protect further protect tenant households. A ban on short-term rentals is only as valuable as the enforcement that backs it. To see positive effects on the housing and rental market, Santa Ana should adopt the resolution to enhance administrative fines for violation of the ordinance and implement a centralized enforcement system to administer them. In Los Angeles, high administrative burden and a decentralized system of the Home-Sharing Ordinance enforcement has led to rampant abuse of the short-term rental market. For example, in July of 2024, Los Angeles has over 6,000 listings 8 that are noncompliant with the Home-Sharing Ordinance. Between January and August of 2024, 9 the City only issued 97 citations despite the high number of noncompliant listing. With a O2-1 prohibition in place and enhanced administrative fines for violating the ordinance, Santa Ana can Cont' ensure that the City has strong, easily enforceable rules in order to issue citations and maintain the ordinance’s effectiveness. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LagunaHills/#!/LagunaHills06/LagunaHills0640.html, City of Laguna Nigel: https://library.municode.com/ca/laguna_niguel/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_DIV1PL_ART2COZOCO_SUB ARTICLE_3REDI_S9-1-38GRHO; City of Villa Park: https://library.municode.com/ca/villa_park/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXXIIIZO_ART23-3EFZORE_S23- 3.5SHRMRE; City of Westminster: https://library.qcode.us/lib/westminster_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_9-chapter_9_74- 9_74_020; City of Yorba Linda: https://library.qcode.us/lib/yorba_linda_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_5-chapter_5_50- 5_50_030. City of La Habra: https://www.lhhcity.org/325/Short-Term-Rentals 5 Calabasas: https://library.municode.com/ca/city_of_calabasas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17LAUSDE_ARTIIZODIALLAUS_C H17.12STSPLAUS_17.12.175SHRMREOCPRPREXLAAPHOMOBEBRIN; Diamond Bar: https://www.diamondbarca.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=314; Rosemead: https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=900458; Culver City: https://www.culvercity.org/Have-Your-Say/Short-Term-Rentals; West Hollywood: https://ecode360.com/43916115?highlight=rental,rentals&searchId=1904165411732459#43916115; San Gabriel: https://www.sangabrielcity.com/1341/Frequently-Asked-Questions#:~:text=Short- term%20rentals%20(anything%20less,term%20rental%20or%; La Mirada: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2692#:~:text=Short%2Dterm%20rentals%20in%20residential,not%20permitted%20in%20L a%20Mirada; Lakewood: https://www.lakewoodcity.org/Business/Short-term-rentals Rolling Hills: https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills_estates/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.47SHRMRERE_17.47 .020PU; Redondo Beach: https://www.redondobeachtourism.com/news/airbnb; Lawndale: https://ecode360.com/LA4957 6 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6229.12440 7 According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, in 2018 53.8% of households were renter occupied, while 46.1% were owner occupied, https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/09/Housing_El ement_-Complete-9.16.22_Compressed.pdf 8 Data on file with BNLA from Los Angeles City Granicus data. https://granicus.com/ 9 Data on file with BNLA from Los Angeles City Planning Department. 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 4 of 4 The proposed ordinance will further codify the prohibition and continue protecting long- term residents. According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, almost half (48%) of all households spend more than 30% of their income on housings costs and thus are considered cost burdened. In addition, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom home is $2,100, meaning a household would have to earn more 10 than $40/hour to afford to house their family. As residents in the City of Santa Ana continue to bear the impacts of high housing costs, it is imperative the City protect and preserve housing for O2-1 long-term residents. Cont' For these reasons, Better Neighbors requests the City Council uphold the short-term rental ordinance passed in April of this year by repealing and re-enacting the Short-Term Rental Ordinance and adopting enhanced fines for violations. Should you have any questions, please contact Maura O’Neill at maura@betterneighborsla.org. Sincerely, Better Neighbors LA & Unite HERE Local 11 10 Data for zip code 92701, https://nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=92701. 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org I1 I1-1 I-1-1 Cont' I1-1 Cont' I2 From:Sheri Menke To:eComment Subject:Vote NO on agenda item #15! Date:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 2:15:30 PM Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Council Members, Thank you again for your service to our community! Vote NO on agenda item #15 and ask the staff to work with stakeholders on this issue, rather than introducing a ban. This is a complicated issue and the outcome affects thousands of people in this city. The staff did present a study to the planning commission in December of 2023. The outcome of that study was positive and the commission was supportive of a taxed and regulated program for STR's NOT a ban. How did we go from that study to a ban being introduced and why didn't this ordinance first go through the planning commission? I2-1 Thank you to those of you who mentioned that you are in support of the staff working with stakeholders like myself on this issue. Thank you also to the mayor for voting NO on November 19th and also in April. I do hope that the staff will meet with us in a timely manner and create regulations that will be presented to you sooner then later, as your vote tonight matters to us and so many stake holders in this city! I have worked hard for 7 years to get great reviews and shutting down my business temporarily will be devastating for myself, my employees, one of who spoke at the last meeting, and many other hosts like myself. Please vote NO on agenda item #15 as there is a better way forward for us all! Best, Sheri Menke MEMORANDUM www.santa-ana.org Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Members of the City Council November 19, 2024 To:Date: Minh Thai, Executive Director Planning and Building Agency From: CITY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (OA) NO. 2024-04 FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS Subject: Prior to the City Council meeting of Tuesday, November 19, 2024, the City had received two comments on OANo. 2024-01 for short-term rentals.Specifically, one comment challenges the City’s environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The City has prepared a response to thiscomment to address the specific topic(s) raised by the commenter. None of the comments raise any new information or bring forward any new information of substance that has not already been addressed by the staff report and environmental analysis prepared for the City Council’s consideration of the action. The City’s responses to the comments are included in this packet. The responses will also be uploaded to the online packet to form part of the project record. Enclosures: 1. Public Comment Receivedon CEQA Analysis, with Numbering Annotations 2. City Response RESPONSE TO COMMENTSMEMORANDUM–ITEM 35: OA NO. 2024-04 (SHORT-TERM RENTALS) DATE November 19, 2024 TO City of Santa Ana ADDRESS 20 Civic Center Plaza | P.O. Box 1988 |Santa Ana, CA 92702 CONTACT Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager FROM Malia Durand, Associate Principal SUBJECT Response to Comments Received on the November 19, 2024,City Council Meeting Item No.35: Short-Term Rental Ordinance PROJECT NUMBER SNT-24.2 th A singlecommentwasreceivedprior to the November 19, 2024 public hearing before the City Council (see Table 1). This memo provides responses to the comment received.As an Addendum does not require public circulation, a formal comment-and-response process is not necessary.However, for consideration by the Council, a response was prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns raisedrelated to the City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance (Modified Project). Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The Santa Ana Municipal Codedoes not and has never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The Modified Project would add Article XXI (Short-Term-Rentals) (Sections 8-3400–8-3402) to Chapter 8, Building and Standards, of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Specifically, Article XXI would include Sections 8- 3400 through 8-3402 to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. A description of each new section of Article XXI is provided in Attachment A of theEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR)Addendumprepared for the project. Concurrently, the City Council is proposing to adopt a resolution to set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9. Table1Comments Received Number ReferenceCommenting Agency/PersonDate Organization O1Gaines & Stacy LLPNovember 18,2024 The original comment letterswithbrackets andnumber assignments for individual commentsare included as an attachment to this memorandum(Attachment A). Responsesare provided to each of the comments below. November 19,2024|Page 2 LetterO1–Gaines&StaceyLLP(171pages) O1.ResponsetoCommentstoAliciaB.BartleyfromGaines&StaceyLLP,datedNovember18,2024. O1-1This commentsummarizes the role of Gaines & Stacey LLP and requests the City repeal and reenact a prohibition on short-term rentals (STRs). No response is required. O1-2This comment summarizes the conclusions made in the comment letter. Specifically,that the Modified Projectwould adverselyimpactthe environment(vehicle miles traveled \[VMT\], air quality, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions \[GHG\]), violate state and federal law, and infringe on the rights ofSTR hosts and their guests. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Addendum identified that the previously certified General PlanUpdate Final ProgramEIR(GPU PEIR)concluded significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Significant changes related to VMT and energy consumption would occur if the Modified Projectproposedwouldresult in significant expansionsor changes toexisting or former uses; these changes would deviate from the scope of the approved project, the impacts of which would not be covered by the certified General PlanUpdate FinalPEIR. The Modified Projectwould not result in a significant expansion of existing or former uses; the Modified Projectreaffirms existing lawwhich is that STRs are not permitted in any zone district of the Cityand were not permitted at the time the General Plan Update Final PEIR was certified. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Projectwould not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the certified General Plan Update FinalPEIR because STRs have never been an allowed use. The Modified Project affirms this conditionand establishes a mechanism to enforce removal of land uses inconsistent with this policy of the City.This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendumnor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendumand no additional CEQA documentation are required. O1-3This comment requests that the City repeal the existing Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and requests that City Staff work with stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that underscores that STRs may continue operating. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbatedpotential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. O1-4This comment provides background information regarding the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance and challenge to the April 2024 STR Ordinance.This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. O1-5This comment provides a summary of the history and importance of STRs in the City.No further response is necessary. O1-6This comment states that the Modified Projectis unrelated to the approved project analyzed in the certified General Plan Update Final PEIR and that the Modified Project November 19,2024|Page 3 would result in significant environmental impacts that have not been evaluated under CEQA. As discussed on Page 7 of the EIR Addendum, Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Section are permissible and those not listed are prohibited. The Santa Ana Municipal Code does not now, and has never listed STRs as permissible uses in any zone district, including those zoned for residential. According to the California Department of Housing and Community 1 , STRs decrease housing supply; thereby altering the existing Development (HCD) conditions established in the Geneal Plan EIR. The Modified Projectwould amend the Santa Ana Municipal Code to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the City. The Modified Projectwould reaffirm existing law and solidify the existing conditions analyzed in the certified General Plan Update Final PEIR and would set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9.The Modified Project would not result in a significant expansion of existing or former uses.No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Projectwould not significantly change the scope of the approved project analyzed in the certified General Plan Update Final PEIR. Ergo, the EIR Addendum prepared for the Modified Projectis the appropriate CEQA documentation as the Modified Projectis within the scope of the approved project. The commenter suggests that the Modified Project (permitted uses) would result in more severe impacts as compared to the existing illegal uses (STRs). This comment states that the following environmental topics will be adversely affected by the Modified Project based on conclusions identified in Attachment A (CAJA EnvironmentalServices, Significant Environmental Effects of BanningShort-Term Rentals in the City of Santa andRequirement Require Additional EnvironmentalAnalysis Under CEQA) of the comment letter: Air quality (mobile emissions) Energy (energy demand) GHG emissions(mobile emissions) Noise (traffic noise) Transportation (VMT) It should be noted that “Environmental Justice” is not an environmental topic included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. However, impacts on disadvantaged communities are discussed in the topics listed above. No response is required to address environmental justice. The commenter’s conclusions regarding the above listed topics are rooted in speculative data and assumptionsused in Attachment A. For example, Attachment A of the comment letter states that the Modified Project would force visitors and residents to find transient accommodations outside the Citywhich necessarily assumes that the visitors would ignore the many existing hotels and motels that already exist within the City.This comment is speculative as it is based on unsubstantiated assumptionrather than substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Section 21082.2 states that “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous,or evidence of 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next RHNA, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/rhna/cahf-2040-rhna-report-2024.pdf November 19,2024|Page 4 social or economic impacts, which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence.”Additionally,CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 states that speculative analysis need not be included in impact discussions. The EIR Addendum identified that the previously certified General Plan Update Final PEIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHGemissions, and noise. Significant changes related to VMT, and energy consumption would occur if the Modified Projectwould result in significant expansionsor changes to existing or former uses; these changes would deviate from the approved General Plan, the impacts of which would not be covered by the certified General Plan FinalUpdate PEIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development types in the City are proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Projectis not adding any new land use, and reaffirms the conditions in effect at the time of the certification of the General Plan Update Final PEIR. Nothing in the comment letter based on fact, or in the analysis in the Addendum point to any facet of the Modified Project that would result in any new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the certified General Plan Update Final PEIR. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. The comment also claims that an addendum is inappropriate because the Modified Project constitutes a new project that has not been previously reviewed and warrants new environmental review. CEQA includes a presumption against requiring any further environmental review once an EIR has been prepared for a project. (Pub. Resources Code, 21166.) As the court explained in Bowman v. City of Petaluma(1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073, “\[S\]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired \[21167(c)\], and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.” (emphasis added.) As discussed above and in the Addendum, the Modified Project does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations citywide set forth in the General Plan and analyzed in the GP Final PEIR. In other words, contrary to the comment, the General Plan Update Final PEIRoffers information value because it already analyzed the land use conditions within the City as contemplated and proposed in the Modified Project. Thus, there are no substantial changes being made to the project or with respect to circumstances that warrant major revisions to the previous GP Final PEIR due to the involvement of new or more severe significant impacts, nor is there new information of substantial importance that shows there will be new or more severe significant impacts. An Addendum to the General PlanUpdate Final PEIR is therefore appropriate. For the same reasons as discussed above and in the EIR Addendum, the Modified Project also fits within the Class 1 exemption. The Modified Project would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses, and instead reaffirms the existing law. The comment raises no substantial evidence to suggest that the Modified Project does not fall within Class 1, or that any of the exceptions to the Class 1 exemptionunder State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. The Modified Project is therefore also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the Class 1 exemption. O1-Attachment AThis attachment states that the City’s environmental analysis of theModified Project is inadequate and reiterates the statements summarized in Comment O1-6. The attachment’s conclusion is based on unsubstantiated data and assumptions. The November 19, 2024 | Page 5 attachment makes erroneous assumptions that the Modified Project would force visitors and residents to travel further and longer for transient accommodations and would indirectly cause the construction of hotels. These claims are baseless, speculativeand are not backed by substantial evidence. Additionally, the attachment states that theGeneral Plan Update Final PEIR did not analyze impacts related to STRs; therefore, does not include informational value related tothe STRs ban impacts on air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and VMT. Because STRs are not a permitted use and have never beena permitted use, the baseline used in the General Plan Update Final PEIR did not include STRs as an existing use; the General PlanUpdateFinal PEIR analyzed impacts related to legally conforming uses. If the STR ban were to be rescinded, impacts associated with the legal operation of STRs would be required to be analyzed under CEQA as these impacts would be considered a new use and would not be covered by the certified EIR and would result in changes to the approved General Plan. The conclusions identified in the attachment are based on argument, speculation and unsubstantiated opinions/narrative and do not provide substantial evidence to support the commenter’s conclusions.No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. TheCitywill consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. November 19,2024|Page 6 Attachment A: Bracketed Comment Letter November 19,2024|Page 7 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 T (818) 933-0200 F (818) 933-0222 www.gaineslaw.com November 18, 2024 VIA EMAIL eComment@santa-ana.org Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza Santa Ana City Council City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center PlazaM-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: November 19, 2024, City Council Meeting Item 35: Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals, and Adopt Enhanced Fines for Violations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers, This law office represents the Santa Ana Short- members own and operate STRs within the City. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments onbehalf of the Rental Alliance on 2024-04,amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to repeal and reenact a prohibition on short-term rentals(STRs). As we detail below, consistent withmany ofour prior comments, the prohibition of STRs would(a) result in significant environmental impacts,(b)violate state and federal law, and (c)unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests.We also present new evidence by technical experts demonstratingthe STR ban will adversely impact the physical environment by causing reasonably foreseeable increases in vehicle miles traveled, air pollutants (and related adverse health consequences), greenhouse gasemissions, and fossil fuel consumption.As just one examplefrom the attached technical reports: when comparing visitors staying at a hotel compared to an STR, mobile emissions ofvolatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,and micro particulatesall scientifically provento contribute to smog and increase risks of cancer, asthma,lung damage,and other health impairmentswere calculated Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 2 toincrease by over 400%.These impacts risk harming sensitive receptors and environmental justice communities contraryto state, regional, and local policies. is woefully inadequate inanalyzing and disclosing these impacts to the community. We respectfully request that you repeal the existing Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SMC (which was adopted illegally in April 2024) and direct Staff to work with stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that underscores that STRs maycontinue operating,subject to reasonable regulations, . Backgroundon the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Allianceand Challenge to the April 2024 STR Ordinance TheSanta Ana Short-Term Rental Alliancean unincorporated community association made up of hardworking residents of both the City of Santa Ana and Southern California that own and/or manage homes located within City limits rented on a short-term basis. Theycome from diverse backgrounds and call California home. In April2024, the City unlawfully enactedan ordinance banning STRs in the City with almost no public notice andwithout undertaking the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act That action threatened to destroy security, closed the door to Santa Ana for countless would-be visitors, and disproportionately affected the individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options and who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. In response to that illegal action, this officefiled achallengeon behalf of the Rental Alliancein Orange County Superior Court (Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 (Orange County Superior Court).While we are pleased that Staff has brought forward a proposal to rescind the illegally adopted ordinance, the Amended Ordinanceproposes to adopt the exact same ban on STRs as adopted in April.As summarized herein, the Amended Ordinance is legally flawed, and should the City move forward with readopting the ban,the Rental Alliance intends to challenge the Amended Ordinance. History and Importanceof STRs in Santa Ana STRs have always been lawful, residential uses in Santa Ana.Hostshave opened and shared their homes to transient renters for decades, providing important visitor-serving accommodations and offering guests authentic cultural experiences in all corners of the City. These rentals provide an opportunity for visitors to Orange Countyto meet and interact with locals who graciously share their homes. And with theexception of a brief 2015 moratorium that expired on its own terms, STRs havelongbeen a recognized activity in Santa Ana. Indeed, many of the Rental Alliance members have acquired a business license from the City for each rental unit that they own or manage. 2 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 3 STRs help to make housing affordable for those homeowners who are able to home shareand earn money by renting portions of their houses, or the entire house, for a period of time. This helps make homeownership possible for many Santa Ana residents who otherwise could not afford the high cost of housing. Homesharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and more familieseven if only for a weekend. It fosters vibrant and diverse communities and supports a robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, such as Orange County,would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. Home sharing also addresses full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which typically include advance payment of first and last monthsrent anda sizeable security deposit, can immediately occupy an STR without the substantial up-front cost. In this way, STRscan immediately supply housing tofill a critical gap in availability facing California cities. STRs also play an important role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of their preferred long-term rental homeorhome purchase. extensive benefits is particularly troubling. The Prohibition of STRs Will Have Significant Environmental Impacts That Have Not Been Evaluated under CEQA The Amended Ordinance will have significant environmental impacts, and the City has failed to appropriately evaluate these impacts under CEQA. As summarized next, the evidence is clear that the STR ban will impact the physical environment, resulting in reasonably foreseeable direct increases in vehicle miles traveled, air pollutants (with adverse health consequences), greenhouse gasemissions, energy use (including fossil fuels), and more. The City has fallen far short of analyzing these direct impacts in conformance with CEQA. What is more, the City patently ignores reasonably foreseeable indirect effects spurred by the STR ban, such as new construction to account for increased hotel demand, and cumulative impacts resulting from cascading regional impacts from similar STR bans. Despite our strenuous requests during the April 2024 hearings and the subsequent litigation, the City continues to shirk its responsibilities under CEQA to analyze and disclose the true consequences of its actions. 1.The City inappropriately relies on an addendum to an EIR for a completely different, unrelated project. GP PEIR) is impermissible under CEQA because the AmendedOrdinance constitutes a new project that has not been previously reviewed, and the changes it introduces are substantial, requiring new environmental review. 3 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 4 CEQA provides that a changed project may only undergo a streamlined subsequent environmental review under certain circumstances that trigger either a subsequent EIR, a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to a previously certified EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 1516264.) An addendum to a previously certified EIR is appropriate only when the necessary changes or additions do not trigger a subsequent or supplementalEIR, meaning the changes or additions are minorand do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164.) project that has been subject to environmental review; the provisions do not apply if the agency has proposed a new project not previously analyzed in the original environmental document (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer(2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 606 n.26 \[emphasis added\]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist.(2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject The Staff Report asks the City to certify an addendum based on the GP PEIR that did not review the environmental impacts of the AmendedOrdinance or even acknowledge the existence of STRs in the City. The Amended CEQA and the use of an addendum or any other subsequent environmental review pathway is insufficient to comply with CEQA. Further, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardensheld that in order for a lead agency to rely on a previously certified CEQA document, that document must Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist.(2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 605.) Here, because the GP PEIR does not analyze the impacts of banning short term rentals or even mention short term rentals at all, it retains no informational value as to the AmendedOrdinance. Indeed, the GP PEIR offers no informational value on the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from the STR ban because the GP PEIR analysis completely ignores STRs. The Proposed Ordinance is a new project constitutinga substantial change from the conditions contemplated in zoning code had always prohibited STRs and instead held that an ordinance expressly banning STRs wa (Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142,14849.) Here, like in Keen, the Amended the City cannot rely on previously approved documents that did not contemplate the impacts of theAmendedOrdinance. a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project described in the program EIR . . . it is treated as a ne (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 845.) \[internal quotations and citations omitted\].) A program EIR that does not include anydiscussion or analysis of a later proposed activity is not adequate to inform the public of the environmental effects of that later activity such that the later activity is outside the scope of the program EIR. (Id. at 852-53.) The 4 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 5 GP PEIR does not discuss, analyze, or inform the public of the environmental effects associated with the AmendedOrdinance. Therefore, even if the City were to assess the AmendedOrdinance under the GP PEIR, the environmental impacts of the STR ban were adequately assessed by the scope of the GP PEIR and therefore the STR ban must be fully analyzed with a project-specific EIR. The evidence is clearthat an EIR is needed because the STR ban is likely to cause potentially significant impacts to the environment that were not covered by the GP PEIR. (Id employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project deferential substantial evidence standard\] \[emphasis added\].) In addition, even if the GP PEIR were relied upon, the high-level, programmatic nature of the GP PEIR translates to a lack of detail that requires much more than a short addendum to correct. Rather, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is needed because the STR ban cannot be addressed only permitted where minor changes are needed to the prior analysis. As detailed herein, the complete absence of prior analysis of STRs, let alone the STR ban, requires changes to many topic areas covered by CEQA and raises new potentially significant impacts that cannot be addressed with minor clarifications. AmendedOrdinance based on an addendum or any other subsequent, supplemental, or tiered analysis based on the GP PEIR would violate CEQA. 2.The potentially significant environmental impacts of an STR ban require the City to prepare a new EIR. Even if an addendum were appropriate, the 51-page Addendum falls far short of appropriately analyzing and disclosing impacts under CEQA. The GP PEIR is silent on STRs and the Addendum contains only a cursory, superficial, and unsupported analysis of the STR ban. As detailed in Attachment A to this letter (CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, there are several potentially significant direct environmental impacts that could result from a STR ban in the City, including but not limited to: Air quality. The STR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PMfrom guests of STRs 2.5 transitioning to using hotels. (CAJAReport,pp. 2-3.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children. PMcan damage the respiratory tract, increasing 2.5 the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung Ramboll Memo re Environmental Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulation dated November 14, 2024, p. 3.) 5 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 6 Construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual exceeding by more than 4 . (CAJAReport, p. 2.) Environmental Justice Community impacts. The STR ban would disproportionately by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) Traffic concentration and health impacts. The STR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) Energy. The STR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs (more than 5x more electricity, more than 2x more natural gas). (CAJA Report,p. 3.) By increasing VMT, the STR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle tripsthe daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and dieselinconsistent with regional and state climate goals. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) GHG emissions. The STR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (CAJA Report, p. 3.)Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) Noise.The STR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since many hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise potentiallyexacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new significant noise impact. (CAJA, p. 4.) There are also potential i new hotel space construction. The STR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related to hotel construction including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions Report p. 4.) These and the other potentially significant environmental impacts summarized in Attachment A to this letter also mean the AmendedOrdinance is not eligible for a Class 1 exemption and that the City must prepare a full EIR. 6 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 7 If the City Council were to ignore the substantial evidence in the record of potential impacts and proceed with adopting the Amended Ordinance without first preparing an EIR to analyze these potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the STR ban that may result in lesser impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts, such an action would constitute an abuse of discretion. ProhibitingSTRs in Santa Ana Violates State and Federal Law The prohibition of STRs in the City violatesstate and federal laws in numerous ways.Specifically: 1.STRs have legally operatedfor decades. STRs have operated legally in the City for decadesandthe City has acknowledged the operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City Council -day temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of any short term residen(Ordinance No. NS-2886.) do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order torespond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of these short-(Id., Section 1.B (emphasis added).)Importantly, the 2015emergency ordinance for the moratorium specially -term residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article (Id.,Section 2.)Of course, this new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been an existing lawful use in the City. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so.The result was that STRs continued operating as lawful residential uses throughout the City. Then,after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs were pro and commencedenforcement actions against existing hosts.And now, the City states in the Staff Report thatSTRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use refore, STRs have always been prohibited by the City and this 4, Staff Report, p. 3.) - mentioned in the Municipal Code in the context of urban lot splits. The Municipal Code -tted in dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. (Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(l)(2); see alsoid. § 41- 2115(l)(2) \[same prohibition for dwelling units on lot for Two-Unit Projects\].) Notably, in both of these code provisions, the prohibitionon STRs on these types of lots is in a separate subpart 7 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 8 -. (SeeSanta Ana Mun. Code -only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban -2115(l)(2) \[same\].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate prohibition would be superfluous. prohibited by omission throughout the entire City. After all, why would the City prohibit them explicitly in one placeif they were alreadyimpliedly prohibitedeverywhere? If they are prohibited in the entire City, sections 41-2109 and 41-2115 would be superfluousin violation of California law. (In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94, 102-03 (2011) \[California courts strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and avoid constructions that render words, phrases,or clauses superfluous.\]; Escamilla v. Vannucci, 97 Cal.App.5th 175, 187-88 (2023).) Homeowners cannot understand what is and is not prohibited if the City adopts such nonsensical readings of its ownzoning provisions. foreclosed Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach. (77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).) There, the court considered a permissive zoning ordinance -- did not say anything about STRs. (Id. quite some time, . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long-and short-term mplaints about a rental Id.at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and claimedmuch like Staff has done here Ibid.) The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding always permitted short-term, as well as long-Id.at 148 (emphasis added).) The court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone renter or owner distinction about the dura Id.at 148- Id.at 149.) As in Keen- on these residential uses. (Santa Ana Mun. Code, §41-184et seq.) And, just as in Keen, long-term rental of residential property is permitted under the existing Santa Ana code. And so, just as in Keen,without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden. 8 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 9 2.The Amended Ordinance would unlawfully terminateexisting, lawfulnonconforming uses . Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1327 n.1 (Cal. 1996) (citing cases). The Id.California courts have long held that a party may continue to use their property even though such useis nonconforming. (Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 121, 127 (Cal. 1954); Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 310-311 (Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful (and now non-conforming) uses would be of doubtful constitutionality. (Livingston Rock & Gravel Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) Th principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes, a property owner may have a City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) are making lawful uses of their property, and they have made significant investments in their homes to offer them as STRs. Settled California law affords themnonconforming use rights to continue theirSTR use. The Amended Ordinancecannot legally withdraw those rights. that legal nonconforming land uses may continue subject to limitations on expansion or enlargement of the use, or abandonment of use. (SeeSanta Ana Mun. Code § 41-68341-689.) 3.Recent United States Supreme Court cases establish that the Amended Ordinance would result in a taking, entitling allhosts of the 700+ existing STRs in the City to compensation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards rights deeply rooted in United with constitutional framers emphasizing private property as bulwark againstunlawful exercises of critical aspect of these rights, protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions, which requires just compensation for property taken or damaged for public use. The Supreme Court recently expanded physical takings law to encompass temporary and intermittent physical invasionssimilar to deprivations of the right to lease. In Cedar Point Nursery v.Hassid, the Court held that a regulation requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to have periodic and temporary access to farm workers on the property constituted a physical (and not a regulatory) taking. (594 U.S. at 143.) for the enjoyment of third parties th (Id.at 149.)The ordinanceherenot only impedes on the corollary right to include, it also effectively requireshosts to allow renters 9 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 10 right to exclude. Importantly, the Federal District Court of Hawaii recently considered an ordinance similar to that proposed by Santa Ana that barred certain STRs. (-Term Rental All. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 2022 WL 7471692, at *2-3 (D. Haw. Oct. 13, 2022).) motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held that the plaintiff would likely succeed on the merits of a takings claim under the Federal and Hawaii Constitutions. (Id.at *5.) Because the Ordinance impacts both the right to include and the right to exclude from property, all existing STR hosts would be entitled to compensation if the City Council were to adopt the Amended Ordinance. 4.The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would constitute arbitrary and capricious decision-making. There is no evidencein the record record. STRs play an important and environmentally sustainable role in the City, and provide significant benefits to the City, its residents, and its visitors, and these benefits are being completely ignored.The Staff Report provides no evidence that any STRs in the City contribute to nuisance- acknowledge that the SAMC already has several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. (SAMC, Chapter 17.) In reality, many STRs in the City are either owner-occupied, meaning that the host is on site while guests are present because they live there full-time and have an extra room/rooms, or are entire home STRs which are rented on a short-term basis because the owner travels or is in the City only on a seasonal basis and so cannot rent the property on a long-term basis (e.g., six-month or one- year lease). Further, as discussed in a recent study conducted by the Milken Institute on STRs in 1 A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not appear to mention STRs anywhere in that document. (See City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element). In the section of the at various factors influencing rehabilitation costs, availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use regulations, development standards, building codes, permit procedures, and other local policies), and environmental factors (adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water 1 Alissa Dubetz, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven, Staying Power: The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on ,M ILKEN I NSTITUTE(May 2022), https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Short_Term_Rentals_California.pdf. 10 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 11 supply to support new development). (Id. at A-47). Further, and as discussed in the Milken Institute -long housing shortage is primarily caused by failure to build enough housing due to rising construction costs, lengthy permitting times, and community opposition, which disincentivize construction of affordable housing. (Dubetz, p. 4.) As Professor Betsy Stevenson, the former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and member of President rs, has written, banning STRs in fact undermines efforts to Ba Crisis, B LOOMBERG N EWS(July 8, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07- 08/banning-airbnb-will-not-make-housing-more-affordable residents to rent out their homes can help them recoup some of their investment and make city Ibid.) decision-making. Because the City lacks any justification for adopting the Amended Ordinance, such an action would be arbitrary and capricious. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28, 34 (1974); Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268 (2011).) 5.The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally impede on right to privacy. Constitution (Hill v. NCAA stay in their homes. (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 These constitutional privacy protections right to host STRs and invite guests into theirhome. In Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options,supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 454, 459, the Court of Appeal invalidated a local ordinance that limited occupants right to decide who may live in ths invite guests intotheirhomes while they would infringe on hostsconstitutional right to privacy,which includes theright to choose who can stay in homes. The City fails to provide any substantial justification to pass the heightened scrutiny applied to laws or regulations that infringe on the right to privacy and cannot do so because STRs have no demonstrable negative impact on the City compared to other residential uses, including long-term rentals. 11 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 12 6.The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally infringetheright to contract. The Ordinance also violates right to contract under the California constitution, which prohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts. (Cal. Const., Art I, § 9.) , 9 and the court required to evaluate whether Id. (citations omitted); see also Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, 48 Cal. 3d 805, 831 (1989).) Rental Alliance hosts have already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in upcoming months. An immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of this constitutional right. 7.The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would deprive hosts of their substantive due process rights. Termination of a lawful nonconforming use effects a deprivation of property without due process of law, and banning the ability of homeowners to rent their home to visitors more broadly violates their substantive due process rights under the California andU.S. constitutions by infringing on (United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (2002).) 8.The proposed fines violate the United States Constitution. The administrative fines proposed by the Resolution are also so excessive as to raise federal constitutional concerns. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the City from imposing excessive fines. The United States Supreme Court ha of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: the amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998).)Here the Amended $5,000 for a third violation fail to meet the principle of proportionality. (See, e.g.,Kalthoff v. Douglas Cnty., of these fines \[for violations of short-term rental ordinance\] \[we\]re for several thousands of dollars enforcement of fines on constitutional grounds).) 12 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 13 The City Has Refused To Provide Evidence Surrounding its Treatment of STRs and the Basis for BanningSTRsin Violation of the California Public Records Act In April 2024, a Public Records Act request was filed with the City in an effort to understand what motivated the Citya total ban on STRs.Oversixmonths later, the City has still not produced a response to the PRA.(See PRA 24-715.)The City has responded to over 1,000 PRA requestAs such, the Cityappears to be concealing the true motivations for seeking to ban all STRs in the City. To date, the City has not provided anyevidence to support its claim that STRs in the City have a negative impact on public health, safety,and welfare, if any even exists. We strongly urge theCouncil to refrain from taking any action on the proposed STR prohibition until the City has responded to the Public Records Act request. Proposed Path Forward We urge the City Council to rescind the currentlyeffective andillegallyadopted Ordinance, reject the Amended Ordinance,and direct Staff to work with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that authorizes STRs to continue operating subject to reasonable regulations. Specifically, we City recommend establishing an Thistype of regulation strikes the appropriate balance while maintaining the ability of STR owners to operate in the City. While the Rental Alliance is ready and willing to work with the City, for the reasons summarized above, should the City Council move forward with adopting the Amended Ordinancewe will challenge this action in court to protect rights. Sincerely, GAINES & STACEY LLP Alicia B. Bartley By ALICIA B. BARTLEY cc:Jose Montoya (Via Email -jmontoya@santa-ana.org) Amy Hoyt (Via Email -Amy.Hoyt@bbklaw.com) Hannah Park (Via Email -Hannah.Park@bbklaw.com) Attachments Attachment ACAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA,November 14, 2024. 13 O1- Attachment A Attachment A CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024. 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801  o 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 o o o 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 o   9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801  9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801    9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801   9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801    9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700Fax 310-806-9801 MEMO To File From Eric C. Lu, Sarah Manzano, and Brent Ferren Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Date: November 14, 2024 Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated potential air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), energy and noise environmental impacts of a potential ban on short-term rentals (STR) in Santa Ana, California. As discussed throughout this memo, Ramboll found that the ban of STRs in Santa Ana has the potential to increase emissions and noise that should be evaluated further. The increase in emissions and noise have the potential to cause a significant impact in relation to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RambollÓs analysis was Ramboll informed by the economic analysis performed by RambollÓs Stefanie OÓGorman 250 Montgomery St., (see Exhibit A). Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 US USA 1 Overview T+1 510 655 7400 As a result of the proposed STR ban, individuals would be unable to enjoy the F+1 510 655 9517 https://ramboll.com benefits of STRs within Santa Ana, which will increase demand for local hotels as the only option for short term stays within Santa Ana. As a result, individuals will be forced to travel greater distances to other commercials centers in the region to find available STRs and available/affordable hotels, introducing additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In particular, increased travel to and from hotels and STRs in the region because of the unavailability of STR in Santa Ana could increase emissions relative to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria air pollutants (CAPs), with the potential to cause short-term and long-term health impacts to sensitive receptors, exceedances of appliable air quality standards, and inconsistencies with applicable air quality and climate plans, all of which create a fair argument of environmental impacts that need to be studied further under CEQA. The ban of STRs will also likely result in increased traffic congestion and noise impacts that require further study under 1, 2 CEQA. 1 Airbtics reports approximately 1,000 short-term rentals in Santa Ana, which is referenced throughout this analysis. However, conclusions herein are largely based on comparative impacts to the elimination of short-term rentals and are not dependent on the actual number of short term rentals in Santa Ana today. 2 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 1/14 ÐP 2 Health Impacts from Criteria Pollutants Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include ozone (O), nitrogen oxides (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO), particulate matter less 3xx than 10 microns in diameter (PM), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM). 102.5 The STR ban has the potential to increase emissions of these pollutants and their health impacts are discussed in the following paragraphs. Ozone O is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 3 sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NO) react in the x presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by 3 complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOCs and NO, the precursors of O, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and X3 terrain play major roles in O formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on 3 days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in 3 breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Nitrogen Oxides Most NO, like O, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical 23 reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO are collectively referred to as 2 NO and are major contributors to O formation. The primary sources of NO, the precursor to NO, X32 include automobile exhaust and industrial sources. High concentrations of NO can cause breathing 2 difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, causing reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO and chronic pulmonary fibrosis, and some increase in bronchitis 2 in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm). Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as Santa Ana, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface- based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions, where a layer of warm air sits atop cool air, 2/14 ÐP are more frequent and can trap pollutants close to the ground. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the bloodÓs ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Sulfur Oxides Sulfur Dioxide (SO) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing 2 fossil fuels. The main sources of SO are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the 2 highest levels of SO are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO 22 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO and limits placed on the sulfur content of fuels. SO is an irritant gas that attacks the 22 throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel. 2 Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM and PM 2.510 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM, is roughly 1/28 the diameter 2.5 of a human hair. PM results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and 2.5 industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM can be formed in the 2.5 atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SO), NO, and VOCs. Inhalable or coarse particulate XX matter, or PM, is about one- seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM include 1010 dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; crushing or grinding operations; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM and PM pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles 2.510 can penetrate the human respiratory systemÓs natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM 2.5 and PM can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and 10 other lung diseases, and reduce the bodyÓs ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM 10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM is so tiny that it can penetrate 2.5 deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. 3 An STR Ban Will Increase Air Pollutant Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Emissions There are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings in Santa Ana. Elimination of these Airbnb rentals and other short-term rentals in Santa Ana and the corresponding increase in guests at Santa Ana hotels 3/14 ÐP would result in an increased trip length, as potential guests would have fewer options to stay as close as possible to daily destinations during their stay in Santa Ana. In addition, the number of trips taken by guests to and from their site of accommodation would be higher for hotels than for short-term rentals, as evidenced by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), introducing additional vehicle miles traveled. Recreational Homes (ITE Land Use Code 260) have an average weekday trip generation rate of 3.55 trips per day while the Hotel land use (ITE Land Use 310) has 7.99 trips per day. This increase in trips may be due to the need to leave the hotel for amenities, such as food, and increased worker trips. The increase in mobile emissions associated with short-term rentals compared to hotels is presented below in Table 1. Based on publicly available statistics on the current Airbnb listings in Santa Ana, the 3 average capacity per STR is 5.6 people and there are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings. This results in a service population of 5,600 people. As a result of the potential STR ban, this would require 1,867 hotel rooms to accommodate this same service population assuming one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. The number of peak daily trips was estimated using the ITE trip rates for STRs and hotel rooms and the number of STRs and hotel rooms required to serve the same population. The number of daily miles traveled was estimated assuming a single trip to a hotel is 2 miles longer than a single trip to a STR since guests might have to stay farther from daily destinations if they stay at a hotel. These assumptions were used to determine daily mobile emissions. Mobile emissions from visitors staying at a hotel would generate up to 444 percent more criteria air 4 pollutant emissions and GHGs than from visitors staying at an STR. Therefore, the ban has the potential to considerably increase emissions in the area. The increase in VMT and greenhouse gas emissions is directly inconsistent with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle trips. Additional calculation details can be found in Appendix A. Table 1. Emissions Increase due to Additional VMT Percent Increase in daily mobile Criteria Air Pollutant emissions from STR to hotel to serve the same population VOC 442% NO 443% x CO 443% SO 444% x PM 444% 10 PM 444% 2.5 GHG (COe) 443% 2 3 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 4 This percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. The number of short-term rentals and population are provided for illustrative purposes only. 4/14 ÐP 4 An STR Ban Will Disproportionally Burden Environmental Justice Communities The proposed STR ban in Santa Ana, CA, raises critical environmental justice concerns, particularly given the CityÓs existing pollution burdens from regional pollution and localized traffic exposure near the existing hotel stock, and the potential for increased hotel usage in response to restrictions on STRs. The existing hotels are predominately located near the I-5 and 55 freeways on the southeastern boundary of the City. This area shows elevated burden according to the California Office of Environmental Health 5 Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) data. CalEnviroScreen was developed as a mapping tool that identifies California communities most impacted by pollution and other environmental risks to identify vulnerability to adverse health effects from those sources. CalEnviroScreen takes into account environmental and socioeconomic factors to develop a percentile of burden across the State of California. Factors include indicators of pollution burden (including ozone, traffic, pesticides, drinking water) and population characteristics (including asthma, cardiovascular disease, education, poverty), which are each scored and weighted to derive a pollution burden score, population characteristic score, and the final CalEnviroScreen score. The Santa Ana tracts that border the I-5 and 55 freeways near the Southeastern boundaries of the city are identified as vulnerable tracts are also the current locations for the greatest density of hotels in Santa Ana. As shown in Figure 1, the CalEnviroScreen tool identifies Santa Ana, and particularly the freeway- th adjacent tracts, as highly burdened, being classified into the 80 percentile and above for the thrd CalEnviroScreen overall percentile, with tracts above the 90 percentile (Tract 6059074406 93 percentile as the maximum). This significant elevation in burden is driven by the pollution and exposure th burden; these freeway-adjacent tracts are ranked in the 90 percentile and above for pollution burden th (Tract 6059074003 99 percentile for pollution burden) and face extreme burden from air pollution th associated with vehicle traffic emissions, and direct traffic exposure (Tract 6059074406 99 percentile for traffic). Conversely, while central Santa Ana tracts still register as overburdened and pollution-impacted, tracts th in the center of the City are comparatively lower burdened and near the 70 percentile for overall burden. Further screening tools, the Council on Environmental QualityÓs Climate and Economic Justice Screening 6 Tool (CEJST), the US EPAÓs Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen, Version 78 2.3), and the Public Health Alliance of Southern CaliforniaÓs California Health Places Index (HPI 3.0), each highlight significant environmental and health concerns for Santa Ana in almost all tracts, with traffic proximity and the associated vehicle traffic-generated air pollution as the driving metrics of those disadvantage and burden ratings. 5 OEHHA. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. May 2023. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 6 Council on Environmental Quality. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. Available at: https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/. 7 US EPA. Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen. 8 Public Health Alliance of Southern California. Healthy Places Index (HPI) 3.0. 2022. Available at: https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/. 5/14 ÐP Figure 1. OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Santa Ana, CA. Overall Percentile of Exposure and Burden. In Figure 2, the EJScreen-measured traffic proximity is expressed as the counts of vehicles per day divided by the distance between the vehicle(s) and tract, providing a percentile rank for total exposure. The data included demonstrates the extreme disparity for these near-freeway Santa Ana tracts, the same tracts in the Northeast and Southeast of Santa Ana where hotels are primarily located, as these tracts already experience among the most extreme traffic exposures in the state and country (Figure 2, the traffic proximity expressed as traffic volume and distance and displayed as state percentile by tract). These already traffic-exposure overburdened tracts risk further concentration of traffic from increased hotel use and potential new hotels (further discussed in Section 7). Therefore, the congestion and traffic density increases may be more impactful to this already overburdened area. 6/14 ÐP Figure 2. US EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, Santa Ana, CA, environmental burden indicator of traffic proximity. The proposed STR could shift visitor accommodations in STRs from lower-burdened, dispersed residential areas to concentrated hotel zones in southeast Santa Ana, where pollution and traffic emission levels are already elevated. This shift in accommodation location could lead to increase vehicular traffic and hotel-generated emissions in an already-concentrated area facing significant air pollution exposure levels and health risks. Furthermore, the construction of more hotels in this area to meet the demands for visitors due to the STR ban could increase emissions from construction and additional operation to an area with higher burden. The relocation of accommodations could further the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these already overburdened communities. 5 An STR Ban Would Increase Energy Demands Because Hotels Use More Energy Per Person Than STRs The proposed STR ban could cause visitors who would have otherwise stayed in STRs to stay in hotels, which consume more energy per person than STRs. Using CalEEMod, Ramboll modeled the operational GHG emissions of hotels and STRs for comparison. The single-family home CalEEMod land use type was used a surrogate for STR. Assuming an occupancy rate of 3 people per hotel room and 5.6 people per STR, hotels have much higher associated GHG emissions per person. It was found that hotels consume 7/14 ÐP more electricity and natural gas per person than STRs, as shown in Table 2 and in the CalEEMod output 9 in Appendix B. Table 2. Operational Energy Use per Person Electricity Natural Gas Land Use kWh/yr/person kBTU/yr/person Hotel 6,773 13,974 Short Term Rentals 1,231 6,846 As a result of the increase in energy consumption when staying in a hotel instead of an STR, GHG emissions from energy consumption per person would increase by 179 percent. 