Desert Hot Springs City Council
May 2, 2023

Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

EXHIBIT B

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 13, 2023
Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the PODS Warehouse Project
Dear Mr. Frankel,
We have reviewed the December 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the PODS Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 60,000-square-foot (“SF”) container storage facility and 92 parking spaces on the

4.85-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
The IS/MND relies only on a review of online databases in determining that the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. We viewed aerial images including the image below which shows the presence of material piles on the Project site in 2021. An EIR is necessary to include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) to adequately evaluate and disclose potential hazards related to the placement of piled material and from other conditions that may exist on the Project site.

2 Google Earth Image, Taken Aug. 5, 2021
The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in CEQA matters to identify and disclose hazardous materials issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Uses of the site for the placement of material may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.

Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substance and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous 1 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” ASTM International, December 2021, available at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm.

3 substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.

A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify RECs, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses including placement of material indicate RECs, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels 2 , should be further evaluated and cleaned
up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 28).3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Memorandum (“AQ & GHG Memo”), we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, model inputs were unreasonable to apply to the Project and the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. 2 “HERO HHRA Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs).” California Department Of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) & Human And Ecological Risk Office (HERO), June 2020, available at:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf. 3 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.

4 Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes several reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As demonstrated above, the nonresidential interior and exterior architectural and area emission factors are reduced from the default values of 250- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). Furthermore, the parking architectural and area coating emission factors are reduced from the default values of 250- to 100- g/L.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.4 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 require VOC limits on architectural coatings.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the changes to the architectural and area coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated as we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural and area coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories.5 The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating would be used. As the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating in a formal mitigation measure, we are unable to verify the revised emission factors assumed in the models.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.6 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural 4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 5 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice.” SCAQMD, February 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-14, Table of Standards

1. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36, 42.

5 and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 10, 40, 69, 70).

As demonstrated above, the grading phase is increased by 150%, from the default value of 8 to 20 days; and the paving and architectural coating phases are each increased by 39%, from their default values of 18 to 25 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.7 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“The project does not involve a demolition phase. Default site preparation and building construction durations are accepted. Grading, paving, and architectural coating time frames are adjusted to be more conservative.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the model’s revised construction schedule remains unsubstantiated as the IS/MND fails to mention the Project’s proposed construction schedule whatsoever. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

6 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”8

Here, as the IS/MND does not mention or discuss Project’s proposed construction schedule, the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised construction schedule. As such, we cannot verify the changes.

Furthermore, the model is incorrect in stating that a longer construction schedule would be “more conservative.” By extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases.

As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Therefore, until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model underestimates the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes reductions to the default acres of grading values (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is:
“Extent of grading will be 4 acres.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, this change is incorrect. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres are based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”10
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p. 13,14. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 10 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9.

7 As stated above, the default acres of grading values are based on the model’s construction equipment and the length of the grading and site preparation phases. As the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading values, the revised values are unsubstantiated.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading values to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.11 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default acres of grading values, the models underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes the following area-related mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 29, 31, 59, 61, 89, 92):

Area-Related Mitigation Measure:

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.12 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures is:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 require VOC limits on architectural coatings.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measure remains unsupported for three reasons.

First, as previously discussed, the SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone cannot substantiate the use of low VOC paints. Without more information regarding what category of coatings and paints will be used, we cannot verify the inclusion of the above-mentioned mitigation measures.

Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the use of low VOC paints as a mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
11 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9. 12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

8 “By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.”13 As demonstrated above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As the use of low VOC paint is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures in the models is incorrect. As a result of these incorrect applications, the models may underestimate the Project’s area-related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the architectural and area coating emission factors, individual construction phase lengths, and the acres of grading values; and omitted the arearelated operational mitigation measures. 14 Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 75-pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 27, Table III-1) (see table below).15 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction VOC
(lbs/day)
IS/MND 13.57
SWAPE 80.97
% Increase 497%
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
As you can see in the table above, the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 497% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold.

Thus, our updated model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should 13 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5. 14 See Attachment B for updated air modeling. 15 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

9 be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project, the IS/MND states:
“The CalEEMod results summarized in Table III-4 demonstrate that the construction activities will not result in temporary emissions in excess of the lowest (most conservative) localized thresholds. Therefore, regarding the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, less than significant impacts are anticipated (p. 32) As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes a less-than-significant health risk impact during Project construction as emissions would not exceed localized thresholds. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the use of a LST analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions is incorrect.

While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), LST analyses are only applicable to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.16 Because LST methods can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, they cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs, specifically Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen, would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap in the AQ & GHG Memo’s analysis.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 17 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 13 months (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 10, 40, 69, 70). Furthermore, according to the VMT Screening and Trip Generation Assessment (“VMT Assessment”) provided as an attachment to the IS/MND, the operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 51 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to 16 “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised July 2008, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. 17 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf.

10 DPM emissions (pp. 3, Table 3). However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.18 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.19 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”20 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 13-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).21 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s 18 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 20 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 21 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.

11 excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.22 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.23 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is in OEHHA guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).24A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be prepared prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.25 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 174 pounds of DPM over the 399-day construction period.26 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 174.3 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
399 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00229 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 399-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.91 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 5 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
22 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 23 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 24 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 26 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.

12 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 4.84 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0000696 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 4.85-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 198- by 99-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. A rural meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The population of Desert Hot Springs was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.27 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.28 According to the IS/MND, there are no sensitive receptors near the Project site (p. 76). However, review of Google Earth demonstrates that there is a residence located approximately 900 meters from the Project site (see excerpt below):
27 “Desert Hot Springs.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0618996. 28 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf.

13 As such, the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 900 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.122 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 900 meters away. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1122 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.03408 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 900 meters away. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.003408 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.29
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.30 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children.

The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
29 See Attachment C for AERSCREEN output files. 30 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplementalguidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.

14 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kgday)31
Age
Sensitivity
Factor32
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home33
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)34
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
31 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 32 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 33 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 34 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

15 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 399-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.84 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.16 years of the child stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16 years) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1122 1.53E-06
Construction 0.84 0.1122 1.55E-05
Operation 1.16 0.0034 6.48E-07
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.62E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0034 1.23E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0034 1.37E-07
Lifetime 30 1.91E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 900 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.53, 16.2, 1.23, and 0.137 in one million, respectively.

The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 19.1 in one million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and thus results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

16 Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 412.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 57, Table VIII-1).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and therefore would not result in a significant GHG impact. However, the IS/MND’s

17 GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.
(1) The IS/MND’s quantitative analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e (p. 57, Table VIII-1). However, the IS/MND quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod models, provided in the AQ & GHG Memo, we found that several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions, and the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment.
2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 57, Table VIII-1). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.35 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”36
As it is currently March 2023, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND’s less-thansignificant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project 35 “Health & Safety Code 38550.” California State Legislature, January 2007, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 36 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39.

18 apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.37 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year.

When applying this threshold, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.

As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e (p. 57, Table VIII-1). According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”38 According to the IS/MND, the project would support 7 employees (p. 79). As the project is not expected to support any residential land uses, we estimate an SP of 7 people. When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by an SP of 7 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 58.9 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).39 IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 412.5
Service Population 7
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 58.9
SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value vastly exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels. 37 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 38 “CEQA & Climate Change.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), January 2008, available at: https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/capcoa_white_paper_ceqa_and_climate_change_final.pdf?1344472764, p. 71-72. 39 Calculated: (412.5 MT CO2e/year) / (7 service population) = (58.9 MT CO2e/SP/year).

19 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.40 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power. • Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zeroemission beginning in 2030. 40 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.

20 • Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.
• Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations. • Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance)
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

21 • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Designing to LEED green building certification standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved.

An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of

22 care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV

2767 Logistics Center
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model Land Use - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Grading - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values" Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Area Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorrect Application of Energy- and Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures".