6 An STR Ban Will Increase Fossil Fuel Usage In addition, increased VMT would require greater reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips. Even with CaliforniaÓs policies to shift the vehicle fleet towards cleaner cars and trucks, vehicle usage will continue to rely on gasoline for car and truck trips for years to come. The STR ban therefore results in greater reliance on fossil fuels, inconsistent with regional and state climate policy. The estimated fuel use is summarized in Table 3 and utilizes the same assumptions from Table 1. Additional calculation 10 details can be found in Appendix A. Table 3. Daily Mobile Fuel Consumption Gasoline Diesel Land Use Gallons per day Gallons per day Hotels 6,916 197 Short Term Rentals 1,272 36 Percent Increase with Hotel Use 444% 447% 7 An STR Ban Could Concentrate Traffic Resulting in Potential Noise and Health Impacts The potential ban of short-term rentals in Santa Ana could result in concentrated traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, which could have noise and health impacts to the surrounding land uses. As described above, removing short term rentals as a means for lodging in Santa Ana would result in visitors needing to rely on hotels for their stay. Currently, there are over 20 hotels in the city limits of Santa Ana and over half of them are located in one concentrated area in the southeastern part of the City along Highway 55. It can be assumed that if more people will need stay in hotels instead of STRs, then the traffic to this part of town would increase significantly as it is likely all of this traffic would be concentrated to the roadways surrounding the hotel zone area. In comparison, traffic caused from 9 The CalEEMod analysis is based on 134 dwelling units, which is the amount of STRs that would accommodate the same number of people as a 250 room hotel. However, the energy use per person and percent increase in GHG emission is independent of the absolute number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. 10 The fuel usage is based on 1,000 STRs in Santa Ana. However, the percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. 8/14 ÐP visitors traveling to and from various STRs located throughout the City would result in more diversified traffic patterns as all visitors are not driving to one area. Furthermore, a potential new hotel constructed to meet the demand as a result of the STRs ban would likely be constructed in the area of Santa Ana with the majority of hotels, further concentrating traffic in this area. Health Risk Impacts from Traffic Ramboll performed a preliminary analysis that quantified the health risks from traffic emissions in order to assess the impact that increased hotel use in Santa Ana due to a ban on STRs could cause. A typical roadway with approximately 30,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) results in an excess cancer risk 11,12,13 of 40 in a million at a nearby residential receptor. According to ITE, hotels generate 7.99 trips per 14 day per hotel room. There are currently approximately 1,000 Airbnbs in Santa Ana, with other STRs 15 also available. Assuming this ban contributes to 950 more hotel rooms being used, traffic would increase by 7,560 vehicles per day, which results in health impacts that would exceed 10 in a million, which is the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. This scaling approach also does not take into account increased truck traffic associated with deliveries to a hotel that would not occur to an STR. Therefore, banning STRs in Santa Ana could result in an increase in traffic on certain roadways that could be considered significant. If additional truck trips were taken into account, the number of hotel rooms that could cause an exceedance of the threshold of significance for cancer risk could be lower than 950 hotel rooms. It could be assumed that similar trends to cancer risk based on near-roadway traffic exposure would be true for particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions. Noise Impacts from Traffic Ramboll evaluated whether a potential traffic volume increase could cause a traffic noise increase that is considered either substantial (per CEQA guidelines) or increases the ambient conditions to a level above the Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element standard (65 dBA CNEL). Traffic noise analyses require specific knowledge of existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes as well as project-related traffic volumes and mixes. In this case, this information is currently unknown. However, the following figure shows the current (2022) exterior levels of noise created by cars, trucks, or trains traveling along roadways and rail lines in the City. The CityÓs noise and land use compatibility standards (see Table N-1) consider exterior levels above 65 dBA (CNEL) to be generally incompatible for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. If residential or other noise-sensitive areas within the City that are currently below the 65 dBA CNEL level experienced traffic volume increases, specifically due to an increased hotel demand resulting from 11 Health impacts obtained from highway 152 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Mobile Source Screening tool at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway. This was used as a surrogate to estimate general health risks from only traffic. The traffic volume along this road was obtained from CalTrans. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. CEQA Roadway Screening Tool - Cancer Risk. Available at: https://data.bayareametro.gov/Environment/CEQA-Roadway-Screening-Tool-Cancer-Risk/kz4a-ueki 13 CalTrans, Traffic Census Program. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. 14 ITE. Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. 15 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana?payment-plan=pro&payment- duration=yearly 9/14 ÐP the proposed STR ban, and the traffic volume increase caused the CNEL level to now exceed 65 dBA, the STR ban could be considered to have caused a significant impact. The magnitude of a traffic noise increase is dependent on several factors including the traffic volume increase, the vehicle mix, and the local site conditions. Based on standard methodologies prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and considering a vehicle mix typical of suburban/urban areas, traffic volume increases would be expected to result in the following traffic noise increases. Project-specific detailed analysis, including a traffic analysis, would be required to further evaluate. Nonetheless, the volume increases listed below suggest the traffic increases likely necessary to increase the existing traffic noise conditions would need to be significant.As shown in the Figure below, the existing hotel stock is in the area near Highway 55 that is either already above the noise standard of 65 dBA or near the standard. Therefore, adding additional traffic to this area due to the shiftto hotels as a result of the STR ban or the addition of new hotels to the area has the potential to exacerbate the existing noise impacts or create a new noise impact. Therefore, this should be studied in more detail. Figure 3.Contours from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. 10/14 ÐP Table 4. Noise Impact from Traffic Increase Traffic Volume Increase Potential Traffic Noise Increase ЋЎі Њ ķ. ЎЉі Ћ ķ. ЊЉЉі Ќ ķ. 8 Elimination of Short-Term Rentals Could Cause the Construction of New Hotels to Meet Demand; the Construction of New Hotels Would Result in Numerous Environmental Impacts That Require Studying As detailed in the Ramboll memorandum ÐECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONÑ, the prohibition of STRs, including those currently operating within the City, could compel tourists to seek alternative accommodations, increasing demand for hotels and potentially leading to the development of additional hotels as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the STR ban. The construction of hotels has impacts on the environment that have not been studied. In particular, construction of hotels has potential noise and air quality impacts as discussed below. Potential Hotel Construction Air Quality and Health Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Ramboll performed a screening health risk assessment to determine the potential cancer risk resulting from construction activity of a hypothetical new hotel. The emissions associated with the construction of these hotels encompass on-site, off-road heavy equipment, off-site, on-road vehicle travel, architectural coating, paving, and fugitive dust. Ramboll utilized CalEEMod to estimate construction emissions from a 250-room hotel as shown in Appendix B, which is an average mid-size hotel. Ramboll used an existing hotel project site to model emissions in AERMOD as a surrogate for the space of hotel construction. Concentrations resulting from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from off- road construction equipment in CalEEMod were modeled on receptors in a grid of 20 meters. The health 16 risk assessment used default exposure assumptions for residents as outlined by OEHHA. As indicated in Table 5, the construction of a hotel without emissions mitigation results in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual (MEI), which exceeds the SCAQMDÓs threshold of 10 in a million. Cancer risks continue to exceed the threshold until a distance of 450 feet from the construction area. Table 5. Cancer Risk from Hotel Construction Source Cancer Risk (in a million) Construction of a 250 room Hotel 48 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 10 Potential Hotel Construction Noise Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Construction of structures generates noise, which is regulated by the City of Santa Ana. 16 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. 11/14 ÐP City of Santa Ana Noise Element California Government Code encourages each local government entity to implement a noise element as part of its general plan. In addition, the California GovernorÓs Office of Planning and Research has developed guidelines for preparing noise elements, which include recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The City of Santa Ana 17 has established a Noise Element as part of the Santa Ana General Plan. The Noise Element works to ensure that the City limits the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day. Specifically, the City has established standards for noise levels (Community Noise Equivalent Level\[CNEL\],dBA) for land uses as displayed in Table N-1. Additionally, all residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that provided by normal building construction when constructed in areas exposed to greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Sound levels resulting from a project that exceed the standards listed in Table N-1 or that cause the existing conditions to increase above these standards would typically be considered to be impacting the surrounding community. Figure 4. Noise Standards from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance The City of Santa Ana regulates noise emissions via the Santa Ana Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 18 18, Article 6 (Noise Control).The noise ordinance establishes that it isunlawful for any person at any location within the City of Santa Ana to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which creates a soundlevel 17 https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/april-2022-general-plan-noise-element/ 18 https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH18HESA_ARTVINOC O 12/14 ÐP at aresidential propertythat exceeds the following exterior noise standards. The noise levels are based on a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. Table 6. Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Source: Santa Ana Municipal Code, §18-312. Noise emissions from one property that propagate onto an adjacent or nearby residential property and exceed these limits are deemed to be noncompliant with the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Noise emissions related to construction activities are exempt from thelimits, provided the construction activitiesdo not occurplace between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Analysis of New Hotel Construction The effect of construction noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitiveneighbors is dependent on the location and nature of the construction activities. Depending on the construction activities and neighboring land uses, there is a potential for possible significance threshold exceedances related to the resulting construction activities, particularly in relation to residential communities. While noise from construction activities is exempt from the Santa Ana Municipal Code during daytime hours, noise from construction activities occurring during the nighttime hours (as detailed in the previous section) must comply with the established limits. Additionally, the potential for substantial temporary increases to the existing ambient conditions could be considered relative to CEQA guidelines. Construction typically involves the use of heavy machinery that can be a significant source of noise and, while often temporary, can result in significant impacts. Construction equipment commonly includes air compressors, backhoes, concrete trucks, cranes,dump trucks, excavators, graders, pavers, tractors/dozers, vibratory rollers, portable generators, and water trucks. Depending on the phase of construction, project construction typically involves a combination of these types of off-road and portable construction equipment. Assuming a typical construction plan, common types of construction equipment, and typical construction equipment sound levels published by resources such as the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and manufacturers, potential overall sound levels can be estimated. Accordingly, construction sound levels could range from approximately 75 to 90 dBA assuming typical receptor distances of 500 ft to 50 ft. Construction activities also may need to occur at night due to various limitations. Examples include concrete pours that need to occur when other construction is not happening or would impede traffic, accelerated construction needs to meet hotel demand that may come with the Olympics in 2028, roadway construction work that needs to occur at nighttime. The table below outlines general construction phasing and equipment assumptions employed to estimate approximate sound pressure levels (SPL) for common construction phasesfor a hotel use as 19 generated in CalEEMod.It is anticipated that these sound pressure levels are above typical 19 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2022.1. Available online at https://www.caleemod.com/ . 13/14 ÐP suburban/urban ambient sound levels and therefore could cause a temporary increase above the threshold discussed above. For reference, typical suburban/urban background sound levels are 20 commonly on the order of 45 to 55 dBA during daytime hours and lower during nighttime hours. Because sound pressure levels from construction of a new hotel, which was needed due to a STR ban, have the potential to cause a temporary increase above the noise level threshold, more analysis is needed to evaluate specific impacts and potential mitigation. While construction may be exempt from the noise ordinance during daytime hours, the table below shows that the construction could have a significant noise impact on the community. Furthermore, if any nighttime construction activity is needed for the hotel, the noise levels below show that threshold for nighttime work in the noise ordinance would be exceeded. Table 7. Noise Impacts from Construction Activity Avg. Equip Equip Total Total Total Usage Lmax Acoustical Construction Size, SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ Equipment Type Qty Hours SPL @ Use Phase Hp 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 500 ft per 50 ft Factor dBA dBA dBA dBA Day dBA wǒĬĬĻƩ źƩĻķ 5ƚǩĻƩƭ Ќ Б ЌЏА БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЏ {źƷĻ 89 79 ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ tƩĻƦğƩğƷźƚƓ Ѝ Б БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЏ ƉŷƚĻƭ 9ǣĭğǝğƷƚƩƭ Ћ Б ЌЏ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЍ DƩğķĻƩƭ Њ Б ЊЍБ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЊ wǒĬĬĻƩ źƩĻķ 5ƚǩĻƩƭ Њ Б ЌЏА БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЊ DƩğķźƓŭ 90 80 {ĭƩğƦĻƩƭ Ћ Б ЍЋЌ БЎ ЍЉі БЊ БЍ ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ Ћ Б БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЌ ƉŷƚĻƭ /ƩğƓĻƭ Њ А ЌЏА БЌ ЊЏі АЎ АЎ CƚƩƉƌźŅƷƭ Ќ Б БЋ АЎ ЍЉі АЊ АЏ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ DĻƓĻƩğƷƚƩ {ĻƷƭ Њ Б ЊЍ БЋ ЎЉі АВ АВ 87 77 /ƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ƩğĭƷƚƩƭΉ\[ƚğķĻƩƭΉ.ğĭ Ќ А БЍ БЍ ЍЉі БЉ БЎ ƉŷƚĻƭ ‘ĻƌķĻƩƭ Њ Б ЍЏ АЍ ЍЉі АЉ АЉ tğǝĻƩƭ Ћ Б БЊ БЎ ЎЉі БЋ БЎ tğǝźƓŭ tğǝźƓŭ 9ƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ Ћ Џ БВ БЎ ЎЉі БЋ БЎ 89 79 wƚƌƌĻƩƭ Ћ Џ ЌЏ БЎ ЋЉі АБ БЊ 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Noise, December 31, 1971. 14/14 APPENDIX Confidential e 2 CO 443% 2.5 6 PM 10 PM x SO CO x Hotel to serve the same Population NO 443%443%444%444%444% sions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools Percent Increase of Operational Emissions from STR to VOC 442% r STR (Airbtics). In order to compare STR and Hotel VMT on an travel two additional miles to get to their Hotel compared to a umes on average one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. STR - short term rentalVOC - volatile organic compounds VMT - vehicle miles traveled equivalents. Emissions were determined using EMFAC2021 emission p and gram per mile emission factors for each pollutant. 5 VMT Peak Daily (miles/day) 4 Trips ) (one-way trips/day) Peak Daily 2 3 Trips Rate (trips/day) 2 Trip (miles) Distance 1 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter - particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter - nitrogen oxide compounds (NO + NO 5,6008.87.9914,915131,086 - sulfur oxide compounds x x 2.510 Capacity Population NOPMPMSO Unit Hotel Rooms Quantity 1 5.61,000STRs5,6006.83.553,55024,101 Rate Population (per STR or hotel room) Ļ Ώ ĭğƩĬƚƓ ķźƚǣźķĻ ĻƨǒźǝğƌĻƓƷƭ Hotel3.01,867 Rental Ћ Land Use There are approximately 1,000 active short-term rentals within the City of Santa Ana and the average capacity is 5.6 people pe Trip distances assume CalEEMod default trip length assumptions in Santa Ana. For this comparison, it is assumed visitors must Daily trip rate for Recreational Homes (ITE Land Use 260) and Hotel (ITE Land Use 310). The number of peak daily trips were determined by multiplying the trip rate by the number of STRs or number of hotel rooms. The number of peak daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were determined by multiplying the daily trips by the trip length. The percent increase from short term rentals compared to hotels were calcuated for criteria air pollutants and carbon dioxide Short Term Appendix Table A1: VMT and Mobile Emissions Comparison of Short Term Rentals and Hotels 1 equivalent per capita basis, the number of hotel rooms required to accommodate the total STR capacity is 1,867 hotels. This ass 2 short term rental.3456 factors for Orange County in 2027. The variation in the percent increase between pollutants is due to the ratio of gram per triAbbreviations:CalEEMod - California Emissions Estimator ModelCO - carbon monoxideCOITE - Institute of Transportation EngineersReferences:https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20anaITE. Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition.California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emis Appendix Table A2: VMT and Fuel Consumption Comparison of Short Term Rentals and Hotels 2 Fuel Consuption 1,2 Fuel Percent of Fleet (gallons per mile) 0.055 Gasoline95% Diesel5% 0.031 3 Gasoline Consumption Diesel Consumption Peak Daily VMT Land Use 44 (miles/day)(gal)(gal) Short Term Rental24,1011,27236 Hotel131,0866,916197 1 Gasoline includes gasoline fueled vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Natural gas is excluded from this analysis due to the negligible VMT from natural gas vehicles. 2 The fleet mix and fuel consumption per mile is determined using EMFAC2021 for Santa Ana in 2027. The fuel consumption rate is weighted based on fleet type. 3 The number of peak daily VMT were determined in Appendix Table A1. 4 Gasoline and diesel consumption are calculated by multiplying the VMT by the fuel-specific percentage and then by the weighted fuel consumption factor (gal/VMT) derived from EMFAC output. Abbreviations: STR - short term rental VMT - vehicle miles traveled gal - gallon References: California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools APPENDIX Confidential HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1 /45 HotelDetailedReport 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated2.4. OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated3.1.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated3.3.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated3.5.