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND/s model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Industrial Park 60.00 1000sqft 1.38 60,000.00 0
Parking Lot 2.08 Acre 2.08 90,604.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
15 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Attachment A

Waste Mitigation -

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 20 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 50 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1950 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1620 0.0776 0.2396 0.0617 0.0729 0.1346 0.0000 344.2724 344.2724 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9705 2024 0.7644 0.2946 0.4009 7.5000e0040.0153 0.0132 0.0285 4.1000e0030.0124 0.0165 0.0000 66.0475 66.0475 0.0130 1.0500e00366.6867 Maximum 0.7644 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1620 0.0776 0.2396 0.0617 0.0729 0.1346 0.0000 344.2724 344.2724 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9705 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1950 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1478 0.0776 0.2254 0.0582 0.0729 0.1311 0.0000 344.2721 344.2721 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9702 2024 0.7644 0.2946 0.4009 7.5000e0040.0127 0.0132 0.0259 3.4700e0030.0124 0.0158 0.0000 66.0475 66.0475 0.0130 1.0500e00366.6866 Maximum 0.7644 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1478 0.0776 0.2254 0.0582 0.0729 0.1311 0.0000 344.2721 344.2721 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9702 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 6.27 6.26 0.00 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-7-2023 6-6-2023 0.6049 0.6049
2 6-7-2023 9-6-2023 0.5626 0.5626
3 9-7-2023 12-6-2023 0.5573 0.5573
4 12-7-2023 3-6-2024 0.4954 0.4954
5 3-7-2024 6-6-2024 0.6754 0.6754
Highest 0.6754 0.6754

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Energy 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 114.3945 114.3945 8.9400e0031.2600e003114.9933 Mobile 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.1025 0.0000 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.4019 32.0404 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918 Total 0.3985 0.1446 0.8750 2.1100e0030.2179 2.4300e0030.2203 0.0582 2.3300e0030.0605 19.5044 339.2857 358.7901 1.3662 0.0218 399.4357 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Energy 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 114.3945 114.3945 8.9400e0031.2600e003114.9933 Mobile 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5215 25.6323 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734 Total 0.3985 0.1446 0.8750 2.1100e0030.2179 2.4300e0030.2203 0.0582 2.3300e0030.0605 3.5215 332.8776 336.3991 0.3827 0.0196 351.8014 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2023 3/13/2023 5 5 2 Grading Grading 3/14/2023 3/23/2023 5 8
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/24/2023 2/8/2024 5 230 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.95 1.89 6.24 71.99 10.11 11.93 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Paving Paving 2/9/2024 3/5/2024 5 18
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/6/2024 3/29/2024 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 90,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 30,000; Striped Parking Area: 5,436 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 2.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Water Unpaved Roads
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 63.00 25.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9100e0032.9100e0030.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0040.0491 3.1700e0030.0523 0.0253 2.9100e0030.0282 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.9000e0040.0000 4.9000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Total 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.9000e0040.0000 4.9000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9100e0032.9100e0030.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0040.0491 3.1700e0030.0523 0.0253 2.9100e0030.0282 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Total 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0043.1000e0033.1000e0032.8500e0032.8500e0030.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 3.1000e0030.0314 0.0137 2.8500e0030.0166 0.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Total 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0043.1000e0033.1000e0032.8500e0032.8500e0030.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 3.1000e0030.0314 0.0137 2.8500e0030.0166 0.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 5.4000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Total 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 5.4000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9638 232.9638 0.0554 0.0000 234.3492 Total 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9638 232.9638 0.0554 0.0000 234.3492 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6300e0030.0807 0.0336 4.0000e0040.0143 6.5000e0040.0149 4.1200e0036.2000e0044.7300e0030.0000 38.4105 38.4105 3.9000e0045.6800e00340.1143 Worker 0.0205 0.0151 0.1976 5.7000e0040.0691 3.3000e0040.0695 0.0184 3.0000e0040.0187 0.0000 53.2285 53.2285 1.3200e0031.4000e00353.6780 Total 0.0231 0.0958 0.2312 9.7000e0040.0834 9.8000e0040.0844 0.0225 9.2000e0040.0234 0.0000 91.6390 91.6390 1.7100e0037.0800e00393.7922 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9635 232.9635 0.0554 0.0000 234.3490 Total 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9635 232.9635 0.0554 0.0000 234.3490 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6300e0030.0807 0.0336 4.0000e0040.0123 6.5000e0040.0129 3.6200e0036.2000e0044.2400e0030.0000 38.4105 38.4105 3.9000e0045.6800e00340.1143 Worker 0.0205 0.0151 0.1976 5.7000e0040.0571 3.3000e0040.0575 0.0154 3.0000e0040.0157 0.0000 53.2285 53.2285 1.3200e0031.4000e00353.6780 Total 0.0231 0.0958 0.2312 9.7000e0040.0694 9.8000e0040.0704 0.0190 9.2000e0040.0200 0.0000 91.6390 91.6390 1.7100e0037.0800e00393.7922 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8169 Total 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8169 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7000e0040.0116 4.7900e0036.0000e0052.0600e0039.0000e0052.1500e0035.9000e0049.0000e0056.8000e0040.0000 5.4564 5.4564 6.0000e0058.1000e0045.6982 Worker 2.7600e0031.9500e0030.0267 8.0000e0059.9700e0035.0000e0050.0100 2.6500e0034.0000e0052.6900e0030.0000 7.4957 7.4957 1.7000e0041.9000e0047.5559 Total 3.1300e0030.0136 0.0315 1.4000e0040.0120 1.4000e0040.0122 3.2400e0031.3000e0043.3700e0030.0000 12.9522 12.9522 2.3000e0041.0000e00313.2540 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8168 Total 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8168 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7000e0040.0116 4.7900e0036.0000e0051.7700e0039.0000e0051.8600e0035.2000e0049.0000e0056.1000e0040.0000 5.4564 5.4564 6.0000e0058.1000e0045.6982 Worker 2.7600e0031.9500e0030.0267 8.0000e0058.2400e0035.0000e0058.2900e0032.2200e0034.0000e0052.2700e0030.0000 7.4957 7.4957 1.7000e0041.9000e0047.5559 Total 3.1300e0030.0136 0.0315 1.4000e0040.0100 1.4000e0040.0102 2.7400e0031.3000e0042.8800e0030.0000 12.9522 12.9522 2.3000e0041.0000e00313.2540 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 2.7200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0107 0.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.9600e0031.0000e0051.9700e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Total 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.9600e0031.0000e0051.9700e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 2.7200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0107 0.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Total 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 0.7284 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.2800e0031.0000e0051.2800e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Total 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.2800e0031.0000e0051.2800e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 0.7284 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.0600e0031.0000e0051.0600e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Total 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.0600e0031.0000e0051.0600e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Unmitigated 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Total 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 13.80 6.20 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial Park 13.80 6.20 6.20 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Parking Lot 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 Industrial Park 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 103.4123 103.4123 8.7300e0031.0600e003103.9458 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 103.4123 103.4123 8.7300e0031.0600e003103.9458 NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 205800 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 205800 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 551400 97.7883 8.2500e0031.0000e00398.2928 Parking Lot 31711.7 5.6239 4.7000e0046.0000e0055.6529 Total 103.4123 8.7200e0031.0600e003103.9458
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 551400 97.7883 8.2500e0031.0000e00398.2928 Parking Lot 31711.7 5.6239 4.7000e0046.0000e0055.6529 Total 103.4123 8.7200e0031.0600e003103.9458
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Unmitigated 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0727 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Total 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0727 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Total 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734
Unmitigated 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Industrial Park 13.875 / 0 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Industrial Park 11.1 / 0 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Industrial Park 74.4 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Industrial Park 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2767 Logistics Center
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model Land Use - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Grading - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values" Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Area Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorrect Application of Energy- and Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures".

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND/s model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Industrial Park 60.00 1000sqft 1.38 60,000.00 0
Parking Lot 2.08 Acre 2.08 90,604.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
15 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Waste Mitigation -

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 20 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 50 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.7250 27.5646 18.9007 0.0398 19.8568 1.2670 21.1238 10.1555 1.1656 11.3211 0.0000 3,867.216 5 3,867.216
5 1.1967 0.0769 3,898.385
2 2024 80.9743 14.3352 18.6433 0.0368 0.8434 0.6228 1.4662 0.2269 0.5859 0.8128 0.0000 3,584.511 6 3,584.511
6 0.6219 0.0748 3,622.363
3 Maximum 80.9743 27.5646 18.9007 0.0398 19.8568 1.2670 21.1238 10.1555 1.1656 11.3211 0.0000 3,867.216 5 3,867.216
5 1.1967 0.0769 3,898.385
2 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.7250 27.5646 18.9007 0.0398 19.8221 1.2670 21.0891 10.1469 1.1656 11.3125 0.0000 3,867.216 5 3,867.216
5 1.1967 0.0769 3,898.385
2 2024 80.9743 14.3352 18.6433 0.0368 0.7013 0.6228 1.3241 0.1921 0.5859 0.7779 0.0000 3,584.511 6 3,584.511
6 0.6219 0.0748 3,622.363
3 Maximum 80.9743 27.5646 18.9007 0.0398 19.8221 1.2670 21.0891 10.1469 1.1656 11.3125 0.0000 3,867.216 5 3,867.216
5 1.1967 0.0769 3,898.385
2 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.78 0.42 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Energy 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mobile 0.6175 0.7926 5.9500 0.0137 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8100e0030.3811 1,415.864 4 1,415.864
4 0.0674 0.0642 1,436.683
8 Total 2.3385 0.8479 6.0027 0.0140 1.3918 0.0147 1.4065 0.3713 0.0140 0.3853 1,482.211 6 1,482.211
6 0.0687 0.0654 1,503.426
1 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Energy 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mobile 0.6175 0.7926 5.9500 0.0137 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8100e0030.3811 1,415.864 4 1,415.864
4 0.0674 0.0642 1,436.683
8 Total 2.3385 0.8479 6.0027 0.0140 1.3918 0.0147 1.4065 0.3713 0.0140 0.3853 1,482.211 6 1,482.211
6 0.0687 0.0654 1,503.426
1 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2023 3/13/2023 5 5 2 Grading Grading 3/14/2023 3/23/2023 5 8
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/24/2023 2/8/2024 5 230 4 Paving Paving 2/9/2024 3/5/2024 5 18
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/6/2024 3/29/2024 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 90,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 30,000; Striped Parking Area: 5,436 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 2.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Water Unpaved Roads
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 63.00 25.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0404 0.6564 1.7600e0030.1998 9.4000e0040.2008 0.0530 8.6000e0040.0539 179.9084 179.9084 4.1200e0034.2000e003181.2634 Total 0.0655 0.0404 0.6564 1.7600e0030.1998 9.4000e0040.2008 0.0530 8.6000e0040.0539 179.9084 179.9084 4.1200e0034.2000e003181.2634 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0655 0.0404 0.6564 1.7600e0030.1651 9.4000e0040.1660 0.0445 8.6000e0040.0453 179.9084 179.9084 4.1200e0034.2000e003181.2634 Total 0.0655 0.0404 0.6564 1.7600e0030.1651 9.4000e0040.1660 0.0445 8.6000e0040.0453 179.9084 179.9084 4.1200e0034.2000e003181.2634 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0546 0.0337 0.5470 1.4600e0030.1665 7.8000e0040.1673 0.0442 7.2000e0040.0449 149.9237 149.9237 3.4300e0033.5000e003151.0528 Total 0.0546 0.0337 0.5470 1.4600e0030.1665 7.8000e0040.1673 0.0442 7.2000e0040.0449 149.9237 149.9237 3.4300e0033.5000e003151.0528 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0546 0.0337 0.5470 1.4600e0030.1376 7.8000e0040.1384 0.0371 7.2000e0040.0378 149.9237 149.9237 3.4300e0033.5000e003151.0528 Total 0.0546 0.0337 0.5470 1.4600e0030.1376 7.8000e0040.1384 0.0371 7.2000e0040.0378 149.9237 149.9237 3.4300e0033.5000e003151.0528 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0273 0.7655 0.3289 3.9700e0030.1440 6.4100e0030.1504 0.0415 6.1300e0030.0476 420.8135 420.8135 4.3600e0030.0622 439.4679 Worker 0.2293 0.1415 2.2974 6.1500e0030.6994 3.2800e0030.7027 0.1855 3.0200e0030.1885 629.6794 629.6794 0.0144 0.0147 634.4219 Total 0.2566 0.9069 2.6263 0.0101 0.8434 9.6900e0030.8531 0.2269 9.1500e0030.2361 1,050.492 9 1,050.492
9 0.0188 0.0769 1,073.889
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0273 0.7655 0.3289 3.9700e0030.1235 6.4100e0030.1299 0.0364 6.1300e0030.0426 420.8135 420.8135 4.3600e0030.0622 439.4679 Worker 0.2293 0.1415 2.2974 6.1500e0030.5778 3.2800e0030.5811 0.1556 3.0200e0030.1587 629.6794 629.6794 0.0144 0.0147 634.4219 Total 0.2566 0.9069 2.6263 0.0101 0.7013 9.6900e0030.7109 0.1921 9.1500e0030.2012 1,050.492 9 1,050.492
9 0.0188 0.0769 1,073.889
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0268 0.7654 0.3253 3.9100e0030.1439 6.3700e0030.1503 0.0415 6.0900e0030.0475 414.3262 414.3262 4.5100e0030.0612 432.6713 Worker 0.2138 0.1261 2.1513 5.9600e0030.6994 3.1400e0030.7025 0.1855 2.8900e0030.1884 614.4865 614.4865 0.0131 0.0137 618.8843 Total 0.2406 0.8915 2.4765 9.8700e0030.8434 9.5100e0030.8529 0.2269 8.9800e0030.2359 1,028.812 7 1,028.812
7 0.0176 0.0748 1,051.555
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0268 0.7654 0.3253 3.9100e0030.1235 6.3700e0030.1298 0.0364 6.0900e0030.0425 414.3262 414.3262 4.5100e0030.0612 432.6713 Worker 0.2138 0.1261 2.1513 5.9600e0030.5778 3.1400e0030.5809 0.1556 2.8900e0030.1585 614.4865 614.4865 0.0131 0.0137 618.8843 Total 0.2406 0.8915 2.4765 9.8700e0030.7013 9.5100e0030.7108 0.1921 8.9800e0030.2010 1,028.812 7 1,028.812
7 0.0176 0.0748 1,051.555
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8814 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Paving 0.3028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1841 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0679 0.0400 0.6829 1.8900e0030.2220 1.0000e0030.2230 0.0589 9.2000e0040.0598 195.0751 195.0751 4.1500e0034.3400e003196.4712 Total 0.0679 0.0400 0.6829 1.8900e0030.2220 1.0000e0030.2230 0.0589 9.2000e0040.0598 195.0751 195.0751 4.1500e0034.3400e003196.4712 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8814 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 0.0000 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Paving 0.3028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1841 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 0.0000 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0679 0.0400 0.6829 1.8900e0030.1834 1.0000e0030.1844 0.0494 9.2000e0040.0503 195.0751 195.0751 4.1500e0034.3400e003196.4712 Total 0.0679 0.0400 0.6829 1.8900e0030.1834 1.0000e0030.1844 0.0494 9.2000e0040.0503 195.0751 195.0751 4.1500e0034.3400e003196.4712 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 80.7494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 80.9302 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0441 0.0260 0.4439 1.2300e0030.1443 6.5000e0040.1450 0.0383 6.0000e0040.0389 126.7988 126.7988 2.7000e0032.8200e003127.7063 Total 0.0441 0.0260 0.4439 1.2300e0030.1443 6.5000e0040.1450 0.0383 6.0000e0040.0389 126.7988 126.7988 2.7000e0032.8200e003127.7063 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 80.7494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 80.9302 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0441 0.0260 0.4439 1.2300e0030.1192 6.5000e0040.1199 0.0321 6.0000e0040.0327 126.7988 126.7988 2.7000e0032.8200e003127.7063 Total 0.0441 0.0260 0.4439 1.2300e0030.1192 6.5000e0040.1199 0.0321 6.0000e0040.0327 126.7988 126.7988 2.7000e0032.8200e003127.7063 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.6175 0.7926 5.9500 0.0137 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8100e0030.3811 1,415.864 4 1,415.864
4 0.0674 0.0642 1,436.683
8 Unmitigated 0.6175 0.7926 5.9500 0.0137 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8100e0030.3811 1,415.864 4 1,415.864
4 0.0674 0.0642 1,436.683
8 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Total 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 13.80 6.20 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial Park 13.80 6.20 6.20 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Parking Lot 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 Industrial Park 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 563.836 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 0.563836 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Unmitigated 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3982 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 5.8000e0046.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Total 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3982 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 5.8000e0046.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Total 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2767 Logistics Center
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model Land Use - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Grading - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values" Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Area Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorrect Application of Energy- and Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures".