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated3.7. BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated3.9.Paving(2027)-Unmitigated TableofContents 1.BasicProjectInformation2.EmissionsSummary3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 2 /45 4.1.1.Unmitigated4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.3.1.Unmitigated4.4.1.Unmitigated4.5.1.Unmitigated4.6.1.Unmitigated4.7.1.Unmitigated 3.11.ArchitecturalCoating(2027)-Unmitigated4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse4.2.Energy4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse4.7.Of froadEmissionsByEquipmentType4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 3 /45 4.8.1.Unmitigated4.9.1.Unmitigated4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-Unmitigated4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-Unmitigated4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsby Species-Unmitigated5.2.1.Unmitigated5.3.1.Unmitigated5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities 4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment5.3.ConstructionVehicles5.4.Vehicles5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMit igation 5.ActivityData HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 4 /45 5.10.1.1.Unmitigated 5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies5.9.1.Unmitigated5.10.1.Hearths5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment5.11.1.Unmitigated5.12.1.Unmitigated5.13.1.Unmitigated5.14.1.Unmitiga ted 5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors5.9.OperationalMobileSources5.10.OperationalAreaSources5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewat erConsumption5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5 /45 5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 5.15.1.Unmitigated5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.2.Sequestration 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment5.16.StationarySources5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation6.1.ClimateRiskSummary6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 6 /45 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores7.4.Health&EquityMeasures7.5.EvaluationScorecard7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails8.UserChangestoDefaultData Description Population HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 SpecialLandscapeArea(sqft) LandscapeArea(sqft) ValueHotel1/1/20262027ÏProject/site2.5018.6SantaAna,CA,USAOrangeSantaAnaSouthCoastAQMDSouthCoast59907SouthernCaliforniaEdisonSouthernCaliforniaGas2022.1.1.29 7 /45 BuildingArea(sqft) LotAcreage Unit Size DataFieldProjectNameConstructionStartDateOperationalYearLeadAgencyLandUseScaleAnalysisLevelforDefaultsCountyWindspeed(m/s)Precipitation(days)LocationCountyCityAirDistrictAirBasinTAZEDFZElectricUtilit yGasUtilityAppVersionLandUseSubtypeHotel250Room2.30363,0000.00ÏÏÏ 1.BasicProjectInformation 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 8 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx 250Space2.30100,0000.00ÏÏÏ ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG EnclosedParkingwithElevatorUn/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.17117112.924.40.040.403.193.590.370.781.14Ï7,3107,3100.250.4515.07,464Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.14.74.8016889.60.812.6950.353.02.5918.621.2Ï118,0 90118,0908.7317.95.92123,638AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.9.899.7813.818.10.050.373.884.240.341.261.60Ï7,8607,8600.400.766.638,104Annual(Max)Unmit.1.801.792.523.300.010.070.710.770.060.230.29Ï1,3011,3010.07 0.131.101,342Year 1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector Nomeasuresselected 2.EmissionsSummary 2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual) andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 9 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily-Summer(Max)20262.141.7812.924.40.040.403.193.590.370.781.14Ï7,3107,3100.250.4515.07,464202717117112.323.70.040.353.193.540.330.781.10Ï7,2237,2230.240.4313.57,371Daily-Winter(Max)202614.74.80168 89.60.812.6950.353.02.5918.621.2Ï118,090118,0908.7317.95.92123,63820272.061.6312.422.40.040.353.193.540.330.781.10Ï7,1047,1040.240.430.357,239AverageDaily20261.861.3413.818.10.050.373.884.240.341.261 .60Ï7,8607,8600.400.766.638,10420279.899.783.115.630.010.090.730.820.080.180.26Ï1,6711,6710.060.101.321,702AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ20260.340.252.523.300.010.070.710.770.060.230.29Ï1,3011,3010.070.131 .101,34220271.801.790.571.03<0.0050.020.130.150.020.030.05Ï2772770.010.020.22282Un/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.12.612.22.9822.50.020.250.000.250.240.000.2485.98,6518,7379.420.105679,568Daily,Winter(Ma x)Unmit.9.028.872.822.360.020.210.000.210.210.000.2185.98,5688,6549.410.105679,485AverageDaily(Max) 2.4.OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 10 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Unmit.11.511.12.9316.20.020.240.000.240.230.000.2385.98,6258,7119.420.105679,542Annual(Max)Unmit.2.092.030.532.95<0.0050.040.000.040.040.000.0414.21,4281,4421.560.0293.91,580SectorDaily,Summer(Max)Mo bile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area12.312.00.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1Energy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,5270 .790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total12.612.22.9822.50.020.250.000.250.240.000.2485.98,6518,7379.420.105679, 568Daily,Winter(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area8.718.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEnergy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,5270.790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total9.028.872.822.360.020.210.000.210.210.000.2185.98,5688,6549.410.105679,485AverageDaily 2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 11 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area11.211.00.1213.8<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï56.756.7<0.005<0.005Ï56.9Energy0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï8,5278,52 70.790.07Ï8,566WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Total11.511.12.9316.20.020.240.000.240.230.000.2385.98,6258,7119.420.10567 9,542AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area2.042.000.022.52<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42Energy0.060.030.5 10.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï1,4121,4120.130.01Ï1,418WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.993.9Total2.092.030.532.95<0.0050.0 40.000.040.040.000.0414.21,4281,4421.560.0293.91,580LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max) 3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails 3.1.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 5,316 Ï 0.04 0.21 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5,298 5,298 Ï 1.14 Ï 12 /45 1.14 1.24 Ï 1.24 0.05 28.8 29.2 3.14 3.74ÏÏÏÏÏÏ20.320.3Ï10.210.2ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.100.090.800.79<0.0050.03Ï0.030.03Ï0.03Ï1451450.01<0.005Ï146ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.560.56Ï0. 280.28ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.020.150.14<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï24.024.0<0.005<0.005Ï24.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.100.10Ï0.050.05ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Off-RoadEquipmDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckOffsiteDai ly,Summer(Max) ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 13 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.961.6515.017.40.030.65Ï0.650.59Ï0.59Ï2,9602,9600.120.02Ï2,970 Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.060.060.060.800.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï217217<0.0050.010.02219Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling10.91.5913960.00.761.4529. 731.21.458.349.78Ï112,575112,5758.5117.85.90118,102AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï6.026.02<0.005<0.0050.016.10Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.300.043.851.630.020.040.810.850.040.230.27Ï3,0843,0840.230.492.693,238AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.005<0.0050.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï1 .001.00<0.005<0.005<0.0051.01Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.050.010.700.30<0.0050.010.150.150.010.040.05Ï5115110.040.080.45536LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.3.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï 3.42 3.42 14 /45 Ï 7.08 7.08 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.160.141.231.43<0.0050.05Ï0.050.05Ï0.05Ï2432430.01<0.005Ï244ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.580.58Ï0.280.28ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.030.020.220.26<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï40.340.3<0.005<0.005Ï40.4ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.110.11Ï0.050.05ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000 .000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ DustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max) Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.050.050.050.680.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï186186<0.0050.010.02188 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 15 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079. 8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,405 Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.060.000.00 0.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï15.515.5<0.005<0.0050.0215.7Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.0 00.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.562.56<0.005<0.005<0.0052.60Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.5.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 16 /45 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.770.655.967.840.010.23Ï0.230.21Ï0.21Ï1,4501,4500.060.01Ï1,4550.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.140.121.091.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2402400.01<0.005Ï2410.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.670.660.5910.20.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,5322,5320.030.098.8 02,569Vendor0.190.052.421.210.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3802,3800.120.346.152,489Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.670.660.688.84 0.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,4102,4100.030.090.232,438Vendor0.180.052.521.240.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3812,3810.120.340.162,485Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000 .000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.400.390.415.560.000.001.521.520.000.360.36Ï1,4771,4770.020.062.301,497Vendor0.110.031.540.740.010.010.390.400.010.110.12Ï1,4401,4400.070.201.611,503 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 17 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.3 40.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.270.222.042.810.010.07Ï0.070.07Ï0.07Ï5215210.02<0.005Ï522 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.070.070.071.010.000.000.280.280.000.060.06Ï245245<0.0050.010.38248Vendor0.020.010.280.14<0. 005<0.0050.070.07<0.0050.020.02Ï2382380.010.030.27249Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsi tetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipment 3.7.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 18 /45 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.050.040.370.51<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï86.286.2<0.005<0.005Ï86.50.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.0 00.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.650.560.589.620.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,4902,4900.030.097.892,526Vendor0.180.052.331.160.020.020.65 0.670.020.180.20Ï2,3362,3360.120.325.592,440Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.650.550.608.270.000.002.542.540.000.600.60Ï2,3692,3690 .030.090.212,398Vendor0.180.052.431.180.020.020.650.670.020.180.20Ï2,3372,3370.120.320.142,435Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.140.120.1 51.870.000.000.550.550.000.130.13Ï5225220.010.020.74529Vendor0.040.010.530.25<0.005<0.0050.140.14<0.0050.040.04Ï5085080.030.070.52529Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000. 000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.030.020.030.340.000.000.100.100.000.020.02Ï86.486.4<0.005<0.0050.1287.5Vendor0.01<0.0050.100.05<0.005<0.0050.030.03<0.0050.010.01Ï84.084.0<0.0050.010.0987.6H auling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 19 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.790.666.098.830.010.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,3501,3500.050.01Ï1,3550.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.040.040. 330.48<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï74.074.0<0.005<0.005Ï74.20.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.010.060.09<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï12.312.3<0.005<0.005Ï12.3 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentPaving0.300.30ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentPaving0.020.02ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckAnnua lÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentPaving<0.005<0.005ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruck 3.9.Paving(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 20 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.140.110.831.13<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï134 OffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.070.060.060.990.000.000.260.260.000.060.06Ï256256<0.0050.010.81260Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.0 00.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.050.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï13.513.5<0.005<0.0050.0213.7Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0. 005<0.005Ï2.242.24<0.005<0.005<0.0052.27Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Location OnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.11.ArchitecturalCoating(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 21 /45 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 171 1710.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.010.010.050.06<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï7.327.32<0.005<0.005Ï7.349.369.36ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï1.211.21<0.005<0.005Ï1.221.711.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ArchitecturalOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max) Worker0.130.110.121.920.000.000.510.510.000.120.12Ï4984980.010.021.58505Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 22 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.090.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï26.326.3<0.005<0.0050.0426.7Vendor0.000.000 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.0 10.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.364.36<0.005<0.0050.014.41Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000. 00LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ4,8184,8180.460.06Ï4,846 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails 4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse 4.1.1.Unmitigated MobilesourceemissionsresultsarepresentedinSections2.6.Nofurtherdetailedbreakdownofemissionsisavailable.4.2.Energy 4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 352CO2e ÏR <0.005N2O 0.03CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 350CO2T 350NBCO2 ÏBCO2 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 23 /45 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3503500.03<0.005Ï352ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ58.058.00.01<0.005Ï58.3TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 EnclosedTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5,1685,1680.490.06Ï5,198Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ4,8184,8180.460.06Ï4,846EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5,1685,1680.490.06Ï5,198AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7987980.080.01Ï802EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8568560.080.01Ï861LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)Hotel0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368EnclosedPa rkingwithElevator 4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 24 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.787.78ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Total0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368Daily,Winter(Max)Hotel0.310.152.822.360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotal0.310.152.822. 360.020.21Ï0.210.21Ï0.21Ï3,3593,3590.300.01Ï3,368AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotel0.060.030.510.43<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï5565560.05<0.005Ï558EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotal0.060.030.510.43<0.0050.04Ï0 .040.04Ï0.04Ï5565560.05<0.005Ï558SourceDaily,Summer(Max)ConsumerProducts 4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource 4.3.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 25 /45 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï 0.94 0.943.583.310.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.787.78ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.940.94ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.421.42ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.170.17ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.410.022.5 2<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42 ArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal12.312.00.1720.1<0.0050.04Ï0.040.03Ï0.03Ï82.882.8<0.005<0.005Ï83.1Daily,Winter(Max)ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsTotal8.718.71ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnual ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal2.042.000.022.52<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï9.399.39<0.005<0.005Ï9.42 CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 26 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3Enclosed ParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.240.953.11.250.03Ï93.3AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.016.788.790.21<0.005Ï15.4 4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse 4.4.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 27 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258EnclosedPar kingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ73.80.0073.87.370.00Ï258AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7EnclosedParkingwithElevatorTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ12.20.0012.21.220.00Ï42.7 4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse 4.5.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 28 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567Daily,Winter(Max)HotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ567567AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHotelÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.99 3.9TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ93.993.9EquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.6.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.7.1.UnmitigatedCriteri aPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2eCO2e ÏRR ÏN2ON2O ÏCH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏCO2TCO2T ÏNBCO2NBCO2 ÏBCO2BCO2 ÏPM2.5TPM2.5T ÏPM2.5DPM2.5D 29 /45 ÏPM2.5EPM2.5E ÏPM10TPM10T ÏPM10DPM10D ÏPM10EPM10E ÏSO2SO2 ÏCOCO ÏNOxNOx ÏROGROG ÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG Daily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentType 4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.8.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.9.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 30 /45 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG Daily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏVegetationDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)Total ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏLandUse 4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType 4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.2.Abo veandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D 31 /45 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSpeciesDaily,Summer(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubt otalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsbySpecies-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï PhaseDescription Ï Ï HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï WorkDaysperPhase Ï Ï Ï DaysPerWeek Ï 32 /45 Ï EndDate Ï Ï Ï StartDate Ï Ï Ï PhaseType Ï ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏPhaseNameSitePreparationSitePreparation1/1/20261/14/20265.0010.0ÏGradingGrading1/15/20262/25/20265.0030.0ÏBuildingConstructionBuildingConstruction2/26/20264/21/202 75.00300ÏPavingPaving4/22/20275/19/20275.0020.0ÏArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoating5/20/20276/16/20275.0020.0Ï 5.ActivityData 5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment LoadFactor VehicleMix HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Horsepower HoursPerDay MilesperTrip NumberperDay 33 /45 One-WayTripsperDay EngineTier FuelTypeDieselAverage4.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage3.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage3.007.0084.00.37DieselAverage2.006.0010.00.56DieselAverage1.008.0084.00.37 TripType EquipmentTypehoeshoeshoesMixershoes PhaseNameSitePreparationRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage3.008.003670.40SitePreparationTractors/Loaders/BackGradingExcavatorsDieselAverage1.008.0036.00.38GradingGradersDieselAverage1.008.001480.41Gradin gRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage1.008.003670.40GradingTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionCranesDieselAverage1.007.003670.29BuildingConstructionForkliftsDieselAverage3.008.0082.00.20BuildingConst ructionGeneratorSetsDieselAverage1.008.0014.00.74BuildingConstructionTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionWeldersDieselAverage1.008.0046.00.45PavingPaversDieselAverage1.008.0081.00.42PavingPaving EquipmentDieselAverage2.006.0089.00.36PavingRollersDieselAverage2.006.0036.00.38PavingCementandMortarPavingTractors/Loaders/BackArchitecturalCoatingAirCompressorsDieselAverage1.006.0037.00.48PhaseNam e 5.2.1.Unmitigated 5.3.ConstructionVehicles 5.3.1.Unmitigated HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 34 /45 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SitePreparationSitePreparationWorker17.518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2SitePreparationVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTSitePreparationHauling1,64220.0HHDTSitePreparationOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTGradingGradingWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT 2GradingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTGradingHauling0.0020.0HHDTGradingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTBuildingConstructionBuildingConstructionWorker19418.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2BuildingConstructionVendor75.910.2HHDT,MHDTBuildingCons tructionHauling0.0020.0HHDTBuildingConstructionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPavingÏÏÏÏPavingWorker20.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2PavingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTPavingHauling0.0020.0HHDTPavingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTArchitecturalCoati ngArchitecturalCoatingWorker38.918.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2ArchitecturalCoatingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTArchitecturalCoatingHauling0.0020.0HHDTArchitecturalCoatingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDT 5.4.Vehicles ParkingAreaCoated(sqft)AcresPaved(acres) N2O HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialDemolished(sq.ft.)%Asphalt CH4 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)AcresGraded(acres) 35 /45 CO2 ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialExported(CubicYards)AreaPaved(acres) kWhperYear ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialImported(CubicYards) PhaseNameArchitecturalCoating0.000.00549,008182,0016,011PhaseNameSitePreparation0.00131,37315.00.00ÏGrading0.000.0090.00.00ÏPaving0.000.000.000.002.30LandUseHotel0.000%EnclosedParkingwithElevator2.30 100%Year20260.005320.03<0.005 5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities5.6.2.ConstructionEarth movingControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors kWhperYearandEmissionFactor(lb/MWh) VMT/Year NaturalGas(kBTU/yr) ParkingAreaCoated(sqft) VMT/Sunday HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 VMT/SaturdayValueN2O Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) VMT/Weekday CH4 36 /45 Trips/Year Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Trips/SundayUnitCO2 Trips/Saturday ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Electricity(kWh/yr) Trips/Weekday 20270.005320.03<0.005LandUseTypeTotalallLandUses0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)00.00549,008182,0016,011SeasonSnowDaysday/yr0.00SummerDaysday/yr250LandUse 5.9.OperationalMobileSources 5.9.1.Unmitigated 5.10.OperationalAreaSources 5.10.1.Hearths5.10.1.1.Unmitigated5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment 5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption 5.11.1.UnmitigatedElectricity(kWh/yr)andCO2andCH4andN2OandNaturalGas(kBTU/yr) TimesServiced HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ServiceLeakRate OutdoorWater(gal/year)Cogeneration(kWh/year) OperationsLeakRate Quantity(kg) 37 /45 GWP IndoorWater(gal/year)Waste(ton/year) RefrigerantR-134a1,4300.000.600.001.00R-410A2,0881.804.004.0018.0R-404A3,922<0.0057.507.5020.0 369,1433460.03300.00400.00 EquipmentTyperefrigeratorsand/orfreezersandheatpumpsandfreezers Hotel5,079,7143460.03300.004010,480,427EnclosedParkingwithElevatorLandUseHotel6,341,6930.00EnclosedParkingwithElevator0.000.00LandUseHotel137ÏEnclosedParkingwithElevator0.00ÏLandUseTypeHotelHousehold HotelOthercommercialA/CHotelWalk-inrefrigerators 5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption 5.12.1.Unmitigated 5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration 5.13.1.Unmitigated 5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment 5.14.1.Unmitigated LoadFactorLoadFactor AnnualHeatInput(MMBtu/yr) HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 FinalAcres HorsepowerHorsepower DailyHeatInput(MMBtu/day)FinalAcres HoursPerDayHoursperYear BoilerRating(MMBtu/hr)FuelTypeInitialAcres 38 /45 NumberperDayHoursperDay NumberInitialAcres EngineTierNumberperDay VegetationSoilType FuelType FuelTypeFuelType EquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeVegetationLandUseTypeBiomassCoverType 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment 5.15.1.Unmitigated 5.16.StationarySources 5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers 5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation 5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.1.Un mitigated5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.1.1.Unmitigated VulnerabilityScore .7miles(mi)by3.7mi. ouldbelighttomoderaterainfallif etal.,2017,CEC-500-2017-008),and derRCP8.5),andconsiderhistoricaldata rise,0.5meter,1.0meter,1.41meters oncentrationPathway(RCP)8.5which Averageconditions(CanESM2),Rangeof ymaximum/minimumtemperaturesfrom HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ialwildfireprobabilitiesforthegridcell.The ncrementsofsealevelrisecoupledwith NaturalGasSaved(btu/year) Unit AdaptiveCapacityScore ElectricitySaved(kWh/year) 39 /45 SensitivityScore ResultforProjectLocation Number ExposureScore100N/A TreeTypeClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeat9.03annualdaysofextremeheatExtremePrecipitation3.50annualdayswithprecipitationabove20mmSeaLevelRiseÏmetersofinundationdepthWildfire1.31annualhectaresburn edClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise100N/A 5.18.2.Sequestration5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport 6.1.ClimateRiskSummary Cal-Adaptmidcentury2040Î2059averageprojectionsforfourhazardsarereportedbelowforyourprojectlocation.Theseare underRepresentationCassumesGHGemissionswillcontinuetorisestronglythrough2050andthenplateauaround2100.TemperatureandExtremeHeatdataareforgridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.Theprojectionisbasedonthe9 8thhistoricalpercentileofdailobservedhistoricaldata(32climatemodelensemblefromCal-Adapt,2040Î2059averageunderRCP8.5). Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3ExtremePrecipitationdataareforthegridcellin whichyourprojectarelocated.Thethresholdof20mmisequivalenttoabout¾aninchofrain,whichwreceivedoverafulldayorheavyrainifreceivedoveraperiodof2to4hours.Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by 3.7mi.SeaLevelRisedataareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromRadkeetal.(2017),asreportedinCal-Adapt(RadkeconsiderinundationlocationanddepthfortheSanFranciscoBay,theSacrame nto-SanJoaquinRiverDeltaandCaliforniacoastresultingdifferentiextremestormevents.Usersmayselectfromfourscenariostoviewtherangeinpotentialinundationdepthforthegridcell.Thefourscenariosare:NoWildfiredat aareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromUCDavis,asreportedinCal-Adapt(2040Î2059averageunofclimate,vegetation,populationdensity,andlarge(>400ha)firehistory.Usersmayselectfr omfourmodelsimulationstoviewtherangeinpotentfoursimulationsmakedifferentassumptionsaboutexpectedrainfallandtemperatureare:Warmer/drier(HadGEM2-ES),Cooler/wetter(CNRM-CM5),differentrainfallandtemperat urepossibilities(MIROC5).Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by3.7mi.6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores VulnerabilityScore 1to5,withascoreof5representingthe1to5,withascoreof5representingthe udeimplementationofclimateriskreduction plementationofclimateriskreduction HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5 AdaptiveCapacityScore 40 /45 SensitivityScore 100N/A000N/AExposureScore111211121112 WildfireFloodingN/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradationClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise1112WildfireFlooding N/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradation Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonascaleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanage andreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvulnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityas sessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresdonotinclmeasures.6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonasc aleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanageandreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvu lnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityassessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresincludeimmeasures.6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails estate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ57.073.578.346.577.70.0087.544.2Ï94.80.000.0066.7Ï55.545.888.097.988.796.992.849.9 41 /45 IndicatorExposureIndicatorsAQ-OzoneAQ-PMAQ-DPMDrinkingWaterLeadRiskHousingPesticidesToxicReleasesTrafficEffectIndicatorsCleanUpSitesGroundwaterHazWasteFacilities/Generators86.4ImpairedWaterBodiesSoli dWasteSensitivePopulationAsthmaCardio-vascularLowBirthWeightsSocioeconomicFactorIndicatorsÏEducationHousingLinguisticPovertyUnemployment 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinth actsinthestate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ5.4151161349.839599645.838573078Ï10.6120877710045.81034262Ï2.66906197993.17336071Ï61.863210574.401385859Ï16.2710124535.8141922296.3557038494.2512511220.51841396Ï5.80007699 24.516874118 42 /45 IndicatorEconomicAbovePovertyEmployedMedianHIEducationBachelor'sorhigherHighschoolenrollmentPreschoolenrollmentTransportationAutoAccessActivecommutingSocial2-parenthouseholdsVotingNeighborhoodAlcohol availabilityParkaccessRetaildensitySupermarketaccessTreecanopyHousingHomeownershipHousinghabitabilityLow-inchomeownerseverehousingcostburden15.57808289Low-increnterseverehousingcostburden43.07712049 7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensustr HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.680995765Ï1.86064416854.349.458.087.614.811.995.739.745.17.314.819.994.317.3Ï57.09.30.00.0 43 /45 UncrowdedhousingHealthOutcomesInsuredadultsArthritisAsthmaERAdmissionsHighBloodPressureCancer(excludingskin)AsthmaCoronaryHeartDisease23.5ChronicObstructivePulmonaryDisease17.9DiagnosedDiabetesLifeEx pectancyatBirthCognitivelyDisabledPhysically DisabledHeartAttackERAdmissions78.5MentalHealthNotGoodChronicKidneyDiseaseObesityPedestrianInjuriesPhysicalHealthNotGood7.3StrokeHealthRiskBehaviorsBingeD rinkingCurrentSmokerNoLeisureTimeforPhysicalActivity3.2ClimateChangeExposuresÏWildfireRiskSLRInundationArea tractsinthestate. thestate. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.569.31.393.321.655.323.0Ï96.6Ï31.1ResultforProjectCensusTract 44 /45 ChildrenElderlyEnglishSpeakingForeign-bornOutdoorWorkersClimateChangeAdaptiveCapacityÏImperviousSurfaceCover11.1TrafficDensityTrafficAccessOtherIndicesHardshipOtherDecisionSupport2016VotingMetricCalE nviroScreen4.0ScoreforProjectLocation(a)90.0HealthyPlacesIndexScoreforProjectLocation(b)12.0ProjectLocatedinaDesignatedDisadvantagedCommunity(SenateBill535)YesProjectLocatedinaLow-IncomeCommunity(Ass emblyBill1550)YesProjectLocatedinaCommunityAirProtectionProgramCommunity(AssemblyBill617)No 7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores a:ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinb:ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.A highscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensus 7.4.Health&EquityMeasures NoHealth&EquityMeasuresselected.7.5.EvaluationScorecard Health&EquityEvaluationScoreca rdnotcompleted. HotelDetailedReport,11/13/2024 JustificationMorereflectiveofSantaAnaLotAcreage 45 /45 ScreenConstruction:ConstructionPhasesremoveddemolition.LandUseConstruction:DustFromMaterialMovementMorerepresentativeofSantaAna 7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures NoHealth&EquityCustomMeasurescreated.8.UserChangestoDefaultData SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1 /52 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated2.4. OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated3.1.Demolition(2026)-Unmitigated3.3.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated3.5.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated3.7.BuildingCo nstruction(2026)-Unmitigated3.9.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated TableofContents 1.BasicProjectInformation2.EmissionsSummary3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 2 /52 4.1.1.Unmitigated4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-Unmitigated4.3.1.Unmitigated4.4.1.Unmitigated4.5.1.Unmitigated4.6.1.Unmitigated 3.11.BuildingConstruction(2028)-Unmitigated3.13.BuildingConstruction(2029)-Unmitigated3.15.Paving(2029)-Unmitigated3.17.ArchitecturalCoating(2029)-Unmitigated4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse4.2.Energy4.3 .AreaEmissionsbySource4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 3 /52 4.7.1.Unmitigated4.8.1.Unmitigated4.9.1.Unmitigated4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-Unmitigated4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-Unmitigated4.10.3.AvoidedandSeque steredEmissionsbySpecies-Unmitigated5.2.1.Unmitigated5.3.1.Unmitigated5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies 4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipmen t5.3.ConstructionVehicles5.4.Vehicles 5.ActivityData SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 4 /52 5.10.1.1.Unmitigated 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies5.9.1.Unmitigated5.10.1.Hearths5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment5.11.1.Unmitigated5.12.1.Unmit igated 5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors5.9.OperationalMobileSources5.10.OperationalAreaSources5.11.OperationalEnergy Consumption5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 5 /52 5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.1.1.Unmitigated5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 5.13.1.Unmitigated5.14.1.Unmitigated5.15.1.Unmitigated5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.2.Sequestration 5.14.OperationalRefrigerationandAirConditioningEquipment5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment5.16.StationarySources5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation6.1.ClimateRiskSummary 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 6 /52 6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores7.4.Health&EquityMeasure s7.5.EvaluationScorecard7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails8.UserChangestoDefaultData Description Population SpecialLandscapeArea(sqft) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 LandscapeArea(sqft) ValueSingleFamilyResidence1/1/20262027ÏProject/site2.5018.6SantaAna,CA,USAOrangeSantaAnaSouthCoastAQMDSouthCoast59907SouthernCaliforniaEdisonSouthernCaliforniaGas2022.1.1.29 7 /52 BuildingArea(sqft) LotAcreage Unit Size134DwellingUnit43.5261,3001,569,523Ï750Ï DataFieldProjectNameConstructionStartDateOperationalYearLeadAgencyLandUseScaleAnalysisLevelforDefaultsCountyWindspeed(m/s)Precipitation(days)LocationCountyCityAirDistrictAirBasinTAZEDFZElectricUtilit yGasUtilityAppVersionLandUseSubtypeSingleFamilyHousing 1.BasicProjectInformation 1.1.BasicProjectInformation1.2.LandUseTypes CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 8 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ParkingLot134Space1.210.000.00ÏÏÏUn/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.30.230.129.229.70.061.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï6,8596,8590.270.113.346,885Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.30.230.129.229.60.051.2419.921.11.1410.21 1.3Ï5,5155,5150.220.110.095,536AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.5.105.0013.815.40.030.563.824.370.511.662.17Ï3,3363,3360.130.070.933,355Annual(Max)Unmit.0.930.912.522.810.010.100.700.800.090.300.40Ï5525520.020 .010.15555YearDaily-Summer(Max) 1.3.User-SelectedEmissionReductionMeasuresbyEmissionsSector Nomeasuresselected 2.EmissionsSummary 2.1.ConstructionEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual) andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)2.2.ConstructionEmissionsbyYear,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 9 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 20263.803.2029.229.70.061.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï6,8596,8590.270.113.346,88520271.431.189.9815.50.030.340.751.090.310.180.49Ï3,4563,4560.130.103.013,49220281.371.139.4715.40.030.300.751.060.280.180.4 6Ï3,4353,4350.130.082.703,465202930.230.19.1115.20.030.280.751.030.260.180.44Ï3,4133,4130.130.082.403,443Daily-Winter(Max)20263.803.2029.229.60.051.2419.921.11.1410.211.3Ï5,5155,5150.220.110.095,5362 0271.431.1810.0015.20.030.340.751.090.310.180.49Ï3,4263,4260.130.100.083,46020281.371.139.5115.10.030.300.751.060.280.180.46Ï3,4063,4060.130.100.073,440202930.230.19.1314.90.030.280.751.030.260.180.4 4Ï3,3843,3840.130.100.063,418AverageDaily20261.871.5813.815.40.030.563.824.370.511.662.17Ï3,3363,3360.130.050.563,35520271.020.847.1610.90.020.240.530.770.220.130.35Ï2,4532,4530.090.070.932,47820280. 980.816.8110.90.020.220.530.750.200.130.33Ï2,4452,4450.090.070.842,47020295.105.003.986.540.010.130.280.410.120.070.18Ï1,3611,3610.050.040.381,373AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ20260.340.292.522.810.010.100 .700.800.090.300.40Ï5525520.020.010.0955520270.190.151.311.99<0.0050.040.100.140.040.020.06Ï4064060.010.010.1541020280.180.151.241.98<0.0050.040.100.140.040.020.06Ï4054050.020.010.1440920290.930.910. 731.19<0.0050.020.050.070.020.010.03Ï2252250.010.010.06227Un/Mit.Daily,Summer(Max)Unmit.45.741.84.1576.30.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1436,51515.70.081.876,934 2.4.OperationsEmissionsComparedAgainstThresholds CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 10 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Unmit.45.041.14.0868.70.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1226,49415.70.081.876,914AverageDaily(Max)Unmit.9.348.981.5410.40.020.760.000.760.750.000.752032,9023,10512.20.041.873,425Ann ual(Max)Unmit.1.701.640.281.90<0.0050.140.000.140.140.000.1433.64805142.020.010.31567SectorDaily,Summer(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area45.641.72.85 75.80.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,4193,6743.740.05Ï3,781Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660.230.01Ï2,576WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï37 5Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total45.741.84.1576.30.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1436,51515.70.081.876,934Daily,Winter(Max)Mobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000. 000.00Area44.941.12.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660.230.01Ï2,576 2.5.OperationsEmissionsbySector,Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 11 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total45.041.14.0868.70.189.670.009.679.500.009.501,3725,1226,49415.70.081.876,914AverageDail yMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area9.198.900.249.880.010.66Ï0.660.65Ï0.6586.01782640.26<0.005Ï272Energy0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï2,5662,5660. 230.01Ï2,576WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Total9.348.981.5410.40.020.760.000.760.750.000.752032,9023,10512.20.041.873,425A nnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏMobile0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Area1.681.620.041.80<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.229.543.70.04<0.005Ï45.0Energy0.030.010.240.10<0.0050. 02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï4254250.04<0.005Ï427WaterÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.6026.127.70.17<0.005Ï33.1WasteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ17.80.0017.81.770.00Ï62.1Refrig.ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31Total1.701.640.281.90<0.0050.140.000.140.140.00 0.1433.64805142.020.010.31567LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 3.ConstructionEmissionsDetails 3.1.Demolition(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 12 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ2.722.2920.719.00.030.84Ï0.840.78Ï0.78Ï3,4273,4270.140.03Ï3,438ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.370.312.832.60<0.0050.12Ï0.120.11Ï0.11Ï4694690.02<0.005Ï471ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.520.48<0.005 0.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï77.777.7<0.005<0.005Ï78.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.00Ï0.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDemolitionOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Su mmer(Max) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 13 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3.743.1429.228.80.051.24Ï1.241.14Ï1.14Ï5,2985,2980.210.04Ï5,316ÏÏÏÏÏÏ19.719.7Ï10.110.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.050.050.050.680.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï186186<0.0050.010.02188Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000. 000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.100.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï25.825.8<0.005<0.0050.0426.2Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000. 000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.274.27<0.005<0.0050.01 4.33Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer (Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovement 3.3.SitePreparation(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.00 0.00 14 /52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ3.743.1429.228.80.051.24Ï1.241.14Ï1.14Ï5,2985,2980.210.04Ï5,316ÏÏÏÏÏÏ19.719.7Ï10.110.1ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏ0.310.262.402.37<0.0050.10Ï0.100.09Ï0.09Ï4354350.02<0.005Ï437ÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.621.62Ï0.830.83ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.060.050.440.43<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï 0.02Ï72.172.1<0.005<0.005Ï72.3ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.290.29Ï0.150.15ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 OnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMateri alMovementOnsitetruck CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 15 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.060.060.050.920.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï228228<0.0050.010.79231Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.0 00.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.060.060.060.800.000.000.230.230.000.050.05Ï217217<0.0050.010.02219Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.0 00.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.0050.010.070.000.000.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï18.118.1<0.005<0.0050.0318.3Vendor0 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.0 00.