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND/s model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Industrial Park 60.00 1000sqft 1.38 60,000.00 0
Parking Lot 2.08 Acre 2.08 90,604.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
15 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Waste Mitigation -

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 20 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 50 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.7208 27.5661 18.7775 0.0397 19.8568 1.2670 21.1238 10.1555 1.1656 11.3211 0.0000 3,850.322 9 3,850.322
9 1.1967 0.0775 3,881.520
7 2024 80.9716 14.3867 18.2517 0.0363 0.8434 0.6228 1.4662 0.2269 0.5859 0.8128 0.0000 3,528.054 2 3,528.054
2 0.6218 0.0754 3,566.062
9 Maximum 80.9716 27.5661 18.7775 0.0397 19.8568 1.2670 21.1238 10.1555 1.1656 11.3211 0.0000 3,850.322 9 3,850.322
9 1.1967 0.0775 3,881.520
7 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.7208 27.5661 18.7775 0.0397 19.8221 1.2670 21.0891 10.1469 1.1656 11.3125 0.0000 3,850.322 9 3,850.322
9 1.1967 0.0775 3,881.520
7 2024 80.9716 14.3867 18.2517 0.0363 0.7013 0.6228 1.3241 0.1921 0.5859 0.7780 0.0000 3,528.054 2 3,528.054
2 0.6218 0.0754 3,566.062
9 Maximum 80.9716 27.5661 18.7775 0.0397 19.8221 1.2670 21.0891 10.1469 1.1656 11.3125 0.0000 3,850.322 9 3,850.322
9 1.1967 0.0775 3,881.520
7 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.78 0.42 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Energy 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mobile 0.5249 0.8406 5.2667 0.0127 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8200e0030.3811 1,314.753 2 1,314.753
2 0.0690 0.0656 1,336.014
4 Total 2.2459 0.8959 5.3195 0.0130 1.3918 0.0147 1.4065 0.3713 0.0140 0.3853 1,381.100 4 1,381.100
4 0.0703 0.0668 1,402.756
6 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Energy 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mobile 0.5249 0.8406 5.2667 0.0127 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8200e0030.3811 1,314.753 2 1,314.753
2 0.0690 0.0656 1,336.014
4 Total 2.2459 0.8959 5.3195 0.0130 1.3918 0.0147 1.4065 0.3713 0.0140 0.3853 1,381.100 4 1,381.100
4 0.0703 0.0668 1,402.756
6 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2023 3/13/2023 5 5 2 Grading Grading 3/14/2023 3/23/2023 5 8
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/24/2023 2/8/2024 5 230 4 Paving Paving 2/9/2024 3/5/2024 5 18
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/6/2024 3/29/2024 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 90,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 30,000; Striped Parking Area: 5,436 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 2.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Water Unpaved Roads
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 63.00 25.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0614 0.0419 0.5332 1.5900e0030.1998 9.4000e0040.2008 0.0530 8.6000e0040.0539 163.0148 163.0148 4.1100e0034.3000e003164.3989 Total 0.0614 0.0419 0.5332 1.5900e0030.1998 9.4000e0040.2008 0.0530 8.6000e0040.0539 163.0148 163.0148 4.1100e0034.3000e003164.3989 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0614 0.0419 0.5332 1.5900e0030.1651 9.4000e0040.1660 0.0445 8.6000e0040.0453 163.0148 163.0148 4.1100e0034.3000e003164.3989 Total 0.0614 0.0419 0.5332 1.5900e0030.1651 9.4000e0040.1660 0.0445 8.6000e0040.0453 163.0148 163.0148 4.1100e0034.3000e003164.3989 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0511 0.0350 0.4443 1.3300e0030.1665 7.8000e0040.1673 0.0442 7.2000e0040.0449 135.8457 135.8457 3.4200e0033.5800e003136.9991 Total 0.0511 0.0350 0.4443 1.3300e0030.1665 7.8000e0040.1673 0.0442 7.2000e0040.0449 135.8457 135.8457 3.4200e0033.5800e003136.9991 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0511 0.0350 0.4443 1.3300e0030.1376 7.8000e0040.1384 0.0371 7.2000e0040.0378 135.8457 135.8457 3.4200e0033.5800e003136.9991 Total 0.0511 0.0350 0.4443 1.3300e0030.1376 7.8000e0040.1384 0.0371 7.2000e0040.0378 135.8457 135.8457 3.4200e0033.5800e003136.9991 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0252 0.8122 0.3403 3.9800e0030.1440 6.4400e0030.1504 0.0415 6.1600e0030.0476 421.9631 421.9631 4.2700e0030.0625 440.6819 Worker 0.2148 0.1468 1.8662 5.5700e0030.6994 3.2800e0030.7027 0.1855 3.0200e0030.1885 570.5518 570.5518 0.0144 0.0151 575.3961 Total 0.2400 0.9589 2.2065 9.5500e0030.8434 9.7200e0030.8531 0.2269 9.1800e0030.2361 992.5149 992.5149 0.0187 0.0775 1,016.078 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0252 0.8122 0.3403 3.9800e0030.1235 6.4400e0030.1299 0.0364 6.1600e0030.0426 421.9631 421.9631 4.2700e0030.0625 440.6819 Worker 0.2148 0.1468 1.8662 5.5700e0030.5778 3.2800e0030.5811 0.1556 3.0200e0030.1587 570.5518 570.5518 0.0144 0.0151 575.3961 Total 0.2400 0.9589 2.2065 9.5500e0030.7013 9.7200e0030.7110 0.1921 9.1800e0030.2012 992.5149 992.5149 0.0187 0.0775 1,016.078 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0248 0.8122 0.3366 3.9200e0030.1439 6.3900e0030.1503 0.0415 6.1100e0030.0476 415.4660 415.4660 4.4200e0030.0614 433.8740 Worker 0.2009 0.1308 1.7483 5.4000e0030.6994 3.1400e0030.7025 0.1855 2.8900e0030.1884 556.8894 556.8894 0.0131 0.0140 561.3813 Total 0.2256 0.9429 2.0849 9.3200e0030.8434 9.5300e0030.8529 0.2269 9.0000e0030.2359 972.3553 972.3553 0.0175 0.0754 995.2553 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0248 0.8122 0.3366 3.9200e0030.1235 6.3900e0030.1298 0.0364 6.1100e0030.0425 415.4660 415.4660 4.4200e0030.0614 433.8740 Worker 0.2009 0.1308 1.7483 5.4000e0030.5778 3.1400e0030.5809 0.1556 2.8900e0030.1585 556.8894 556.8894 0.0131 0.0140 561.3813 Total 0.2256 0.9429 2.0849 9.3200e0030.7013 9.5300e0030.7108 0.1921 9.0000e0030.2011 972.3553 972.3553 0.0175 0.0754 995.2553 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8814 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Paving 0.3028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1841 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.5550 1.7100e0030.2220 1.0000e0030.2230 0.0589 9.2000e0040.0598 176.7903 176.7903 4.1400e0034.4400e003178.2163 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.5550 1.7100e0030.2220 1.0000e0030.2230 0.0589 9.2000e0040.0598 176.7903 176.7903 4.1400e0034.4400e003178.2163 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8814 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 0.0000 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Paving 0.3028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1841 8.2730 12.2210 0.0189 0.3987 0.3987 0.3685 0.3685 0.0000 1,805.620 5 1,805.620
5 0.5673 1,819.803
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.5550 1.7100e0030.1834 1.0000e0030.1844 0.0494 9.2000e0040.0503 176.7903 176.7903 4.1400e0034.4400e003178.2163 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.5550 1.7100e0030.1834 1.0000e0030.1844 0.0494 9.2000e0040.0503 176.7903 176.7903 4.1400e0034.4400e003178.2163 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 80.7494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 80.9302 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0415 0.0270 0.3608 1.1100e0030.1443 6.5000e0040.1450 0.0383 6.0000e0040.0389 114.9137 114.9137 2.6900e0032.8800e003115.8406 Total 0.0415 0.0270 0.3608 1.1100e0030.1443 6.5000e0040.1450 0.0383 6.0000e0040.0389 114.9137 114.9137 2.6900e0032.8800e003115.8406 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 80.7494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 80.9302 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0415 0.0270 0.3608 1.1100e0030.1192 6.5000e0040.1199 0.0321 6.0000e0040.0327 114.9137 114.9137 2.6900e0032.8800e003115.8406 Total 0.0415 0.0270 0.3608 1.1100e0030.1192 6.5000e0040.1199 0.0321 6.0000e0040.0327 114.9137 114.9137 2.6900e0032.8800e003115.8406 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.5249 0.8406 5.2667 0.0127 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8200e0030.3811 1,314.753 2 1,314.753
2 0.0690 0.0656 1,336.014
4 Unmitigated 0.5249 0.8406 5.2667 0.0127 1.3918 0.0105 1.4023 0.3713 9.8200e0030.3811 1,314.753 2 1,314.753
2 0.0690 0.0656 1,336.014
4 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Total 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 13.80 6.20 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial Park 13.80 6.20 6.20 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Parking Lot 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 Industrial Park 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 563.836 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 0.563836 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.0800e0030.0553 0.0464 3.3000e0044.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e00366.3336 66.3336 1.2700e0031.2200e00366.7278 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Unmitigated 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3982 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 5.8000e0046.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Total 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3982 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 5.8000e0046.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Total 1.7149 6.0000e0056.3300e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0136 0.0136 4.0000e0050.0145 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:24 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0158 Total DPM (lbs) 174.2858082 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.00242 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.086575342 Total DPM (g) 79056.04261 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.013260274 Construction Duration (days) 31 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.002293234 Total DPM (lbs) 4.84 Total DPM (lbs) 2.683835616 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000069616 Total DPM (g) 1217.387836 Total Acreage 4.85 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 12/1/2022 Max Horizontal (meters) 198.13 Total Acreage 4.85 End Date 1/1/2023 Min Horizontal (meters) 99.06 Max Horizontal (meters) 198.13 Construction Days 31 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 99.06 Setting Rural Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0858 Population 32,716 Setting Rural Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.470136986 Start Date 12/1/2022 Population 32,716 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 1/4/2024
Total DPM (lbs) 171.6 Total Construction Days 399
Total DPM (g) 77837.76 Total Years of Construction 1.09 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Operation 28.91
End Date 1/1/2024
Construction Days 365
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.00012
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.000657534
Construction Duration (days) 3
Total DPM (lbs) 0.001972603
Total DPM (g) 0.894772603
Start Date 1/1/2024
End Date 1/4/2024
Construction Days 3
2024
2023
Construction Operation
2022 Total Emission Rate
Attachment B

AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 03/08/23
13:59:56
TITLE: PODS Warehouse Project, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.229E‐02 g/s 0.182E‐01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.117E‐06 g/(s‐m2) 0.927E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 198.13 meters 650.03 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 99.06 meters 325.00 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000     9.982 0   100.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* Attachment C

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 01   1 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.16  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      5.4 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0   250.0    2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST     1‐HR CONC DIST     1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00     5.796 2525.00    0.2847

25.00     7.008 2550.00    0.2810

50.00     8.123 2575.00    0.2773

75.00     9.107 2600.00    0.2738
100.00     9.982 2625.00    0.2703
125.00     9.571 2650.00    0.2669
150.00     8.606 2675.00    0.2635
175.00     7.612 2700.00    0.2603
200.00     6.743 2725.00    0.2571
225.00     6.002 2750.00    0.2540
250.00     5.375 2775.00    0.2509
275.00     4.845 2800.00    0.2479
300.00     4.394 2825.00    0.2465
325.00     4.008 2850.00    0.2436
350.00     3.677 2875.00    0.2407
375.00     3.385 2900.00    0.2379
400.00     3.134 2925.00    0.2351
425.00     2.911 2950.00    0.2324
450.00     2.714 2975.00    0.2298
475.00     2.538 3000.00    0.2272
500.00     2.381 3025.00    0.2246
525.00     2.241 3050.00    0.2222
550.00     2.115 3075.00    0.2197
575.00     1.998 3100.00    0.2173
600.00     1.893 3125.00    0.2150
625.00     1.797 3150.00    0.2126
650.00     1.710 3175.00    0.2104
675.00     1.629 3200.00    0.2082
700.00     1.555 3225.00    0.2060
725.00     1.486 3250.00    0.2038
750.00     1.422 3275.00    0.2017
775.00     1.363 3300.00    0.1996
800.00     1.308 3325.00    0.1976
825.00     1.257 3350.00    0.1956
850.00     1.209 3375.00    0.1937
875.00     1.164 3400.00    0.1917
900.00     1.122 3425.00    0.1898
925.00     1.083 3450.00    0.1880
950.00     1.046 3475.00    0.1861
975.00     1.011 3500.00    0.1843
1000.00    0.9779 3525.00    0.1826
1025.00    0.9469 3550.00    0.1808
1050.00    0.9173 3575.00    0.1791
1075.00    0.8893 3600.00    0.1774
1100.00    0.8629 3625.00    0.1758
1125.00    0.8377 3650.00    0.1741
1150.00    0.8138 3675.00    0.1725
1175.00    0.7908 3700.00    0.1709
1200.00    0.7690 3725.00    0.1694
1225.00    0.7482 3750.00    0.1679
1250.00    0.7284 3775.00    0.1664
1275.00    0.7094 3800.00    0.1649

1300.00    0.6914 3825.00    0.1634
1325.00    0.6742 3850.00    0.1620
1350.00    0.6576 3875.00    0.1606
1375.00    0.6417 3900.00    0.1592
1400.00    0.6266 3925.00    0.1578
1425.00    0.6120 3950.00    0.1564
1450.00    0.5980 3975.00    0.1551
1475.00    0.5846 4000.00    0.1538
1500.00    0.5717 4025.00    0.1525
1525.00    0.5593 4050.00    0.1512
1550.00    0.5474 4075.00    0.1500
1575.00    0.5359 4100.00    0.1487
1600.00    0.5248 4125.00    0.1475
1625.00    0.5141 4150.00    0.1463
1650.00    0.5037 4175.00    0.1451
1675.00    0.4937 4200.00    0.1439
1700.00    0.4840 4225.00    0.1428
1725.00    0.4746 4250.00    0.1416
1750.00    0.4655 4275.00    0.1405
1775.00    0.4568 4300.00    0.1394
1800.00    0.4483 4325.00    0.1383
1825.00    0.4401 4350.00    0.1372
1850.00    0.4321 4375.00    0.1362
1875.00    0.4244 4400.00    0.1351
1900.00    0.4169 4425.00    0.1341
1924.99    0.4097 4450.00    0.1331
1950.00    0.4027 4475.00    0.1321
1975.00    0.3958 4500.00    0.1311
2000.00    0.3892 4525.00    0.1301
2025.00    0.3828 4550.00    0.1291
2050.00    0.3765 4575.00    0.1282
2075.00    0.3705 4600.00    0.1272
2100.00    0.3645 4625.00    0.1263
2125.00    0.3588 4650.00    0.1254
2150.00    0.3532 4675.00    0.1244
2175.00    0.3478 4700.00    0.1235
2200.00    0.3425 4725.00    0.1227
2225.00    0.3374 4750.00    0.1218
2250.00    0.3323 4775.00    0.1209
2275.00    0.3274 4800.00    0.1201
2300.00    0.3227 4825.00    0.1192
2325.00    0.3180 4850.00    0.1184
2350.00    0.3135 4875.00    0.1176
2375.00    0.3091 4900.00    0.1168
2400.00    0.3048 4925.00    0.1159
2425.00    0.3006 4950.00    0.1152
2450.00    0.2965 4975.00    0.1144
2475.00    0.2925 5000.00    0.1136
2500.00    0.2885

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL
CALCULATION          CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC PROCEDURE         (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN        9.988       9.988       9.988       9.988         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE        102.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY    5.796       5.796       5.796       5.796         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters

AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 03/08/23
14:08:39
TITLE: PODS Warehouse Project, Operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.696E‐04 g/s 0.553E‐03 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.355E‐08 g/(s‐m2) 0.282E‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 198.13 meters 650.03 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 99.06 meters 325.00 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000    0.3031 0   100.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  *********************

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED:       0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON:          Winter
ALBEDO:                  0.35
BOWEN RATIO:             1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH:       1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 01   1 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.16  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      5.4 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0   250.0    2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM                             MAXIMUM
DIST     1‐HR CONC                  DIST     1‐HR CONC
(m)      (ug/m3)                    (m)      (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐               ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00    0.1760                   2525.00    0.8646E‐02

25.00    0.2128                   2550.00    0.8533E‐02

50.00    0.2467                   2575.00    0.8422E‐02

75.00    0.2765                   2600.00    0.8314E‐02 100.00    0.3031                   2625.00    0.8208E‐02 125.00    0.2907                   2650.00    0.8105E‐02 150.00    0.2613                   2675.00    0.8003E‐02 175.00    0.2312                   2700.00    0.7904E‐02 200.00    0.2048                   2725.00    0.7807E‐02 225.00    0.1823                   2750.00    0.7712E‐02 250.00    0.1632                   2775.00    0.7619E‐02 275.00    0.1471                   2800.00    0.7529E‐02 300.00    0.1334                   2825.00    0.7485E‐02 325.00    0.1217                   2850.00    0.7396E‐02 350.00    0.1117                   2875.00    0.7309E‐02 375.00    0.1028                   2900.00    0.7224E‐02 400.00    0.9517E‐01               2925.00    0.7140E‐02 425.00    0.8839E‐01               2950.00    0.7058E‐02 450.00    0.8242E‐01               2975.00    0.6978E‐02 475.00    0.7708E‐01               3000.00    0.6899E‐02 500.00    0.7230E‐01               3025.00    0.6822E‐02 525.00    0.6805E‐01               3050.00    0.6746E‐02 550.00    0.6422E‐01               3075.00    0.6672E‐02 575.00    0.6068E‐01               3100.00    0.6599E‐02 600.00    0.5748E‐01               3125.00    0.6528E‐02 625.00    0.5457E‐01               3150.00    0.6458E‐02 650.00    0.5192E‐01               3175.00    0.6389E‐02 675.00    0.4948E‐01               3200.00    0.6321E‐02 700.00    0.4722E‐01               3225.00    0.6255E‐02 725.00    0.4513E‐01               3250.00    0.6190E‐02 750.00    0.4319E‐01               3275.00    0.6126E‐02 775.00    0.4140E‐01               3300.00    0.6063E‐02 800.00    0.3973E‐01               3325.00    0.6001E‐02 825.00    0.3818E‐01               3350.00    0.5940E‐02 850.00    0.3673E‐01               3375.00    0.5881E‐02 875.00    0.3536E‐01               3400.00    0.5822E‐02 900.00    0.3408E‐01               3425.00    0.5765E‐02 925.00    0.3288E‐01               3450.00    0.5708E‐02 950.00    0.3175E‐01               3475.00    0.5652E‐02 975.00    0.3069E‐01               3500.00    0.5598E‐02 1000.00    0.2970E‐01               3525.00    0.5544E‐02 1025.00    0.2875E‐01               3550.00    0.5491E‐02 1050.00    0.2786E‐01               3575.00    0.5439E‐02 1075.00    0.2701E‐01               3600.00    0.5388E‐02 1100.00    0.2620E‐01               3625.00    0.5337E‐02 1125.00    0.2544E‐01               3650.00    0.5288E‐02 1150.00    0.2471E‐01               3675.00    0.5239E‐02 1175.00    0.2402E‐01               3700.00    0.5191E‐02 1200.00    0.2335E‐01               3725.00    0.5144E‐02 1225.00    0.2272E‐01               3750.00    0.5097E‐02 1250.00    0.2212E‐01               3775.00    0.5052E‐02 1275.00    0.2154E‐01               3800.00    0.5007E‐02

1300.00    0.2100E‐01               3825.00    0.4962E‐02 1325.00    0.2047E‐01               3850.00    0.4919E‐02 1350.00    0.1997E‐01               3875.00    0.4876E‐02 1375.00    0.1949E‐01               3900.00    0.4833E‐02 1400.00    0.1903E‐01               3925.00    0.4792E‐02 1425.00    0.1859E‐01               3950.00    0.4750E‐02 1450.00    0.1816E‐01               3975.00    0.4710E‐02 1475.00    0.1775E‐01               4000.00    0.4670E‐02 1500.00    0.1736E‐01               4025.00    0.4631E‐02 1525.00    0.1699E‐01               4050.00    0.4592E‐02 1550.00    0.1662E‐01               4075.00    0.4554E‐02 1575.00    0.1627E‐01               4100.00    0.4516E‐02 1600.00    0.1594E‐01               4125.00    0.4479E‐02 1625.00    0.1561E‐01               4150.00    0.4442E‐02 1650.00    0.1530E‐01               4175.00    0.4406E‐02 1675.00    0.1499E‐01               4200.00    0.4371E‐02 1700.00    0.1470E‐01               4225.00    0.4336E‐02 1725.00    0.1441E‐01               4250.00    0.4301E‐02 1750.00    0.1414E‐01               4275.00    0.4267E‐02 1775.00    0.1387E‐01               4300.00    0.4233E‐02 1800.00    0.1361E‐01               4325.00    0.4200E‐02 1825.00    0.1336E‐01               4350.00    0.4167E‐02 1850.00    0.1312E‐01               4375.00    0.4135E‐02 1875.00    0.1289E‐01               4400.00    0.4103E‐02 1900.00    0.1266E‐01               4425.00    0.4072E‐02 1924.99    0.1244E‐01               4450.00    0.4041E‐02 1950.00    0.1223E‐01               4475.00    0.4010E‐02 1975.00    0.1202E‐01               4500.00    0.3980E‐02 2000.00    0.1182E‐01               4525.00    0.3950E‐02 2025.00    0.1162E‐01               4550.00    0.3921E‐02 2050.00    0.1143E‐01               4575.00    0.3892E‐02 2075.00    0.1125E‐01               4600.00    0.3863E‐02 2100.00    0.1107E‐01               4625.00    0.3835E‐02 2125.00    0.1090E‐01               4650.00    0.3807E‐02 2150.00    0.1073E‐01               4675.00    0.3779E‐02 2175.00    0.1056E‐01               4700.00    0.3752E‐02 2200.00    0.1040E‐01               4725.00    0.3725E‐02 2225.00    0.1024E‐01               4750.00    0.3698E‐02 2250.00    0.1009E‐01               4775.00    0.3672E‐02 2275.00    0.9944E‐02               4800.00    0.3646E‐02 2300.00    0.9799E‐02               4825.00    0.3621E‐02 2325.00    0.9658E‐02               4850.00    0.3595E‐02 2350.00    0.9521E‐02               4875.00    0.3570E‐02 2375.00    0.9387E‐02               4900.00    0.3545E‐02 2400.00    0.9256E‐02               4924.99    0.3521E‐02 2425.00    0.9128E‐02               4950.00    0.3497E‐02 2450.00    0.9004E‐02               4975.00    0.3473E‐02 2475.00    0.8882E‐02               5000.00    0.3450E‐02 2500.00    0.8763E‐02

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN       0.3033      0.3033      0.3033      0.3033 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 102.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY   0.1760      0.1760      0.1760      0.1760 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment D

2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted

4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific

5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment E

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009

From: Jerryl Soriano
To: Travis Clark; Jennifer Mizrahi External; Doria Wilms; Daniel Porras; Patricia Villagomez Cc: Daniel McVey
Subject: Fwd: Public Record Request - POD Project, PC Hearing March 28, 2023, Item #1 Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 5:05:28 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Jerryl Soriano
City Clerk
City of Desert Hot Springs
(760) 329-6411 Ext. 107
www.cityofdhs.org
Begin forwarded message:

From: Judy Deertrack <[email protected]>
Date: March 27, 2023 at 4:55:12 PM PDT
To: Daniel McVey <[email protected]>, Jerryl Soriano <[email protected]>, Emily Pearson <[email protected]> Subject: Public Record Request - POD Project, PC Hearing March 28, 2023, Item #1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. Thank you.

PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST AND COMMENT LETTER TO PLANNING

COMMISSION
Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission_03.28.2023)_Item 1_Development Permit for a POD Project, 60,000 square foot logistic warehouse on 4.85 acres with Mitigated Negative Declaration, located on the NE corner of Calle De Los Romos and Avenue 19 close to Indian Canyon and Interstate 10. (APN: 666-360-017).

Mr. Jerryl Soriano, City Clerk
City of Desert Hot Springs, CA

cc: Ms. Emily Pearson,
Admin. Assistant to Mayor and City Council
City of Desert Hot Springs
cc: Mr. Daniel McVey, Deputy City Clerk
(Previous Engineering Department)
City of Desert Hot Springs, CA
Greetings to All:

Would you please place this Public Record Request and Comment Letter on the record for the pending hearing, Tuesday, before the Planning Commission on the POD Project (APN: 666-360-017).