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.992.99<0.005<0.005<0.0053.03Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max) 3.5.Grading(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 6,621 Ï 0.05 0.27 6,599 6,599 Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.03 Ï 16 /52 1.03 1.12 Ï 1.12 0.06 27.6 27.2 3.04 3.62ÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.209.20Ï3.653.65ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.740.635.595.670.010.23Ï0.230.21Ï0.21Ï1,3561,3560.060.01Ï1, 361ÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.891.89Ï0.750.75ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.140.111.021.03<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2242240.01<0.005Ï225ÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.350.35Ï0.140.14ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000. 000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Off-RoadDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentDustFromMaterialMovementOnsitetruc kOffsite ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 17 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 Daily,Summer(Max)Worker0.070.070.061.050.000.000.260.260.000.060.06Ï260260<0.0050.010.91264Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000. 000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010.190.000.000.050.050.000.010.01Ï51.651.6<0.005<0.0050.0852.3Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000. 00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.040.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï8.558.55<0. 005<0.0050.018.66Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruck 3.7.BuildingConstruction(2026)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 18 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.281.079.8513.00.020.38Ï0.380.35Ï0.35Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.360.302.803.680.010.11Ï0.110. 10Ï0.10Ï6806800.030.01Ï6830.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.510.67<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï113113<0.005<0.005Ï1130.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.170.160.152.540.000.000.630.63 0.000.150.15Ï6286280.010.022.18637Vendor0.040.010.460.23<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4494490.020.061.16470Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winte r(Max)Worker0.170.160.172.190.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5985980.010.020.06605 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 19 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039.3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.231.039. 3912.90.020.34Ï0.340.31Ï0.31Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,405 Vendor0.030.010.480.23<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4504500.020.060.03469Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.050.050.050.650.000.000.1 80.180.000.040.04Ï172172<0.0050.010.27174Vendor0.01<0.0050.140.07<0.005<0.0050.030.04<0.0050.010.01Ï1281280.010.020.14133Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00An nualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.010.010.010.120.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï28.528.5<0.005<0.0050.0428.8Vendor<0.005<0.0050.020.01<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï21.121.1<0.005<0.0050.0222.0Hauli ng0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipment 3.9.BuildingConstruction(2027)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 20 /52 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.880.746.719.240.020.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,7121,7120.070.01Ï1,7180.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.160.131.221.69<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2832830.01<0.005Ï2840.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.160.140.142.390.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï6186180.010.021.96627 Vendor0.030.010.440.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4414410.020.061.05461Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.160.140.152.050.000. 000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5885880.010.020.05595Vendor0.030.010.460.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4414410.020.060.03460Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00A verageDailyWorker0.110.100.121.530.000.000.450.450.000.100.10Ï4264260.010.020.60431Vendor0.020.010.330.16<0.005<0.0050.090.09<0.0050.020.03Ï3153150.020.040.32329 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 21 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.180.998.9212.90.020.30Ï0.300.28Ï0.28Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.180.998.9212.90.020.30Ï0.3 00.28Ï0.28Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.850.716.399.260.020.22Ï0.220.20Ï0.20Ï1,7171,7170.070.01Ï1,723 Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.020.020.020.280.000.000.080.080.000.020.02Ï70.570.5<0.005<0.0050.1071.4Vendor<0.005<0.0050. 060.03<0.005<0.0050.020.02<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï52.252.2<0.0050.010.0554.4Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off -RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipment 3.11.BuildingConstruction(2028)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 22 /52 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.150.131.171.69<0.0050.04Ï0.040.04Ï0.04Ï2842840.01<0.005Ï2850.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ OnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.160.130.122.250.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï6076070.01<0.0051.75609Vendor0.030.010.420.21<0.005<0.0050.12 0.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4314310.020.060.95450Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.160.130.151.930.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5775770.010.020 .05584Vendor0.030.010.440.22<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4314310.020.060.02450Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.110.100.101.450.000 .000.450.450.000.100.10Ï4194190.010.020.54425Vendor0.020.010.320.15<0.005<0.0050.090.09<0.0050.020.03Ï3093090.020.040.29322Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.020.020.020.260.000.000.080.080.000.020.02Ï69.469.4<0.005<0.0050.0970.3Vendor<0.005<0.0050.060.03<0.005<0.0050.020.02<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï51.151.1<0.0050.010.0553.3Hauli ng0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 23 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.150.978.5812.90.020.28Ï0.280.25Ï0.25Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.150.978.5812.90.020.28Ï0.2 80.25Ï0.25Ï2,3972,3970.100.02Ï2,4050.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.360.302.704.060.010.09Ï0.090.08Ï0.08Ï7557550.030.01Ï7580.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.070.060.490.74<0.0050.02Ï0.020.01Ï0.01Ï1251250.01<0.005Ï125 LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquip ment 3.13.BuildingConstruction(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 24 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOG OnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.150.130.122.120.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5965960.01<0.0051.56599Vendor0.030.010.400.20<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0050.030.04Ï4194190.020.060.85439Hauling0.000 .000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.150.130.121.820.000.000.630.630.000.150.15Ï5685680.010.020.04575Vendor0.030.010.420.21<0.005<0.0050.120.13<0.0 050.030.04Ï4204200.020.060.02438Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker0.050.040.040.600.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï181181<0.0050.010.21184Vendo r0.01<0.0050.130.06<0.005<0.0050.040.04<0.0050.010.01Ï1321320.010.020.12138Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker0.010.010.010.110. 000.000.040.040.000.010.01Ï30.030.0<0.005<0.0050.0430.4Vendor<0.005<0.0050.020.01<0.005<0.0050.010.01<0.005<0.005<0.005Ï21.921.9<0.005<0.0050.0222.9Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 3.15.Paving(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï 25 /52 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï0.800.676.469.920.010.24Ï0.240.22Ï0.22Ï1,5111,5110.060.01Ï1,5160.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.971.49<0.0050.04Ï0.0 40.03Ï0.03Ï2282280.01<0.005Ï2280.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.020.180.27<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï37.737.7<0.005<0.005Ï37.80.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 .000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentPaving0.060.06ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckDaily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentPaving0.010.01ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquip mentPaving<0.005<0.005ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOnsitetruckOffsiteDaily,Summer(Max)Worker0.050.040.040.660.000.000.200.200.000.050.05Ï185185<0.005<0.0050.48186 CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 26 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.791.11<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï13430.030.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)AverageDailyWorker0.010.010.010 .090.000.000.030.030.000.010.01Ï27.027.0<0.005<0.0050.0327.3Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.020.000.000.010.010.00<0.005<0.005Ï4.464.46<0.005<0.0050.014.52Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.0 0Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00LocationOnsiteÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Summer(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruck 3.17.ArchitecturalCoating(2029)-Unmitigated CriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 27 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.120.100.791.11<0.0050.01Ï0.010.01Ï0.01Ï1341340.01<0.005Ï13430.030.0ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.020.020 .120.17<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï20.120.1<0.005<0.005Ï20.24.524.52ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00<0.005<0.0050.020.03<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0 .005Ï<0.005Ï3.333.33<0.005<0.005Ï3.340.830.83ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)Off-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAverageDailyOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruckAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏOff-RoadEquipmentArchitecturalCoatingsOnsitetruc kOffsite SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 28 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Worker0.030.030.020.420.000.000.130.130.000.030.03Ï119119<0.005<0.0050.31120Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Daily,Winter(Max)Worker0.030.030.020.360.000.000.130.130.000.030.03Ï114114<0.005<0.0050.01115Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000. 000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AverageDailyWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.060.000.000.020.020.00<0.005<0.005Ï17.317.3<0.005<0.0050.0217.6Vendor0. 000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏWorker<0.005<0.005<0.0050.010.00 0.00<0.005<0.0050.00<0.005<0.005Ï2.872.87<0.005<0.005<0.0052.91Vendor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000.000.000.000.00Hauling0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.000 .000.000.000.00 4.OperationsEmissionsDetails 4.1.MobileEmissionsbyLandUse 4.1.1.Unmitigated MobilesourceemissionsresultsarepresentedinSections2.6.Nofurtherdetailedbreakdownofemissionsisavailable.4.2.Energy CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5T PM2.5D 29 /52 PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8768760.080.01Ï881ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ43.643.6<0.005<0.005Ï43.9ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ8768760.080.01Ï881ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ43.643.6<0.005<0.005Ï43.9ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1451450.01<0.0 05Ï146ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ7.237.23<0.005<0.005Ï7.27 LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9209200.090.01Ï925Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9209200.090.01Ï925AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingle FamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1521520.01<0.005Ï153 4.2.1.ElectricityEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.2.3.NaturalGasEmissionsByLandUse-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants (lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 30 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,6510.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0 .10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,6510.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.030.010.240.10<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï2732730.02<0.005Ï2730.000.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.000.00Ï0.00Ï0.000.000 .000.00Ï0.00TOG LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,651Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.150.081.300.550.010.10Ï 0.100.10Ï0.10Ï1,6461,6460.15<0.005Ï1,651AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotal0.030.010.240.10<0.0050.02Ï0.020.02Ï0.02Ï2732730.02<0.005Ï273Source 4.3.AreaEmissionsbySource 4.3.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Ï Ï 31 /52 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï5.605.60ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.45ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.700.670.077.61<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï20.320.3<0.005<0.005Ï20.4ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ5.605.60ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.450.45ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.021.02ÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Summer(Max)Hearths38.835.02.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsLandscapeEquipmentTotal45.641.72.8575.80.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,419 3,6743.740.05Ï3,781Daily,Winter(Max)Hearths38.835.02.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,3983,6533.740.05Ï3,761ConsumerProductsArchitecturalCoatingsTotal44.941.12.7868.10.179.57Ï9.579.39Ï9.391,2552,39 83,6533.740.05Ï3,761AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏHearths0.490.440.030.85<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.227.241.40.04<0.005Ï42.6ConsumerProducts ÏCO2e ÏR ÏN2O ÏCH4 ÏCO2T ÏNBCO2 ÏBCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 32 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx 0.08ROG 0.080.090.080.010.95<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005<0.005Ï<0.005Ï2.302.30<0.005<0.005Ï2.31TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9. 641581671.000.03Ï200ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00 ArchitecturalLandscapeEquipmentTotal1.681.620.041.80<0.0050.12Ï0.120.12Ï0.1214.229.543.70.04<0.005Ï45.0LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200Daily ,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ9.641581671.000.03Ï200AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.4.WaterEmissionsbyLandUse 4.4.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 33.1CO2e ÏR <0.005N2O 0.17CH4 27.7CO2T 26.1NBCO2 1.60BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 33 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000. 000.000.00Ï0.00 SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.6026.127.70.17<0.005Ï33.1LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousing ParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1070.0010710.70.00Ï375AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.5.WasteEmissionsbyLandUse 4.5.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) 62.1CO2e ÏR 0.00N2O 1.77CH4 17.8CO2T 0.00NBCO2 17.8BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5T ÏPM2.5D 34 /52 ÏPM2.5E ÏPM10T ÏPM10D ÏPM10E ÏSO2 ÏCO ÏNOx ÏROG ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.000.000.000.000.00Ï0.00TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31 SingleFamilyHousingParkingLotTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ17.80.0017.81.770.00Ï62.1LandUseDaily,Summer(Max)SingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ1.871.87Daily,Winter(Max)SingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 1.871.87AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSingleFamilyHousingTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ0.310.31 4.6.RefrigerantEmissionsbyLandUse 4.6.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 35 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ EquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily, Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.7.OffroadEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.7.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.8.StationaryEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.8.1.UnmitigatedCr iteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) CO2eCO2e RR N2ON2O CH4CH4 CO2TCO2T NBCO2NBCO2 BCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 PM2.5TPM2.5T PM2.5DPM2.5D 36 /52 PM2.5EPM2.5E PM10TPM10T PM10DPM10D PM10EPM10E SO2SO2 COCO NOxNOx ROGROG TOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ AnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏEquipmentTypeDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏVegetationDa ily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 4.9.UserDefinedEmissionsByEquipmentType 4.9.1.UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType 4.10.1.SoilCarbonAccumulationByVegetationType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) ÏCO2eCO2e ÏRR ÏN2ON2O ÏCH4CH4 ÏCO2TCO2T ÏNBCO2NBCO2 ÏBCO2BCO2 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ÏPM2.5TPM2.5T ÏPM2.5DPM2.5D 37 /52 ÏPM2.5EPM2.5E ÏPM10TPM10T ÏPM10DPM10D ÏPM10EPM10E ÏSO2SO2 ÏCOCO ÏNOxNOx ÏROGROG ÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTOGÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ Daily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏTotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏLandUseDaily,Summer(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)TotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏT otalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSpeciesDaily,Summer(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequestered 4.10.2.AboveandBelowgroundCarbonAccumulationbyLandUseType-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual)4.10.3.AvoidedandSequesteredEmissionsbySpe cies-UnmitigatedCriteriaPollutants(lb/dayfordaily,ton/yrforannual)andGHGs(lb/dayfordaily,MT/yrforannual) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 38 /52 ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ SubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏDaily,Winter(Max)AvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAnnualÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏAvoidedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏSequesteredSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏRemovedSubtotalÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ 5.ActivityData LoadFactor PhaseDescription Horsepower WorkDaysperPhase SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 HoursPerDay DaysPerWeek NumberperDay 39 /52 EndDate EngineTier StartDate FuelTypeDieselAverage1.008.0033.00.73DieselAverage4.008.0084.00.37DieselAverage2.008.0084.00.37 PhaseType EquipmentTypeSawshoeshoes PhaseNameDemolitionDemolition1/1/20263/12/20265.0050.0ÏSitePreparationSitePreparation3/13/20264/24/20265.0030.0ÏGradingGrading4/25/20268/8/20265.0075.0ÏBuildingConstructionBuildingConstruction8/9/202 66/10/20295.00740ÏPavingPaving6/11/20298/27/20295.0055.0ÏArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoating8/28/202911/13/20295.0055.0ÏPhaseNameDemolitionConcrete/IndustrialDemolitionExcavatorsDieselAverage3.0 08.0036.00.38DemolitionRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage2.008.003670.40SitePreparationRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage3.008.003670.40SitePreparationTractors/Loaders/BackGradingExcavatorsDieselAverage2.008 .0036.00.38GradingGradersDieselAverage1.008.001480.41GradingRubberTiredDozersDieselAverage1.008.003670.40GradingScrapersDieselAverage2.008.004230.48GradingTractors/Loaders/BackBuildingConstructionCra nesDieselAverage1.007.003670.29BuildingConstructionForkliftsDieselAverage3.008.0082.00.20BuildingConstructionGeneratorSetsDieselAverage1.008.0014.00.74 5.1.ConstructionSchedule5.2.Off-RoadEquipment 5.2.1.Unmitigated VehicleMix SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 MilesperTrip 40 /52 One-WayTripsperDay TripTypeÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ BuildingConstructionTractors/Loaders/BackDieselAverage3.007.0084.00.37BuildingConstructionWeldersDieselAverage1.008.0046.00.45PavingPaversDieselAverage2.008.0081.00.42PavingPavingEquipmentDieselAvera ge2.008.0089.00.36PavingRollersDieselAverage2.008.0036.00.38ArchitecturalCoatingAirCompressorsDieselAverage1.006.0037.00.48PhaseNameDemolitionDemolitionWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2DemolitionVendorÏ10. 2HHDT,MHDTDemolitionHauling0.0020.0HHDTDemolitionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTSitePreparationSitePreparationWorker17.518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2SitePreparationVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTSitePreparationHauling0.0020.0HHDTSitePre parationOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTGradingGradingWorker20.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2GradingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTGradingHauling0.0020.0HHDTGradingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTBuildingConstructionBuildingConstructionWorker48.218.5LD A,LDT1,LDT2 5.3.ConstructionVehicles 5.3.1.Unmitigated ParkingAreaCoated(sqft)AcresPaved(acres) Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialDemolished(sq.ft.) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)AcresGraded(acres) 41 /52 ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialExported(cy) ÏÏÏÏ ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft)MaterialImported(cy) BuildingConstructionVendor14.310.2HHDT,MHDTBuildingConstructionHauling0.0020.0HHDTBuildingConstructionOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPavingÏÏÏÏPavingWorker15.018.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2PavingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTPavingHauli ng0.0020.0HHDTPavingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTArchitecturalCoatingArchitecturalCoatingWorker9.6518.5LDA,LDT1,LDT2ArchitecturalCoatingVendorÏ10.2HHDT,MHDTArchitecturalCoatingHauling0.0020.0HHDTArchitecturalCoa tingOnsitetruckÏÏHHDTPhaseNameArchitecturalCoating529,133176,3780.000.003,152PhaseNameDemolition0.000.000.00ÏÏ 5.4.Vehicles 5.4.1.ConstructionVehicleControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.5.ArchitecturalCoatings5.6.DustMitigation 5.6.1.ConstructionEarthmovingActivities VMT/Year N2O VMT/Sunday %AsphaltVMT/Saturday SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 CH4 VMT/Weekday 42 /52 Trips/Year CO2 AreaPaved(acres)Trips/Sunday Trips/Saturday kWhperYear Trips/Weekday SitePreparationÏÏ45.00.00ÏGradingÏÏ2250.00ÏPaving0.000.000.000.002.68LandUseSingleFamilyHousing1.480%ParkingLot1.21100%Year20260.005320.03<0.00520270.005320.03<0.00520280.005320.03<0.00520290.005320. 03<0.005LandUseTypeTotalallLandUses0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 5.6.2.ConstructionEarthmovingControlStrategies Non-applicable.Nocontrolstrategiesactivatedbyuser.5.7.ConstructionPaving5.8.ConstructionElectricityConsumptionandEmissionsFactors kWhperYearandEmissionF actor(lb/MWh)5.9.OperationalMobileSources 5.9.1.Unmitigated 5.10.OperationalAreaSources ParkingAreaCoated(sqft) Value SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 Non-ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Unmitigated(number)Ï7114001370 43 /52 Non-ResidentialInteriorAreaCoated(sqft) Unit ResidentialExteriorAreaCoated(sqft) HearthTypeSingleFamilyHousingWoodFireplacesGasFireplacesPropaneFireplacesElectricFireplacesNoFireplacesConventionalWoodStoves0CatalyticWoodStovesNon-CatalyticWoodStoves7PelletWoodStovesResidentialInt eriorAreaCoated(sqft)529132.5176,3780.000.003,152SeasonSnowDaysday/yr0.00SummerDaysday/yr250 5.10.1.Hearths5.10.1.1.Unmitigated5.10.2.ArchitecturalCoatings5.10.3.LandscapeEquipment 5.11.OperationalEnergyConsumption 5.11.1.Unmitigated TimesServiced NaturalGas(kBTU/yr) ServiceLeakRate N2OOutdoorWater(gal/year)Cogeneration(kWh/year) SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 OperationsLeakRate CH4Quantity(kg) 44 /52 GWP CO2IndoorWater(gal/year)Waste(ton/year) RefrigerantR-410A2,088<0.0052.502.5010.0R-134a1,4300.120.600.001.00 Electricity(kWh/yr) EquipmentTypeOtherresidentialA/Candheatpumpsrefrigeratorsand/orfreezers LandUseSingleFamilyHousing923,9493460.03300.00405,136,936ParkingLot46,0193460.03300.00400.00LandUseSingleFamilyHousing5,028,43724,861,959ParkingLot0.00ÏLandUseSingleFamilyHousing199ÏParkingLot0.00ÏLa ndUseTypeSingleFamilyHousingAverageroomA/C&SingleFamilyHousingHousehold Electricity(kWh/yr)andCO2andCH4andN2OandNaturalGas(kBTU/yr)5.12.OperationalWaterandWastewaterConsumption 5.12.1.Unmitigated 5.13.OperationalWasteGeneration 5.13.1.Unmitigated 5.14.OperationalRefriger ationandAirConditioningEquipment 5.14.1.Unmitigated LoadFactorLoadFactor AnnualHeatInput(MMBtu/yr) FinalAcres HorsepowerHorsepower DailyHeatInput(MMBtu/day)FinalAcres SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 HoursPerDayHoursperYear BoilerRating(MMBtu/hr)FuelTypeInitialAcres 45 /52 NumberperDayHoursperDay NumberInitialAcres EngineTierNumberperDay VegetationSoilType FuelType FuelTypeFuelType EquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeEquipmentTypeVegetationLandUseTypeBiomassCoverType 5.15.OperationalOff-RoadEquipment 5.15.1.Unmitigated 5.16.StationarySources 5.16.1.EmergencyGeneratorsandFirePumps5.16.2.ProcessBoilers 5.17.UserDefined5.18.Vegetation 5.18.1.LandUseChange5.18.1.1.Un mitigated5.18.1.BiomassCoverType5.18.1.1.Unmitigated VulnerabilityScore .7miles(mi)by3.7mi. ouldbelighttomoderaterainfallif etal.,2017,CEC-500-2017-008),and derRCP8.5),andconsiderhistoricaldata rise,0.5meter,1.0meter,1.41meters oncentrationPathway(RCP)8.5which Averageconditions(CanESM2),Rangeof ymaximum/minimumtemperaturesfrom ialwildfireprobabilitiesforthegridcell.The ncrementsofsealevelrisecoupledwith NaturalGasSaved(btu/year) Unit SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 AdaptiveCapacityScore ElectricitySaved(kWh/year) 46 /52 SensitivityScore ResultforProjectLocation Number ExposureScore100N/A TreeTypeClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeat9.03annualdaysofextremeheatExtremePrecipitation3.50annualdayswithprecipitationabove20mmSeaLevelRiseÏmetersofinundationdepthWildfire1.31annualhectaresburn edClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise100N/A 5.18.2.Sequestration5.18.2.1.Unmitigated 6.ClimateRiskDetailedReport 6.1.ClimateRiskSummary Cal-Adaptmidcentury2040Î2059averageprojectionsforfourhazardsarereportedbelowforyourprojectlocation.Theseare underRepresentationCassumesGHGemissionswillcontinuetorisestronglythrough2050andthenplateauaround2100.TemperatureandExtremeHeatdataareforgridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.Theprojectionisbasedonthe9 8thhistoricalpercentileofdailobservedhistoricaldata(32climatemodelensemblefromCal-Adapt,2040Î2059averageunderRCP8.5). Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3ExtremePrecipitationdataareforthegridcellin whichyourprojectarelocated.Thethresholdof20mmisequivalenttoabout¾aninchofrain,whichwreceivedoverafulldayorheavyrainifreceivedoveraperiodof2to4hours.Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by 3.7mi.SeaLevelRisedataareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromRadkeetal.(2017),asreportedinCal-Adapt(RadkeconsiderinundationlocationanddepthfortheSanFranciscoBay,theSacrame nto-SanJoaquinRiverDeltaandCaliforniacoastresultingdifferentiextremestormevents.Usersmayselectfromfourscenariostoviewtherangeinpotentialinundationdepthforthegridcell.Thefourscenariosare:NoWildfiredat aareforthegridcellinwhichyourprojectarelocated.TheprojectionsarefromUCDavis,asreportedinCal-Adapt(2040Î2059averageunofclimate,vegetation,populationdensity,andlarge(>400ha)firehistory.Usersmayselectfr omfourmodelsimulationstoviewtherangeinpotentfoursimulationsmakedifferentassumptionsaboutexpectedrainfallandtemperatureare:Warmer/drier(HadGEM2-ES),Cooler/wetter(CNRM-CM5),differentrainfallandtemperat urepossibilities(MIROC5).Eachgridcellis6kilometers(km)by6km,or3.7miles(mi)by3.7mi.6.2.InitialClimateRiskScores VulnerabilityScore 1to5,withascoreof5representingthe1to5,withascoreof5representingthe udeimplementationofclimateriskreduction plementationofclimateriskreduction tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5tedonascaleof1to5,withascoreof5 SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 AdaptiveCapacityScore 47 /52 SensitivityScore 100N/A000N/AExposureScore111211121112 WildfireFloodingN/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradationClimateHazardTemperatureandExtremeHeatExtremePrecipitationN/AN/AN/AN/ASeaLevelRise1112WildfireFlooding N/AN/AN/AN/ADroughtN/AN/AN/AN/ASnowpackReductionN/AN/AN/AN/AAirQualityDegradation Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonascaleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanage andreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvulnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityas sessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresdonotinclmeasures.6.3.AdjustedClimateRiskScores Thesensitivityscorereflectstheextenttowhichaprojectwouldbeadverselyaffectedbyexposuretoaclimatehazard.Exposureisratedonasc aleofgreatestexposure.Theadaptivecapacityofaprojectreferstoitsabilitytomanageandreducevulnerabilitiesfromprojectedclimatehazards.Adaptivecapacityisrarepresentingthegreatestabilitytoadapt.Theoverallvu lnerabilityscoresarecalculatedbasedonthepotentialimpactsandadaptivecapacityassessmentsforeachhazard.Scoresincludeimmeasures.6.4.ClimateRiskReductionMeasures 7.HealthandEquityDetails estate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ57.073.578.346.577.70.0087.544.2Ï94.80.000.0066.7Ï55.545.888.097.988.796.992.849.9 48 /52 IndicatorExposureIndicatorsAQ-OzoneAQ-PMAQ-DPMDrinkingWaterLeadRiskHousingPesticidesToxicReleasesTrafficEffectIndicatorsCleanUpSitesGroundwaterHazWasteFacilities/Generators86.4ImpairedWaterBodiesSoli dWasteSensitivePopulationAsthmaCardio-vascularLowBirthWeightsSocioeconomicFactorIndicatorsÏEducationHousingLinguisticPovertyUnemployment 7.1.CalEnviroScreen4.0Scores ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinth actsinthestate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 ResultforProjectCensusTractÏ5.4151161349.839599645.838573078Ï10.6120877710045.81034262Ï2.66906197993.17336071Ï61.863210574.401385859Ï16.2710124535.8141922296.3557038494.2512511220.51841396Ï5.80007699 24.516874118 49 /52 IndicatorEconomicAbovePovertyEmployedMedianHIEducationBachelor'sorhigherHighschoolenrollmentPreschoolenrollmentTransportationAutoAccessActivecommutingSocial2-parenthouseholdsVotingNeighborhoodAlcohol availabilityParkaccessRetaildensitySupermarketaccessTreecanopyHousingHomeownershipHousinghabitabilityLow-inchomeownerseverehousingcostburden15.57808289Low-increnterseverehousingcostburden43.07712049 7.2.HealthyPlacesIndexScores ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensustr SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 1.680995765Ï1.86064416854.349.458.087.614.811.995.739.745.17.314.819.994.317.3Ï57.09.30.00.0 50 /52 UncrowdedhousingHealthOutcomesInsuredadultsArthritisAsthmaERAdmissionsHighBloodPressureCancer(excludingskin)AsthmaCoronaryHeartDisease23.5ChronicObstructivePulmonaryDisease17.9DiagnosedDiabetesLifeEx pectancyatBirthCognitivelyDisabledPhysically DisabledHeartAttackERAdmissions78.5MentalHealthNotGoodChronicKidneyDiseaseObesityPedestrianInjuriesPhysicalHealthNotGood7.3StrokeHealthRiskBehaviorsBingeD rinkingCurrentSmokerNoLeisureTimeforPhysicalActivity3.2ClimateChangeExposuresÏWildfireRiskSLRInundationArea tractsinthestate. thestate. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 0.569.31.393.321.655.323.0Ï96.6Ï31.1ResultforProjectCensusTract 51 /52 ChildrenElderlyEnglishSpeakingForeign-bornOutdoorWorkersClimateChangeAdaptiveCapacityÏImperviousSurfaceCover11.1TrafficDensityTrafficAccessOtherIndicesHardshipOtherDecisionSupport2016VotingMetricCalE nviroScreen4.0ScoreforProjectLocation(a)90.0HealthyPlacesIndexScoreforProjectLocation(b)12.0ProjectLocatedinaDesignatedDisadvantagedCommunity(SenateBill535)YesProjectLocatedinaLow-IncomeCommunity(Ass emblyBill1550)YesProjectLocatedinaCommunityAirProtectionProgramCommunity(AssemblyBill617)No 7.3.OverallHealth&EquityScores a:ThemaximumCalEnviroScreenscoreis100.Ahighscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectsahigherpollutionburdencomparedtoothercensustractsinb:ThemaximumHealthPlacesIndexscoreis100.A highscore(i.e.,greaterthan50)reflectshealthiercommunityconditionscomparedtoothercensus 7.4.Health&EquityMeasures NoHealth&EquityMeasuresselected.7.5.EvaluationScorecard Health&EquityEvaluationScoreca rdnotcompleted. SingleFamilyResidenceDetailedReport,11/13/2024 JustificationAsperAirbnbanalyticsdata 52 /52 ScreenLandUse 7.6.Health&EquityCustomMeasures NoHealth&EquityCustomMeasurescreated.8.UserChangestoDefaultData MEMO To File From Stefanie OÓGorman Subject ECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated possible Date November , 2024 consequences of a potential ban on short-term rentals in Santa Ana, California. This report was completed Stefanie OÓGorman, an environmental economist with 23 years experience in her field. Stefanie specializes in the integration of costs and benefits within decision making and has worked across the spectrum from policy design and development to project and infrastructure delivery. She has acted as an expert witness in a number of planning related enquiries in the UK and Ireland relating to water regulation, marine infrastructure planning and Ramboll 250 Montgomery St., transport related projects, focusing on the economic and socio-economic impacts Suite 1200 San Francisco, of these developments. CA 94104 US USA EDUCATION/QUALIFICATION T+1 510 655 7400 MSc Ecological Economics, University of Edinburgh, 2001 F+1 510 655 9517 BA (Mod) Natural Science, Trinity College Dublin, 1999 https://ramboll.com Based on professional experience and judgment, this analysis assumes a reasonably foreseeable potential that: 1.A ban on STR will spur new hotel development and, as a result of increased demand on local hotels, local hotel availability will go down and room rates will go up. 2.Result of (1), people will be forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. Theses assumptions are found to be sufficiently supported by evidence or that insufficient evidence is available to reject them, as outlined here. Introduction Santa Ana, the largest city in Orange County at 27.2 square miles and 1 home to nearly 328,000 residents, is a rich cultural, culinary, and entertainment hub with deep historical roots. As the county seat, it 1 https://www.orangecounty.net/cities/SantaAna.html 1/5 blends vibrant city life with a preserved historic core. Visitors can explore a variety of attractions, from the art-filled streets of the Downtown Santa Ana Artwalk to the Bowers 2 MuseumÓs global collections and the Discovery Cube's interactive science exhibits. The cityÓs distinctive neighborhoods offer everything from historic architecture to innovative food markets, and the popular Frida Cinema and Yost Theatre. Tourism is a cornerstone of Santa Ana's economy, driving substantial revenue and job creation for the community. In 2023, visitor spending alone contributed an impressive 3 $414.7 million to the local economy , an increase of over 9% compared to the previous year. This spending supports local businesses and fuels sectors like food service, accommodations, retail, arts, and transportation. Food service alone saw $109 million from visitor spending, with accommodations adding another $107 million, and arts, entertainment, and recreation generating $81.5 million. These visitor expenditures provide essential funding for city services like public safety, parks, and neighborhood improvements, while also alleviating the tax burden for residentsÏwithout tourism-related tax revenue, each household would pay an additional $195 annually in local taxes. TourismÓs impact on employment is equally significant, supporting nearly 3,000 jobs in Santa Ana and contributing around $137 million in wages to the local workforce. With continued growth in overnight visits and local attractions, tourism remains a vital industry that helps sustain the communityÓs economic well-being and enhance residentsÓ quality of life. 1. How a ban on STR could spur new hotel development and impact demand and room rates Orange CountyÓs STR occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and its hotels also maintain a high 77% occupancy rate and an ADR of $196.59, which underscores the regionÓs strong demand. High occupancy figures are seen in all months Î with only January falling below 70%. Orange CountyÓs hotel room demand showed a 5% year-over-year growth, highlighting its popularity within the state. Based on AirDna data, Santa Ana's appears to have or had up to approximately 2,180 STR listings (approximately 79% of which are Airbnb listings), with a current occupancy rate of 53%. This is approximately 73% for Airbnb rentals, for which there appear to be 45 approximately 1,100 active STR listings. STRs generate substantial revenue for hosts 6 (estimated at $43,000 annually per host for Airbnb rentals) with an Average Daily Rate 7 (ADR) of $237.3 . 2 https://www.visitcalifornia.com/places-to-visit/santa-ana/ 3 https://www.travelsantaana.com/about-travel-santa-ana/economic-impact-of- tourism/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20traveler%20expenditures%20from,in%20local%20and%20state%20tax es. 4 https://www.santa-ana.org/short-term-rentals-ban/ 5 We note that even if the exact amounts of STRs in the City are slightly higher or lower than the approximate values shown here, the conclusions of this report remain consistent regarding the impact of the STR ban on spurring hotel demand and forcing individuals to forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. 6 https://airbtics.com/annual-airbnb-revenue-in-santa-ana-california-usa/ 7 https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview 2/5 Accurate data on the size of the whole lodgings market in Santa Ana is not readily available for review, however the number of listings for hotels and motels on www.booking.com and Expedia is not significant, at less than 100. The majority of these properties are 3 star or less. If we assume that the rate of hotel /motels to STRs in Santa Ana is representative of that of Orange Country where the hotel room supply is 61,937 (see table below) and the number of 8 STRs is 10,841 , then STRs would represent 15% of the lodging supply in Santa Ana. However, given the <100 hotels found online, is it considered likely that STRs contribution a significantly higher percentage of the lodging market locally. Forecast summary: Annual, Orange County Hotel room Hotel supply demand Occupancy ADR RevPAR Room revenue (daily) (daily) Levels 2019 58,282 45,141 77.5% $161.94 $125.42 $2,668,166,801 2020 50,463 22,479 44.5% $136.03 $60.59 $1,116,070,720 2021 56,897 32,999 58.0% $167.45 $97.12 $2,016,885,289 2022 60,995 42,663 69.9% $177.02 $123.82 $2,756,556,935 2023 61,590 45,366 73.7% $185.82 $136.87 $3,076,862,904 2024 61,937 47,723 77.1% $196.59 $151.48 $3,424,409,154 Growth 2020 -13.4% -50.2% -42.5% -16.0% -51.7% -58.2% 2021 12.7% 46.8% 30.2% 23.1% 60.3% 80.7% 2022 7.2% 29.3% 20.6% 5.7% 27.5% 36.7% 2023 1.0% 6.3% 5.3% 5.0% 10.5% 11.6% 2024 0.6% 5.2% 4.6% 5.8% 10.7% 11.3% Relative to 2019 2020 87% 50% 58% 84% 48% 42% 2021 98% 73% 75% 103% 77% 76% 2022 105% 95% 90% 109% 99% 103% 2023 106% 100% 95% 115% 109% 115% 2024 106% 106% 99% 121% 121% 128% Source: STR; Tourism Economics The minimum stay durations data for short-term rentals in Santa Ana varies. AirDna data suggests that half of the stock has a minimum stay of under 30 days. This data appears to be 2023 data and to relate to their estimate of 2,000+ STR listing in that data source. Therefore, it is not possible at this stage to tell how many of the City Council estimated 8 https://www.keydatadashboard.com/en-gb/markets/orange-county-california 3/5 1,100 listings would be impacted by designated for shorter stays, but it could be as high as 100%. STR Listings by Minimum Stay in Santa Ana 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0% 30+ Nights7-29 Nights4-6 Nights3 Nights2 Nights1 Night Source: https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview With STRs accommodating a significant portion of the lodging market, their removal would leave a considerable gap in available accommodations, which the existing hotel infrastructure is unlikely to be able to fully absorb given Orange County's occupancy rates were already at 77% in September 2024 (California Travel Forecast Î October 2024). Effects of a Ban on STR on Local Hotel Demand, Room Rates, and Availability Eliminating STRs is likely to intensify demand for hotel accommodations, which would reduce availability and drive up average daily rates (ADR). Orange County's ADR is already 9 high, at $209.14 (see table below) (192$ in Santa Ana ), and Santa AnaÓs hotel market is part of this broader region where occupancy and room rates reflect high demand, particularly near attractions. With STRs contributing substantial capacity, the ban would further stress local hotels, as noted above likely leading to increased ADR due to scarcity. The 7.1% year-on-year increase in Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) in Orange County indicates a strong market with limited room for new capacity; hence, shifting demand from STRs to hotels would almost certainly lead to higher room rates, potentially pushing them beyond the reach of budget-conscious travelers. Year to Date - September 2024 vs September 2023 Short Term Rentals Occ % ADR RevPAR 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 California 68.0 68.4 190.57 192.15 129.60 131.41 Orange County 72.1 72.0 209.14 210.91 150.74 151.91 9 https://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca * https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview 4/5 2. Travel Displacement and Need to Seek Affordable Lodging Elsewhere: Rising hotel rates and limited availability could push some visitors to look for more affordable accommodations in nearby cities. With the increased demand and rising prices in Santa AnaÓs hotel sector, neighboring areas like Anaheim or Irvine may absorb some of the overflow but would also likely experience upward rate pressure, creating a ripple effect across Orange County. Given that Orange CountyÓs occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and shows high occupancy figures in all months Î with only January falling below 70%, hotels in adjacent areas to Santa Ana are likely to be at full capacity during peak 10 seasons, especially July, or major events. As a result, tourists may find themselves traveling farther for budget-friendly lodging, potentially discouraging some visitors from choosing Santa Ana altogether. In addition, group room demand in California was up a robust 7% relative to September 2023. Orange County saw this increase by 35% year on year for the month of September 11 2024. This strong local growth in demand is reflected by the fact that approximately 650 of 12 the AirBNB listing in Santa Ana are for 2+bedrooms, so suitable for groups . The loss of this accommodation type may not be easily substituted within the existing local supply, which could, as a result, spurn additional local development. The available evidence and analysis allows a reasonable conclusion to be drawn that in the short term visitors will be pushed away from Santa Ana due to occupancy restrictions and increased rates, and in the longer term these constraints could result in new hotel capacity development. 10 https://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca 11 https://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/report/monthly-travel-indicators-summary 12 Santa Ana, Airbnb Market Statistics & Data, United States 5/5