I am working under contract for a client that wishes to remain confidential. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the POD Project revealed that a grading permit was issued on this lot for 2018, and then this lot was graded again in 2021, one year BEFORE an applicant applied for a permit for the POD warehouse (See: MND, Biological Section at pp 32-33).

The question is whether there has been illegal grading and code violations that have impacted site conditions for the required studies and surveys necessary to mitigate for biological impacts. (See: MND, Biological Section at pp 32-33).

This area is within the CVMSHCP and is sensitive to impacts for the Burrowing Owl (see the MND comment letter of California Fish and Wildlife and its suggested changes and enlargement of responsibilities to the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). The project area also lies within close proximity to a blue line stream.

What the MND or staff report did not reveal is that this parcel may have been subject to a lot split in 2018 (Tentative Parcel Map). The previous owner, prior to the lot split, was Coachillin, a Cannabis producer. I talked with Scott Taschner, and he recalls some of this previous history, which I would like to confirm through a Public Record Request.

Scott remembers from his time at the city, an approved application for an anaerobic digester that never came to fruition. This was at the time of a lot split request (TPM) with Coachillin. Ownership of the land changed to the present owner for the POD project, but somewhere along the line,

in 2021, illegal grading may have occurred. It is at least suggested by the information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. This is what I would like to confirm.

It is my understanding that at one point Coachillin had a tense confrontation with the City Attorney over whether an EIR was necessary, and that the previous project to the POD also endured significant delays in construction in order to meet the burrowing owl survey requirements — either on this lot or the larger parcel that encompassed it prior to the lot split.

The department and staff should have a history of this. The Planning Commission would profit from this history so that they can make a fully reasoned decision, particularly if there has been illegal grading.

I am making no claims whatsoever that any person or organization purposefully graded in 2021 to avoid further project delays from burrowing owl requirements, but — regardless of anyone’s intent — what I am concerned about is whether there has been illegal grading.

That should be easy to determine, but the public record is silent at this point. I would recommend a continuance on this decision until illegal grading is checked and determined.

I have seen the frustration with conservation habitat plan safeguards.

They are not popular with owners/applicants. In 2008-2010, I worked as a Planner IV for the County of Riverside, specializing in projects occurring within the newly adopted CVMSHCP, and it was not unusual for applicants to pre-grade the land to avoid construction and/or grading permit delays. The County had strict code compliance checks, and if illegal grading made it impossible to accurately determine the presence of species, the County placed a moratorium on development until the physical condition of the land was restored. These strict policies discouraged noncompliance.

I am making a Public Record Request to determine the following information. I believe this information should also be available to the Planning Commission prior to any decision, because it is germane to whether there has been a serious code violation and how to respond. (1) May I have a history of all permits issued on this lot prior to today’s date (from 2016 onward), whether it be under APN 666-360-017, or a larger lot configuration of which this APN was once a part. This would be permits within Planning, Engineering, Building and Safety, Code

Compliance, and includes minor permits, such as grubbing permits. For each permit, please indicate the name of the applicant and/or property owner, or both.
(2) In particular, may I have a history of all grading / grubbing permits issued for this project location, and whether they were issued pursuant to Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements, Inspection Requirements, and/or Conditions of Approval that would have applied? If so, please include the Conditions of Approval or Mitigation and Monitoring / Inspection requirements that apply to each permit, and whether there is a history of inspections pursuant to grubbing and/or grading, and by whom. If a mass grading permit was issued, please provide the permit and indicate the date of issuance and property owner / applicant. (3) Please provide a code compliance history on this lot or its associated larger lot configuration for the last ten years.
(4) Please indicate the prior owner of the land, the present owner of the land, and the date of purchase by its present owner, if available. (5) Are there policies and/or regulations in the City of Desert Hot Springs, whether codified or not, that apply if there is a finding of illegal grading on lots, particularly if the illegal grading occurs within the CVMSHCP? If so, please provide copies of the policies or indicate which code regulations apply.
(6) If any illegal grading occurred to the knowledge of the City, please indicate if the applicant / property owner that was involved has a history of previous code violations on this lot or any other lots within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs.

Thank you.

Judy Deertrack
Deertrack Consulting, LLC
Palm Springs, CA
760 325 4290

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 1
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Application for

4.85-Acre Logistics Center
Response to Comments
Lead Agency:

City of Desert Hot Springs
Planning Department
Patricia Villagomez, Associate Planner
11999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs, California 92240
760-329-6411
Prepared by:

MSA Consulting, Inc.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 2
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Comments and Reponses to the Comments on the Draft IS/MND List of Commenters
The following is a list of individuals, representatives, organizations and agencies that submitted written comments on the Draft IS/MND. The City received a total of 2 comment letters. Table 1, Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND, provides a list of all comment letters received.

Table 1 lists the ID letter assigned to each comment letter, the date it was received, and commenter’s name.

Table 1
Comment Letters Received on the IS/MND
Letter
ID Date Commenter
A March 13, 2023
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife Alisa Ellsworth
B March 24, 2023 SAFER Adam Frankel, on
behalf of SAFER
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204(b), outlines parameters for submitting comments on negative declarations. Persons and public agencies should focus the on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:

1. Identify the specific effect,

2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and

3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204(c), further advises that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. Lead agencies need to respond to potentially significant issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers if good faith efforts at full disclosure are made in the environmental document.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 3
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Responses to Comment Letters
Written comments on the Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. Changes to the Draft IS/MND text that result from responding to comments are included on the response and noted with an underline in bold for new text and a strikeout for deleted text. The responses were prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. on behalf of City staff.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 4
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Letter A – California Department of Fish and Wildlife

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 5
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 6
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 7
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 8
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 9
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 CDFW Comments and Responses
Comment A-1: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Desert Hot Springs for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

Response A-1: The City thanks the CDFW for participating in the review of the MND. No further response to this comment is required.

Comment A-2: CDFW Role
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub.

Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

Response A-2: This introductory comment describing the role of CDFW role as a trustee agency and responsible agency does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

Comment A-3: Project Description Summary
Proponent: Snider Interests, LLC
Objective: The objective of the Project is to construct a warehouse facility for temporarily holding goods in portable storage units. The Project will consist of a 60,000 square-foot warehouse, two retention basins, 92 parking spaces, and street improvements to Calle De Los Romos. Primary Project activities include construction of the warehouse and the supporting infrastructure. This includes grading, paving, and landscaping of the Project.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 10
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Location: The Project site is located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and Avenue 19 in the City of Desert Hot Springs, California, in San Bernardino County. The Project site is vacant lot located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 666-360-017 at Latitude 33.911189 N and Longitude -116.535817 W. The Project site is bordered to the north and south by undeveloped land and to the east and west by graded and/or developed land.

Timeframe: No timeframe is given for the Project.

Response A-3: This comment provides a summary of the project and does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

Comment A-4: Comments and Recommendations
CDFW appreciates the inclusion of mitigation measure BR-1 and BR-2 and offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. As a member of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, it is the City of Desert Hot Springs’ responsibility to ensure that all appropriate development fees are collected prior to the beginning of any work on the Project site.

Response A-4: As addressed in the MND as Mitigation Measure BR-2, the City of Desert Hot Springs shall ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the proposed project is sent to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit. The CDFW’s comments and recommendations are discussed below.

Comment A-5: Comment #1: Impacts to Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Issue: Project construction may result in injury or mortality to burrowing owl, a California species of special concern (SSC).

Specific impact: Take of burrowing owl and loss of burrowing owl habitat may occur as a result of Project-related activities. Staging of construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic may result in the collapse of occupied burrows and result in direct mortality and/or injury to burrowing owl.

Why impact would occur: The Project site is within predicted habitat for burrowing owl and multiple occurrences of burrowing owl have been recorded within one mile of the Project site according to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2023). CDFW appreciates that field surveys were conducted for the Project in the spring and summer of 2022, and while burrowing owl or sign was not detected during the field surveys, burrowing owls may occupy the available burrows on-site at any given time, as recognized by the MND in BR-1.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 11
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Evidence impact would be significant: Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC. CEQA provides protection not only for California Endangered Species Act-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing.

Burrowing owl is an SSC that meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill”.

Mitigation Measure # BR-1: CDFW recommends the following changes to mitigation measure BR-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) to avoid impacts to burrowing owl:

Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Surveys
The project proponent shall ensure that a burrowing owl clearance survey according to CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction), and then again within 24-hours prior to site disturbance, as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey and project activities. If any owls are identified, Project activities shall not commence, and the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) shall must be followed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to conduct an impact assessment to develop avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be approved by CDFW prior to commencing Project activities.

Response A-5: As described in the MND, the project site has been grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation. The burrowing owl was not seen during the field surveys and no evidence of its presence was found. However, ground squirrel burrows which may be usurped by owls, and friable soil for burrow construction or enlargement is considered suitable habitat for the owl and burrowing owls are known to take up residence on recently graded sites (page 35 of the MND).

Therefore, Mitigation Measure BR-1 required a pre-construction survey to ensure that burrowing owls are not onsite. Therefore, with mitigation, the MND determined that less than significant impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the project. However, Mitigation Measure BR1 has been revised to state the following, per CDFW’s request:
“BR-1: The project proponent shall ensure that a burrowing owl clearance survey according to CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction), and then again within 24-hours prior to site disturbance, as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey and project activities. If any owls are identified, Project activities shall not commence, and the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) shall must be followed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to conduct an impact assessment to develop avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be approved by CDFW prior to commencing Project activities.”

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 12
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Comment A-6: Comment #2: Impacts to Nesting Birds
Issue: Although the entire Project site has been grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation, the Project site is connected to open land. The Project could result in impacts to nesting birds adjacent to the Project site and to burrowing owl and ground nesting birds on-site.

Specific impact: Material stagging, stockpiling, and movement/operation of vehicles and equipment may result in take of nesting birds on-site and/or off-site.

Why impact would occur: The MND reports frequent observations of birds in the Project area during field surveys, including common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). The Project site is adjacent to open land that likely provides nesting and foraging habitat for birds. Project noise, vibration, lighting, and dust may indirectly impact nesting birds on adjacent habitat. In addition, the Project, although devoid of vegetation, provides suitable habitat for ground nesting birds and burrowing owl.

Evidence impact would be significant: The biggest threat to birds includes habitat loss and the conversion of natural vegetation into commercial, residential, and industrial land uses. Wild bird populations in the continental U.S. and Canada have declined by almost 30% since 1970 (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Population loss is not restricted to rare and threatened species but includes many widespread and common species that may be disproportionately influential components of food webs and ecosystem function.

Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13).

Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the MBTA).

Mitigation Measure # BR-3: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts to nesting birds:

Nesting Bird Pre-Construction Surveys
Within the work area and the Project’s zone of influence (generally 100-300 feet), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of Project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall include any potential habitat (including trees, shrubs, the ground, or nearby structures) that may be impacted by activities resulting in nest destruction or abandonment. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist around each nest to prevent nest destruction and disruption of breeding or rearing behavior. The buffer shall be a minimum of 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 13
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall inspect the active nest to determine whether construction activities are disturbing the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities pose a disturbance to nesting, construction work shall be stopped in the area of the nest and the 'no disturbance buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is need for this measure.

Response A-6: As described in the MND, the project site is disturbed and graded. The project site does not contain sparse cover of shrubs and trees. The absence of natural shelters and surface water preclude the site as being considered a significant resource for other migratory bird species (page 35 in MND). Therefore, the project would not result in the take of any bird under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, Mitigation Measure BR-3 (nesting bird pre-construction survey) has been added to avoid impacts to nesting birds, per CDFW’s request:
“BR-3: Within the work area and the Project’s zone of influence (generally 100-300 feet), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of Project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall include any potential habitat (including trees, shrubs, the ground, or nearby structures) that may be impacted by activities resulting in nest destruction or abandonment. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist around each nest to prevent nest destruction and disruption of breeding or rearing behavior. The buffer shall be a minimum of 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall inspect the active nest to determine whether construction activities are disturbing the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities pose a disturbance to nesting, construction work shall be stopped in the area of the nest and the 'no disturbance buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is need for this measure.”
Comment A-7: Comment #3: Impacts associated with Project Lighting Issue: Artificial lighting on the Project site may impact species that are most active between dusk and dawn.

Specific impact: Nocturnal and crepuscular animals use natural lighting cues for hunting, mating, and sleeping. Excess lighting on the Project site may spill onto undeveloped land to the north and south and/or interfere with the natural day/night cycles of species in the vicinity.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 14
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Why impact would occur: The Project will have lighting on the building and on posts throughout the site.

Evidence impact would be significant: CDFW recognizes the adverse effects that artificial lighting has on birds and other nocturnal species such as bats. The effects are numerous and include impacts to singing and foraging behavior, reproductive behavior, navigation, and altered migration patterns.

Mitigation Measure # BR-4: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts on wildlife associated with Project-related lighting:

Artificial Night Lighting
During Project construction activities, the Project shall: (1) Eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active, (2) Ensure that all lighting for Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/), (3) Use LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, and (4) Properly dispose of hazardous waste, and recycle lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

Response A-7: As stated on page 23 of the MND, the project is expected to utilize temporary light fixtures as a standard measure of nighttime site safety during the period of construction. These fixtures are typically installed on posts and/or on the sides of temporary construction trailers to illuminate stored equipment and building materials. These sources of light are generally downward-oriented, and some are only activated by motion. The temporary construction perimeter fencing (with wind fabric) is expected to visually screen the temporary light fixtures, therefore preventing temporary light spillage effects. The temporary nature of proposed lighting will allow for adjustments to ensure that illumination is properly distributed without affecting adjoining areas.

Therefore, the MND concluded that construction lighting would result in less than significant impacts.

Comment A-8: Comment #4: Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Issue: Development projects may have lasting impacts on local wildlife and plant species by introducing new sources of food and attracting scavenger species to the Project area.

Specific impact: Project development may bring biological hazards common to urban-wildland interface areas. Waste associated with developments can encourage opportunistic species such as coyotes and ravens (both observed in the area) to become more prevalent, posing a substantial predation hazard to local wildlife.

Why impact would occur: If waste is not managed properly, the presence of easily accessible food may increase the risk of opportunistic species.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 15
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Evidence impact would be significant: Increasing the populations of opportunistic predators such as coyotes and ravens poses a significant hazard to local, protected species such as Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata; SSC), flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mccallii; SSC), and burrowing owl.

Mitigation Measure # BR-5: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid attracting opportunistic species to the Project area:

Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
A qualified biologist shall conduct an education program for all persons employed or otherwise working on the Project site prior to performing any work on-site (Workers Environmental Awareness Program; WEAP). The WEAP shall consist of a presentation that includes a discussion of the biology of the habitats and species that may be present at the site. The WEAP shall also include information on the distribution and habitat needs of any special-status species that may be present, legal protections for those species, penalties for violations, and mitigation measures. The WEAP shall include, but not be limited to: (1) best practices for managing waste and reducing activities that can lead to increased occurrences of opportunistic species and the impacts these species can have on wildlife in the area and (2) protected species that have the potential to occur on the Project site.

Interpretation shall be provided for any non-English speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any individual prior to their performing any work on-site.

Response A-8: The project shall implement mitigation measure BR-4, to address CDFW’s concern for worker
“BR-4: The project shall provide an Operational Brochure, prepared by a qualified biologist on the project site. The brochure will be available to all persons employed or otherwise working on the project site and posted on a common wall with all the other OSHA requirements. The brochure shall depict the biological nature of this area with recommendations of awareness on proper “interaction” with the Flora & Fauna. The brochure shall consist of a discussion of the biology of the habitats and species that may be present at the site. The brochure shall also include information on the distribution and habitat needs of any special-status species that may be present, legal protections for those species, penalties for violations, and mitigation measures.

The brochure shall include, but not be limited to: (1) best practices for managing waste and reducing activities that can lead to increased occurrences of opportunistic species and the impacts these species can have on wildlife in the area and (2) protected species that have the potential to occur on the Project site. Interpretation shall be provided for any non-English speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any individual prior to their performing any work on-site.” Comment A-9: Environmental Data
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 16
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals.

Response A-9: The City thanks the Department for this information. However, due to the disturbed character of the project site, special status species and natural communities are not located on the project site. See above responses.

Comment A-10: Environmental Document Filing Fees
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
Response A-10: The City thanks the Department for this information. The project will comply with filing environmental document filing fees compliant with Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.

Comment A-11: Conclusion
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected].

Response A-11: The City thanks the Department for their participation in this process. This comment summarizes and concludes the Department’s letter. No additional response required.

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 17
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Letter B – SAFER

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 18
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 19
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 20
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 21
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 22
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 23
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 24
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 25
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 26
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023